Talk:Batman: Hush

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: DC Comics / Batman Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Batman work group.

I removed the Published and the Characters section, as the form of publication is already given in the lead section and most of the characters are linked in the Plot Summary anyway and it does not make much sense to list them all in their own section. --Fritz S. 21:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• A question: Is this a continuation to The Long Halloween and/or Dark Victory? Just thought I ask..

Not really, but it makes a lot of references to them.

The reception section should not just reproduce in full, more or less, everything one man, Craig Lemon, has said about this particular graphic novel. If this article is going to have a "Reception" section, it should fairly, and concisely, reflect a wide range of critics. 70.250.254.204 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this section is biased. All the cited reviews of the Hush storyline are negative. Armadillo01 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Did they make a novelization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.97.95 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is over-the-top in terms of flower-y prose and praise. Can someone more familiar with the material try something a little more even-handed? Matt Deres 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed part of a sentence from the opening paragraph ("...which comes through most clearly in the romance that blooms between Batman and Catwoman.") because it implied a connection between 'romantacism', which is a literary style, and 'romance', which is not specifically related to a particular movement. I suppose the author might have meant that Loeb was a romantacist in that he likes to start romances in his fiction, but that's not the first definition I connect to the word when it is applied to a writer. I couldn't see how to modify the entry to accommodate both meanings without making it sound clunky. 66.58.231.58 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, it was a long time coming, but I had a spare moment, so I went to work fixing some of the problems with this article. Obviously this was only a surface skim, but hopefully the prose is more encyclopediac, redundent phrasing in the summery made smoother, irrelevent information expelled, and the original author's POV and original research removed. ~CS 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that Hush is an unlockeable character in the Lego Batman videogame, (at least in the PS3 version). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.8.6 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the second image of the cover of the collected Hush meets fair use rationale since the purpose claims use for "Illustration of a specific point within the article.", but it's placed in the plot section and even if we were to place it in the "Collected editions" section it would fail NFCC#3a since the cover in the infobox already identifies the series. Opencooper (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batman: Hush. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100819232458/http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com:80/2010/07/09/a-look-at-what%E2%80%99s-in-store-for-spring-2011-collected-editions/ to http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/07/09/a-look-at-what%E2%80%99s-in-store-for-spring-2011-collected-editions/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits were made on 9 February by 206.126.209.131, in which the user changed references in this article from Killer Croc to Bane, with the notes saying "Several character names and plot points. (Currently watching film)." I have reverted those changes. The film is a completely different piece of media than the comic - adaptational changes were made by the filmmakers, but that does not retroactively change the source material. The film is not a source for the comic. In the comic itself, Killer Croc appears, not Bane. Seriously, how was this left uncorrected for so long? 203.114.152.250 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]