Talk:Huntress (DC Comics)

Trivia

I backed out the 'This is meaningless TRIVIA.' edits. A lot of other characters involved in the Infinite Crisis are getting this added in (Kyle Rayner, for example), and I think it's a good deliniation between Helena Wayne/Huntress and this one. -- Ipstenu 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because other user added the information to all of them under the guise of importance. (Hello, Netty.) The fact of the matter is that the character being from Earth-Eight is not of any importance to the character; she does not even know it. It hasn't served as a plot point in stories involving Huntress beyond having her stand in a crowd and say a few lines. Same goes for the others. Helena Wayne being from Earth-Two is actually important; her stories were always stated to be on Earth-Two when Earth-One was the main canon, making her unique as a character created for Earth-Two, and her death involves her being from another universe. Earth-Eight carries no importance to the current Huntress save a throw-away line in a series that she has little, if any, involvement. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to the fact that it doesn't matter to HER, but I don't really believe that they'd pitch in that as a throwaway, when the continuity fairy has been so nice to keep track of so much else. Also, I think it helps identify her in the newly reformed (even if only temporary) multiverse. The placement of everyone (i.e the fuckups of Hawkman and Power Girl) is of some import, because it helps us keep track of the 'verse and where and what it is, in its ad hoc insanity. That said, I'll cede with your explanation on the caveat of if the 'real' Earth home becomes important, these all pop back in. I understand that a lot of this is desire to flesh out pages for characters with not so much on them, and sometimes trivia is a grey area. IMO, it could stay, but I ain't gonna cry :) Just wanted to know. -- Ipstenu 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree in cases like Power Girl, Donna Troy, and Hawkman. Their "real Earth" is vital to their backstory, as with Power Girl and Donna Troy confusing the universe, or behind-the-scenes stuff, like with Hawkman after CoIE (urrgh). ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't validated why your view of reverting facts you deem as trivia is the correct presentation of Wikipedia. Or how it is that your POV justifies this position. And please stop launching obscenities towards fellow editors making sincere edits, even if they may not harmonize with your own editing philosophy. Thx. Netkinetic 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really simple, guy. We don't present every detail of a subject, because, huh, that defeats the point of an encyclopedia and repels new readers. Who wants to read that Stargirl happened to fire a beam at Johnny Sorrow in JSA #16? Thus, we only include the important details that pertain to the character. "Earth-Eight", which is only mentioned to give Breach a valid reason to be in Infinite Crisis, is not important to those characters. Thus, they do deserve mention on the character pages. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely resolved on the issue, but doesn't the Multiverse affect every single character in the DCU? Moreover, pre- and post-Crisis, the Earths from which they come and the nexuses to these are vital in understanding the role of the characters. It could be breaking the fourth wall, but understanding their reality-grounded backstories also adds to understanding of their comic history. Initium 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

image

ok, now we're relying on personal insults... first of all, it's not even a better pic. second, that Huntress costume was ugly. She looked like a dominatrix hooker. The pose is also very t&a. Third, there was no significant difference between WW's 2 costumes. There is a very significant one here (for starters, the new costume actually covers her body, as opposed to her running around wearing no pants). --DrBat 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the only difference in costumes was her leggings. Second, the crosshairs block most of her, so all you can see is her mask and shoulder. The pic I used had her swinging through a window to rescue a child. It shows her fierceness and determination (you seem stuck on the t&a argument when it is blatantly wrong, hang up your sex issues dude). And it ties the Birds of Prey together, since Ed Benes art is used for Oracle and Black Canary pages. And please, leggings are even less of a costume change than changing the emblem and belt of a character (Like Wonder Woman) MetaStar 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

From a review for the respective issue: There was worry in some quarters that the addition of Ed Benes as the artist of the series would result in it becoming a T & A showcase. Last month, the new creative team’s first issue, seemed to alleviate those fears but this month has to have people wondering. Jim Lee is to blame for the Huntress’ skimpy new costume but Benes delivers the money shot on the cover with the Huntress breaking through a window with all her barely covered assets on full view. If Hugh Hefner and Stan Lee are looking for an artist for their new Playmates as super heroes series I think Ed Benes just passed the audition. At least the caption doesn’t read “Enter the Huntress.” That pretty much sums it up, imo. It was a horrible, ugly costume that the character only wore for a few months before it changed. She no longer wears it. Why should it be the SHB image?

And there is a BIG difference between her former and current costume. In the old costume, her belly was exposed and she wore no pants. Now, she's fully clothed. That's a far cry from WW's new costume, which has little differences from its predecessor. --DrBat 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its so funny how you cling to your sexual hang-ups, her "ugly" costume is just your costume with a bare-midriff and no leggings. GASP how dare she show skin, poor Wonder Woman is a filthy streetwalker if you consider that she flies a round in a corset and thigh-high boots. And a year-and-a-half of BoP comics with her costume (#57-82) doesn't really count as barely worn (or worn for a few months). Really, if any artist shows a woman with curves and any hint of sexuality you scream T&A and cheesecake (I don't see it, I guess my mind's a little cleaner than yours if you see skin and think hooker, maybe she should wear a bhurqa). But maybe I can ease your worried little mind, I've just posted a scan from your precious BoP # 84, showing an un-obscured pic of a non-skin showing Huntress. Perhaps now we can have a DECENT picture of Helena. MetaStar 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm.... I'm not the only one. Lots of people hated it. [1][2]

And some other comments:

A few years back Jim Less revamped the costume for the Batman character Huntress, and replaced her full-body kevlar bodysuit with a 2-piece outfit that exposed her entire midriff and upper body. Fans whined for weeks about the ridiculousness of the character choosing to switch to a costume that made it almost an invitation to be shot directly in the chest.

And... Huntress only wore it for a few months. It is irrelevant and does not need to be in the article. Nor does her small role in Hush (which she didn't get illegally; Tommy Elliot, saying he was a concernced citizen, gave it to her, and after checking him over and thinking he was clean, she took it.) --DrBat 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Image Vote

OK, obviously, we need to have a vote on this main image. Please read the above arguments, or add your own, along with your vote - either:

Birds of Prey #57

or

File:Birdsprey84.jpg

Birds of Prey #84

Sign your vote. Votes will only be counted for those who have registered prior to the initiation of this vote, and this vote will last five days. --Chris Griswold 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #57 - In the other picture, the Huntress has her back turned, and the crosshairs on her are distracting. Additionally, while the outfit may not be completely current, it was used during a period in which Huntres was featured much more than usual - in Justice League Unlimited, in the Batman: Hush storyline, in Batgirl, in Birds of Prey, and on an action figure in a the popular Hush line of figures. People with less knowledge of the character who may have seen her in JLU or Hush that come to Wikipedia for information on the Huntress will recognize her in this picture. --Chris Griswold 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #84 Ok... first of all, you mention in changing the Zatanna image that "it's also less cheesecakey." Which is image is less cheesecakey of the two, honestly?

Second, it's an ugly costume. Look around the internet, a lot of people (including Gail Simone, the person currently writing her) hated the costume (hence, Simone changed it.

Third, I find it hard to believe that someone who saw her in the TV show will type in Huntress on Wikipedia and not recognise her from the current image.

Also, using the "popular" Hush example; should we then change the look Jason Todd had in that arc, with the white streak in his hair? He had a popular action figure with that look too, right? --DrBat 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Birds of Prey #84. It displays her current look. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey #57, not that I don't like Melo's art, its just that the crosshairs and green stuff make her harder to see. The Benes one, while a little suggestive is clearer, and easier to see. Coronis 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey # 57. Cause DrBrat is Just Wrong. She wore the suit of over a YEAR jackhole. Second the only difference between her "ugly" costume and #84 is leggings (so in theory your preffered costume is ugly too). Third, you can't frickin see her in that pic, so how can it reflect her current look, when nobody can see her costume. Honestly, get a clue, and get past your bias. Just becuase you think her Benes costume isn't relevant, DOES NOT mean others do too. MetaStar 13:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The image from BoP #57 depicts a more active and dynamic HB; I think it's the better one.--Galliaz 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're so hellbent on using an outdated costume, then we'll use the one she wore prior to the Lee-cheesecake one (the one she had the longest). And MetaStar, keep on giving examples of your profound maturity. And I must say, your hypocrisy is astounding; for your justification on using the Dodson image for Wonder Woman, you say "the SHB should reflect CURRENT appearances", even though her costume is the same in the original image. Yet, here you're insisting on using an outdated image with the character featuring a costume she no longer wears. --DrBat 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good choice, people! This BoP # 91 is much better than the other two covers. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BoP # 91 is the best so far. Let's keep it. --Chris Griswold 00:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent choice! It's a great pic!Coronis 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the image from BoP #91 looks good, too.--Galliaz 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Birds of Prey #84 captures the more vulnerable side of the Huntress; and she has been fraught with vulnerabilty ever since her world was destroyed by Crisis. Really, the standard pose of crashing through a window? It negates the nuances in every character, that makes them completely unique. It also reinforces the whole "cheapness" stereotypes superheroines are tainted with (and superheroes, for that matter, for the sole reason that Superman has underwear wardrobe-malfunction issues). So, I agree with BoP #84. It's a lot more natural, for one, and it encompasses both her determination, and her innate humanity. It's essentially a great portrayal; the fact that it's more recent (and thus more "accurate", to quibble) is a plus. Initium 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Split/Breakout

Would it make sense to split this page into Helena Bertinelli, Helena Wayne, and Paula Brooks? Much like The Flash and Nightwing pages have done, the three Huntresses are mildly confusing. Also, I removed Baby Helena, since (a) Not Huntress and (b) that's on the Catwoman page. Even if we find out she is Batman's kid, she's still not a Huntress. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all articles except that of Helena Bertinelli have been merged back into the main article. The remaining one should be as well. There has been no discussion relating to this tag since its inception. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Paula Brooks? Brian Boru is awesome 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brooks is a bit of a problem since the character has an established history of fair weight under multiple codenames, Tigress and Huntress. At the moment the consensus is that such a character gets split out. While Bertinelli did have a very short stint as Batgirl, it was only notable as a side-note. - J Greb 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for changing the way it is right now. It looks fine. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Helena Bertinelli. Brian Boru is awesome 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ATM, I'm more or less on the fence. I can see the arguments for the merge:

• Neither article is huge, so merged it would still be under 50k.
• Bertinelli is, in essence, a single codename character and should be treated as such.

I can also see the other side.

• Both articles are stable at this point, neither is getting pushed to a "needs to merge" state.
• At this point, aside from the codename, there is no strong linkage between Bertinelli or the other two characters.

So at this point, I agree with Lesfer, leave them as separate for the time being. If push comes to shove however, I would reluctantly support merging the articles.

As a side note though, I'd suggest moving 3 of the "In other media" items to the Bertinelli page in their entirety: Amalgam, the animated JLU, and the JL Heroes game. All cover only her character. Definitely add a link/see also line here, but move them to the appropriate article. - J Greb 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If this were an RfC, I might list Support under this post : ) - jc37 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Allowing for the requisite amount of days for the merge discussion to conclude, in case there are any other thoughts for merge and supporting the established split.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed both the parent article and the split off article. Reviewing the history further, it seems this article was recently split after the Wayne article was split. The latter article was merged back into the disambig/parent while this one is still around. The content on both seems meager at best. It would seem that this along with the Wayne article deserve integregration back into the main Huntress article. I tend to lean towards J Greb's suggestion above as to the 50k for being a criteria to apply in this case, although if there is further criteria to consider I'm open to that as well. Mister Fax 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Something J Greb said got to me to thinking: "At this point, aside from the codename, there is no strong linkage between Bertinelli or the other two characters". I was definitely of the mindset of merging the Huntresses back into one article, however since there seems to be support for separate articles I submit that Helena Wayne meets the same criteria as the other entries based on "no strong linkage". I know of two individuals, Lesfer and Steve Block, who reverted the page to a redirect. However, with the quoted line of reasoning, I perceive that all three merit there own entries based on the above discussion. And the Wayne article along with Bertinelli and Brooks articles have existed for months prior to only one of them being reverted for WP:FICTION when in fact none meet this qualifier objectively. I have recreated that page simply to provide adequate presentation for all entries until there has been sufficient dialogue on this page relating to any and/or all of these entries. I do so with a mindset that we consider possible differences that make the Wayne article of less merit than the others should be considered, or perhaps reviewing the merits of the other articles as well. I'm also open to all entries being merged back into the main if none meet WP:FICTION. Or if there are third party sources in Bertinelli and/or Brooks that meet WP:V and not Wayne. However, I think discussion would be in order. I hope at this juncture I am not out of line. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. There is a strong linkage between Bertinelli and Wayne. Helena Wayne's origin, that of being the daughter of Batman and Catwoman was no longer usable after Crisis on Infinite Earths. Helena Bertinelli was specifically created as a post-Crisis reworking of the character with her origin reinvented so that it could still fit into post-Crisis continuity.--Trademark123 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a small clarification or two on my part for "strong liknage".

First, the linkage between Wayne and Bertinelli is strictly a part of the publication history. It is a case where DC put the character in place to try and retain, IIUC, three things: copyright, trademark, and to a lesser degree, fan-base. Since the state of the two articles is to omit the PH, there is no strong link between the characters.

Second, there is a fair, in-universe linkage between Brooks and Wayne, all be it pre-Crisis. Mainly it revolves around Wayne having "stolen" Brooks' name.

To be honest, I'd like to see a PH put into all 3, or 4 if Wayne does get split off, articles. It would give a real world context as to how DC has viewed and used the characters.

As for a separate article for Wayne, again, I'm on the fence with this one. I don't see the pressing need for it, especially if it becomes a, to borrow another's phrase, "tell the story" article. If that's the case, then the Wayne section of this article can be expanded. - J Greb 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, Netkinetic. First you were for a merge and now you are for a split? This section is oscillating hither and thither, so much so my head is spinning! Please stick to a position, otherwise this will get more and more confusing.

Again, all the individual articles have very little to contribute by themselves, and I think it is splitting hairs as to one being merged while another remains split, and so forth. Merging all these articles back into this article would seem the most sense. Still, I do not see harm allowing these to remain separate. I think, honestly, all of these articles "tell the story" as do quite a few other character-based entries. And I'm sure we do not have time to tackle all of those as well. Mister Fax 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the way it is right now it looks fine. All of them: "Paula Brooks", "Helena Bertinelli" and "Huntress (comics)".
And please, leave "Helena Wayne" out of this. Consensus was previously established that Helena Wayne should be part of "Huntress (comics)" article and Netkinetc know it. So, please, Netkinetic, do not create an "Helena Wayne" article. Let's not start this crap over again.
By the way, the 5-day-period for merge proposal is over, so please, remove the merge-tag. Thank you. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lesfer, can you provide a reference as to this consensus? The history on Wayne shows some references towards WP:FICTION however I cannot find a record of this consensus being discussed on this page where it would seem to belong. The only mention of merge/split on this page seems to be in this section, for which Ipstenu first proposed splitting all articles back in June '06. Further clarification would be helpful. Mister Fax 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Mr.Fax. Here it is. J Greb also took part in the debate. Take some time to read it all (lol) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my head is no longer spinning...instead I'm starting to get nausated! I'm going to sit down before I faint...information overload. Net, I like these obscure Bat-related characters almost as much as you do...but I think you are fighting a losing battle. So Lesfer this character was deemed a minor character due to no longer existing, according to WP:FICTION? I could see that up to a point unless she returned (doubtful) at some point in the future, as someone in the discussion mentioned. Mister Fax 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why "Helena Wayne" is now an article without any discussion? Shouldn't it be discussed before? Five days ago Netkinetic was proposing merges. Then, two days later, with no previous discussion, he splits "Helena Wayne", makes it an article and proposes merging back? What's the point? Sorry, I got lost somewhere. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 06:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Lesfer, it seems like an about face from the previous position and I'm still of the opinion there are just to many articles better served under one main article, as all the Huntresses were originally. That said, there seems to be some merit in that all these character articles seem to have been broken out from this main template around the same time. I've reread the discussion you had referred to and it seems that "Helena Wayne" was added fairly late into the dialogue and redirected under the suggestion of one of the participants. And just to play Devil's Advocate: "Why not Helena Wayne"? Do I think that article is an ideal character article? No. Do I think the other two Huntresses have ideal character articles? No. So again, splitting hairs? Perhaps. Mister Fax 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to stay neutral to the discussion topic. I did want to note that there is no reason why someone has to keep the same opinion in a discussion. The fact that Netkinetic might change their perspective as a result of discussion means that they are open to listening to the perspectives of others. That's a good thing folks.

Also, a fair amount of this discussion is based on your (plural) preferences (J Greb has been a notable exception). Anyone out there have some external references to support their POV? For example, I was reading a comics-related article which noted that the modern Catwoman had a child named Helena, similar to the Earth-Two Catwoman having a daughter named Helena. If I posted the reference (and it was a reliable reference), that's enough for inclusion. So instead of squabbling about opinion, How about some mad searches for reliable, topic-related references? : ) - jc37 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it, jc37. What references do you want? Regarding exactly what?

And I still would like to know why "Helena Wayne" got split with no proposal. If Netkinetic made a merging proposal, shouldn't he have done a split proposal as well? Before reaching a new consensus we should respect the ongoing one. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Netkinetic was probably "being bold". :) The only problem with which isn't it doesn't really resolve the conflict. Based on the link to the January 2007 discussion on Earth-Two characters, it does seem to me that these articles ought to be merged. That's not really my preference, but that was the consensus. Otherwise, to keep in line with WP:FICTION, it would be important to show that these characters are notable, not minor characters. To that end, jc37's call for references is absolutely correct. If these characters are worthy of individual articles, there should be references to establish importance. Of course, that's harder to prove in negative, so I think by default and according to consensus, the articles ought to be merged. That's my 2 cents. --GentlemanGhost 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be prudent before we continue discussion on splits that we introduce into this specific talk page the elements from the Janary interchange(s) that specifically refer to this character. Since the present discussion is drifting into anecdotal references as to a previous "consensus"...working from that point forward might help dispell alot of confusion and help us to move forward. In the above link provided by Lesfer, Physics suggested that the Earth-Two page become a repository for characters, although none are specifically mentioned therein. Semidelicious has Helena Wayne under "Listed of related articles" (Helena Wayna was referred to previously by Basique, Netkinetic and Lesfer), although the relation is in-universe (Earth-Two) rather than out-of-universe (publication). The merging of Helena Wayne in January was based, according to the edit summary on that page, on WP:FICTION. Steve Block suggested in the above link: "Now, the guidelines which apply here are the comics guidelines and WP:FICTION. WP:FICTION is quite clear on this issue, Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.' That was the idea suggested above, and if no consensus exists to change the prior consensus established in numerous places, the previous consensus is to be respected." So I'm attempting to connect the dots as to how Physics' general suggestion and Semidelicious' list led to the application of a "consensus" as to merging Helena Wayne in Huntress (comics)? Further, I wish to quote from Wikipedia:Consensus: "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus". If Helena Wayne was allowed to exist for a significant amount of time, and the history shows several editors working on that article up until January (with at present time eleven non-talk pages linked to the Helena Wayne article...from "numerous places"), wouldn't that have been the previous consensus, and the previous consensus is to be respected? Again, establishing this consensus is prudent so that we may put this issue to bed, proverbially speaking. Mister Fax 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That said, jc37's comment as to "mad searches for reliable, topic-related references" on these Huntress derivatives seems the best middle-ground. No references, merge. And I seriously doubt will find any aside from "issue #" and such.Mister Fax 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside concerning "Silence equals consent". While essentially and typically true, often changes get "lost in the cracks", as it were. I know that my watchlist usually floats around a thousand pages or so (and I prune it weekly). Otherwise I might have noticed at least this discussion sooner : ) - We all do what we can, but please keep in mind that we're all human volunteers here. See also:Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button : ) - jc37 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the relevant points to this talk page, Mister Fax. That separate discussion was actually what made up my mind regarding this issue. While personally I would prefer to have individual articles for all characters, that does seem to go against the instruction of WP:FICTION. I don't really care that much one way or the other, but if we're going to do this "by the book", it does seem (subjectively) to me that the other characters are minor and thus ought to be merged. --GentlemanGhost 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar/Tenses

Though I know Wikipedia urges present tense for articles about ongoing fictional characters, the following sentence fragment is problematic:

When she turns over to Batman the detailed "mob atlas" of Gotham that she compiles...

I see this as grammatically problematic because it implies that HB is compiling the atlas as she is handing it over to Batman. The sentence would be made more precise if it were worded like this:

When she turns over to Batman the detailed "mob atlas" that she has compiled...

It's perhaps a minor point, but still a relevant one. --Galliaz 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was actually a typing error, rather than a tense error. Sorry. --Chris Griswold 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order

Her new 'Cry for Blood' origin should be in the beginning in chronological order, not after her stint with the JLA. --DrBat 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked to make sure it was in chronological order, and it is; the JLA issues in which she is a member were published before Cry for Blood. Everything's in chronological order. --Chris Griswold 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant, in order in which it actually happenened in continuity, not when it was published. Her origin should be in the beginning. --DrBat 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the interest of an accurate representation of the character's publishing history, it is important to keep things chronological. This also helps keep the article out-of-world. Take a look at Superman. Birthright is listed chronologically, not by continuity. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

JLA

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the Huntress was a member of Maxwell Lord's JLA prior to the "Batman sponsors Huntress' membership in the Justice League." Batman did not sponsor her into this incarnation but was 'pushed' into joining by Lord. Asininelad 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Asininelad

You are not mistaken, though the snip-it in this article seems to deal only with her relationship with Batman. It may be appropriate, both here and in Bertinelli's main article, to make it clear that Batman's efforts related to her 2nd stint with the team. — J Greb 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

I would like to add http://www.batmanytb.com/comics/titles/thehuntress/index.php to the links section. It is the best site on the net to find out information about the Huntress Comics. Plot detail, cover images, and creators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphermg (talk • contribs)

• No. It's a commercial site with ads and its own YTB store. Doczilla 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Helena wayne.JPG

Image:Helena wayne.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a rationale. Feel free to improve it! --GentlemanGhost 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Come

Noticed there was no mention of the Kingdom Come Huntress in the alternate versions. I'd add it, but I don't have the info at hand right now.151.166.15.115 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LEGO Batman Problem

It says that using LEGO pieces you can create Huntress by obtaining all the mini-kits in the hero chapters, it works, but the same goes for Azrel, I'm confused! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.39.104 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Missing new (2011) "The Huntress" 6 part mini-series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.76.22 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Huntress (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070510031223/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The infobox image being used is "Huntress-BOP57.jpg", since it features Helena Bertinelli in her most well-known, recognizable costume. This image has been used for months, and it is the same outfit depicted in the Hush storyline. "Huntress (Helena Bertinelli).png" is already being used in the Huntress (Helena Bertinelli) article, and as such, it should not be used in the Huntress (comics) article, especially without a compelling reason per WP protocol. Before changing the image, discuss your reasons here for consensus. DrRC (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it the most well-known recognizable costume? And she had the full-body costume in her Wikipedia box longer, before the image was replaced. Furthermore, the only difference between the two costumes is she has pants.

And if we're going to go by more recognizable costumes, we shouldn't be using the New 52 costume for Helena Wayne, since I think most people associate her with her classic costume. --DrBat (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrBat, what is considered the most recognizable can be subjective, I agree, although I still maintain that the other image is more recognizable. In fact, the image further down from the animated universe, is also the exact same costume I'm referring to. I'm willing to compromise, in which the full-costume image can be used for the infobox images, but Huntress-BOP57.jpg should be included in the article to showcase that look. I've included it further down in the "Helena Bertinelli" section. DrRC (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Also, if you wanted to change the infobox image back to the Helena Wayne one you had before, that'd be okay with me too. DrBat (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. I changed the infobox image to the Helena Wayne image, but your Huntress image should be used for the Huntress (Helena Bertinelli) article. Thanks again. DrRC (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"In other media" section

Given that Paula Brooks, Helena Wayne, and Helena Bertinelli all have their own pages, shouldn't we move the appropriate other media appearances to those pages? Seems rather redundant and liable to data drift as it is.--Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A rough consensus emerged that it would be best to redirect the plain title Huntress (comics) to Huntress#Fictional characters. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Huntress (comics) → Huntress (DC Comics) – The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. If I read the Marvel article correctly, the "Huntress" moniker lasted for a blink of an eye and was very quickly dispensed with. I doubt a 1976-only alternate title is that relevant - lots of irrelevant stuff happens for characters with multi-decade histories, it isn't really THAT important, and certainly nobody will be looking that character up by that name. SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Either that or Huntress (character).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Since the redirect, Huntress (Marvel Comics), flows directly to Mockingbird (Marvel Comics), it would seem intuitive that the main title header analogous to Huntress (Marvel Comics) should be Huntress (DC Comics), while the incomplete disambiguation — Huntress (comics) — should flow to the Huntress#Fictional characters disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect Huntress (comics) to Huntress#Fictional characters. Delete the content of this page as a bloated fork of the DAB page, which has links to the main articles for the three characters covered here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

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