Talk:Supergirl (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Because of the fact tat Mellisa Benoist was cast as supergirl I took the time to create a Supergirl (2015 TV Series) wikipedia page. please edit, change, add more info and expand it. (this is my fourth TV series wikipedia page, TIME FOR A PARTY, jk).

Just an FYI that the article is in the process of being moved to Supergirl (TV series). I have approached an admin to make the move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the creator of the page and no one approached me, but I still agree with the moving

talk

) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@

are the dictator of moves or content changes. I appreciate you creating it, but given what was previously at this title, and what was created, page moves had to occur. The only reason an admin was contacted, was because it was a technical move that regular editors do not have the ability to perform. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it to

talk

) 11:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on all of that, I believe that the information on Jordan and his character should be formatted exactly the same as the information on the characters played by Series Regulars Melissa (Benoist), Chyler (Leigh), Calista (Flockhart), Mehcad (Brooks), and David (Harewood) and Recurring Character Laura (Benanti) in spite of him being referred to as a guest star.DigificWriter (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the source refers to him as a guest star, so must we. Anything else is

WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk

) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Though it does note that the role could turn into a recurring one, much like Henry Allen over on The Flash. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really disputing whether or not he's a guest star. What I'm asking for/suggesting is that the information on his character be formatted the same way as the information on the Main Cast and Recurring Cast member Laura Benanti is. If necessary, it could be noted that the role is currently a guest-starring one with the potential of being recurring.DigificWriter (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Recently information has been added stating actor Robert Gant has been cast as Zor-el. The source given is a fansite, with no reputable website reporting like info, I highly doubt its validity. Gants tweets have also been mentioned as a form of confirmation, when he hardly confirms involvement with the project, merely arcane wording. I believe this info should be struck from the article until a verifiable source can be provided. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is a fan-site. How do we know how they got their info? Removing the info and directing others to the talk to discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anime!? Why is it being classified as an anime!? All the pictures shown on this Wikipedia Article indicate it's live-action, therefore it can't be anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarienLeonhart (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by vandalism by an anonymous IP. DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pilot just leaked online. Should a plot summary be added? If not, can someone say who plays Superman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.181.167 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still a work print. Like a manuscript, it's not citable until published/broadcast. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

But I do think information about the leakage must be mentioned.--Chamith (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The same happened with The Flash last year, and it was deemed unnecessary by multiple editors. One editor took this issue (for Supergirl) to my talk page.

The|Whovian

18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You only include leaked information when the leak itself becomes noteworthy. The idea of a "leak" is not news or even new. If a reliable third party starts discussing it, then you can comment about their comments. But the leak itself isn't noteworthy. It's like a trailer being released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Given that this is a much anticipated TV series of course it has been discussed by reliable sources such as Forbes, E Online, Business Insider. You hastily deleted information about the leakage without even letting me or anyone else to add citations. I assume it's "noteworthy" enough to be mentioned now?.--Chamith (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that

lasting effect on the community.--Chamith (talk)

04:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources identifying that it was leaked is not actually discussing it. That would be like having 50 websites say "the trailer for Jurassic World was released today." That doesn't make it important or relevant to the article. Just saying that something exists multiple times does not make it noteworthy. The Eonline source just identifies that it was leaked, Forbes discusses the idea of whether the leak will help or hurt but it does so from the perspective of leaks in general and not just Supergirl, and the BI source again discusses it from the perspective of whether it will hurt or help the show because it was leaked 6 months early. They are not actually discussing the pilot, but simply acknowledging that it was leaked. It has not bearing on the show itself, unless the leak causes CBS to pull the show altogether based on fan reaction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So, can someone who has seen the pilot list what characters are in the pilot in the character list and say WHO PLAYS SUPERMAN??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.188.159 (talk • contribs)

The best place to get that answer is a forum (also see

WP:FORUM). DonQuixote (talk

) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a matter of who's seen it. It's a matter of finding any reliable source that has happened to comment on the actor, stating such. I mean it really isn't even an "actor" as they never show his face, so it's pretty irrelevant on who plays him. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Saw pilot, and added primary antagonist to Recurring Characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.208.246 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In the current version of the article it is asserted as fact that "Filming locations included the Warner Bros. lot where Lois and Clark was shot." True, a number of fan sites (and even media sites like Radio Times in the UK) reported this as a filming location, but there's no evidence to back this up. All of them (as best as I can tell) cite a tweet on 16th March 2015 by Executive Producer Andrew Kreisberg that included a photo of the lot facade used as the Daily Planet in Lois and Clark, and the message "Morning at the WB lot! #SUPERGIRL". The tweet in question is no evidence of that particular WB set (or any other on the WB lot) being used in filming. Perhaps the lot was used -- but without something concrete the article should not make such a bold assertion.

I've tried to amend the article to reflect the fact that although this was widely reported in certain outlets, it may not be true. I've even provided a citation to a popular Superman site as evidence that not everyone at the time assumed the photo implied a filming location. This edit was reverted on the grounds that "Kryptonsite isn't a reliable source, unless it's a one-on-one interview, and that's original research to imply media outlet response, not in the pilot doesn't mean not in the show" (Bignole)

Irony of ironies... the assertion in the article as it currently stands is supported by a citation from a fan site, that is conjecture based on nothing more than a photo in a tweet. And the paragraph it is in relates directly to the filming and principle photography of the pilot. (The 'L+C building' may well feature in future episodes of the show but not the pilot, but as there's no evidence to support the idea that they were filming anything other than the pilot at the time the tweet was sent I think it is a little premature to state it as fact.)

If my edit was unacceptable for some reason, okay... but can someone please either provide a concrete proof (not conjecture from fans based on a tweet) of whether the tweet photo was an actual filming location, or amend the article to acknowledge that this was widely reported speculation that has no supporting evidence as actual fact.

JavaKid (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited the Supergirl page to change the first names of Helen Slater and Dean Cain's characters to reflect their actual names in the series (Eliza and Jeremiah Danvers), but didn't provide anything by way of reference other than an edit summary explanation that their names had been revealed in TV Guide's Supergirl Comic-Con issue, largely because the only reference I have for this information are scans of the magazine's Comic Con article on the series as posted on a fansite, Supergirl.TV, and I'm not sure whether or not it's permissible to use fansites as references, so I'm asking that question here.DigificWriter (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The fan site isn't. The TV Guide source is. You just need to provide that as the reference. You can use the {{cite journal}} template to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The fansite is currently the only place I can find the scans of that article posted, which creates a problem with using that template because in order to cite a reference for the information in those article scans, I have to reference the fansite on which said scans are posted.DigificWriter (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you just need to be able to identify the information that the citation template needs. If you can see it in the scans, then you're fine. Then anyone can verify the TV Guide article if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the Recurring character section be updated to reflect the fact that we have received confirmation of Helen Slater, Dean Cain, and Peter Facinelli all being more than simply 'one-off' guest stars (Andrew Kreisberg having confirmed Slater and Cain's recurring character status during an interview at Comic-Con and the original Deadline article announcing Facinelli's casting having explicitly referred to the character of Maxwell Lord as being recurring).DigificWriter (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not possible to list Kevin Caliber as portraying Kal-El/Superman in an uncredited role in the Supergirl pilot? He is listed at IMDb under the pilot episode entry as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.85.45 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide a

reliable source and it can be. IMDb is not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

How about the "Los Angeles Times" article by Nardine Saad dated August 10, 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.85.45 (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The article can be found at - - [1] Actual naming of Kevin Caliber as "Kal-El" can be found in the first sentence of paragraph six. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.85.45 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: "A 24-year-old Kryptonian living in National City" Doesn't the pilot state that she was 13 when launched from Krypton, and 24 years have passed since? Does the "24-year-old" phrase here come from an official source? Thanks! Darci (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

On the series, after Kara was sent away from Krypton, she was trapped in the Phantom Zone–where the concepts of time and space doesn't apply–so she didn't age for a few of Earth years and she is now 24 years old. — Artmanha (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I added a ratings section. Would some be kind enough to find more of the information needed? Thank you in advabce. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a "ratings" section. Yes, before you say I know other articles have done this. There are multiple problems with "Ratings" tables. First, we already keep ratings info in the episode list. Second, the average reader doesn't understand "shares" and the like, so adding it for the sake of having it doesn't make it useful. Third, would you keep the table if the series goes 2 season, 4 seasons? Unlikely, given that you're talking about a single table holding 80+ episodes worth of numbers that average reader doesn't understand outside of "total viewers". Thus, no reason to have a table that becomes too large and/or irrelevant fairly quickly. Though, I commend the work for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ratings tables are supported by

The|Whovian

01:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Though ratings sections can be useful and appreciated by some, Bignole is correct in stating that the average reader will not be privy. Wikipedia is not orchestrated for the few, but for the many. LLArrow (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Being supported doesn't mean that it is appropriate, especially when we've had discussion in the past about "shares" being data that most people don't understand period. Why the hell that Agent Carter has a split season page when it's only 10 episode long is beyond me, but

just because we can source it doesn't mean that it's actually valid, useful information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Before deleting stuff, it should be reviewed here and a consensus should happen. Once season 2 happens, it will not be there. The premire and ending episode for each season with ratings will then be there- Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia in accordance to what may happen, we base in fact. There's a very real possibility that the series will not see a second season; then the table will be stuck on the series page as long as the article exist. A read through

WP:CRYSTAL may be prudent. LLArrow (talk

) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This has become an edit war. You need to stop and have a consensus on this page. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying a quick point, you say "don't delete till there is a consensus", when in fact per

WP:BRD, your bold edit was reverted and that sparked a discussion. Now, although I think the work was commendable, the fact remains that the vast majority of that data is basically irrelevant to readers because it's not easily understood. If you go the broadcast ratings here, it's even unclear to a layman what shares, points, and how they relate to gender demographics all mean. Total viewers is pretty straight forward. At the end of the day, ratings and viewers are irrelevant because shows with good ratings still get cancelled because they cost too much money in comparison to what they bring in (e.g., take Longmire, the top rated show on A&E that was cancelled simply because they weren't getting enough money). If there is something significant about a "point/share", then that would be described in prose. Listing out a table just to collect a ton of information that is above most readers' heads seems like an indiscriminate collection of information chosen solely because it's available and not because it's necessary to have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

03:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@

The|Whovian

06:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like ratings tables because I personally believe that ratings figures are not really representative of anything in the real world, but that's my opinion. I do see some interesting comments in this discussion that need comment though:

"the average reader doesn't understand "shares" and the like" - I agree, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias contain a lot of things not understood by the average reader. Picking one at random, how many people understand what a baryon is? Here's a list of baryons if you're still confused.

"would you keep the table if the series goes 2 season, 4 seasons?" - If the ratings table goes for that many seasons, then that's one justification for splitting the LoE page into individual season articles, not that it is necessary. There are several pages on my watchlist that include ratings for multiple seasons on the LoE page. Usually the ratings are split into tables for each season, just like we do for episode lists. (List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes#Ratings) Why would we keep all of the ratings figures in a single table? That's just inconsistent.

"Wikipedia is not orchestrated for the few, but for the many" - Absolutely correct, but it's also not orchestrated only for people with double-digit IQs so, just because some people don't understand something doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. How many people really understand string theory?

"Before deleting stuff, it should be reviewed here and a consensus should happen." - Second part yes, first part no. It was fine to be bold and add the table but it was opposed by another editor so, after the intital deletion,[2] it's up to the editor seeking to include the content to convince other editors that the content should be included and, while discussion is in progress,

the status quo reigns

. We don't need consensus to keep the content out of the article, we need consensus to keep it in.

All of the above considered, while some people may not understand the ratings data, some people do and the industry sees the rtatings data as significant. It is, after all, what determines the ultimate fate of most series and is used as an indicator of how well, or how badly, a TV program is received. Its inclusion is therefore supported by

WP:TVRECEPTION and, while I personally find it pointless information, it is encyclopaedic, sourced data, so I don't see any real justification for excluding it from the article. --AussieLegend (✉

) 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

TVRECEPTION probably needs to be updated anyway. That said, being sourced data does not mean that it should be included. Again, we're not a collection of indiscriminate information, especially when said information isn't easily understood. Including it for the sake of including it should not be a rational reason. Information should enhance an article. That doesn't enhance the article when you don't even know what people are talking about when they cite it. There's a reason that the only way to legitimately list it is in table form, because it's just numbers. There's no context. Every reader gets 2 million viewers. What they struggle with is understanding what point/shares mean in the grand scheme, because point/shares on TheCW are completely different proportionately to point/shares on CBS. What's "good", what's "bad". There's no context, thus makes the data indiscriminate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Many news outlets, such as this, were saying that broadcast of EP4 "Livewire" would be delayed because its plot was somewhat reminiscent of the Paris attacks the preceding week. Right now this article suggests that they still did broadcast Livewire, but I've heard (from unreliable sources; it's not available to watch where I live) that they broadcast EP5 instead. What did they end up showing? Should the article be amended to reflect the amended schedule? And do we still call Livewire EP4 even if it ends up being broadcast several weeks after episodes which chronologically follow it? 194.75.1.36 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"How Does She Do It?" was originally episode four, "Livewire" was originally episode five. Then they were swapped. "Livewire" aired this week, "How Does She Do It?" will air next week.

The|Whovian

15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources such as iTunes cite the episode as being episode 5, despite having been aired before episode 4 ("How Does She Do It?"). What are Wikipedia's rules regarding the matter? Should we put them as the order of original airing? Should we put them on the originally intended order, since the episode's events occur chronologically after the yet unaired episode 4? I mean, because it wasn't aired in the intended order by events unrelated to the series. Thanks — Artmanha (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating: iTunes changed "Livewire" to episode 4. So I say we leave it like this until the home release comes out. — Artmanha (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The episodes were literally just swapped yesterday; give the episodes time to update themselves. And we always list the episode in the order that they aired.

The|Whovian

23:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the show follows a chronological plot-arc Livewire is episode 5 and "How Does She Do It?" is episode 4 but the airorder is different. Look at Firefly (TV series)#Episodes. --83.216.111.182 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Firefly was aired completely out of order making it difficult for anyone to get a hand on the story. This was a single episode aired out of order and is unlikely to have a significant effect. See "Charlie and the Temper of Doom" and "Charlie Gets Trashed", a 2-part story from Anger Management where the two parts were aired in the wrong order on the same night. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the production codes still show that the two episodes were switched. There is no need to change the episode numbers.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep our eye on this down the line though, such as when the DVD is released. Because for all intents and purposes, "How Does She Do It?" is episode 4 and "Livewire" is episode 5. The reason to switch the air dates was a network decision, not necessarily from the production side. Unlike Arrow this year, in which the fifth episode was production episode 4, in order to accommodate Matt Ryan as Constantine. I'm not saying it should change at the moment, but it may be better to represent this by proper episode order, with the air dates swapped, and a note on both indicating why these two episodes aired out of order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't all the character biographies have the same format? Some biographies start immediately after the characters' names on the same line while some begin on a new line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.77.177 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Character descriptions originally get added on the same line, and once the text is long enough so that it has to wrap around the page, it is then converted to a new line.

The|Whovian

09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

But, they way it is written is not grammatically correct. The separate description paragraphs start with sentence fragments. They should be complete sentences. Also, only the main cast should have the break line format. It is not needed for the recurring and guest cast. And that way it would give a clean, consistent appearance. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I am creating this talk page thread to inform everyone that some of the plot summary content in this article are

Pinging

AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend to give them an opportunity to add any input or details if they feel the need to so. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)}

12:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what is the cause and the effect here. Even verbatim agreement between Wikipedia and other websites does not mean they have been copied into WP, it might be the other way. Good indications may be: the type of website (e.g., official press releases are unlikely to copy from WP), and the edit history of the WP article. Looking at the development of, e.g., the episode 2 summary, I find it unlikely that it has been taken from somewhere else.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with cocoa on this, they are copying us..I contribute to IMDb as well (using my real name though) and you won't believe the number of sites that use plot summaries/synopsis written by me..MOST of these sites are the illegal download sites or those dealing with films so I know when sites 'plagiarize' stuff without giving proper attribution..go check the short summary for a series from last season and google it, you will get a few thousand hits easily--Stemoc 13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, cool beans. I tried to find out if the external source I located was mirroring or copied from us, but obviously I derped. Dark Cocoa Frosting, Stemoc: Thank you for lending a pair of eyes towards my findings, and for letting me know what you thought. Much appreciated :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sites coping our summaries is actually pretty common. I cannot speak for the other episodes, but I personally rewrote the pilot summary and I damn hell did not copy it from anywhere. I rewrote it after finally watching the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well there you go. So they're definitely mirrors then, haha :-D ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the words "Silver Banshee" from the character's name in Recurring characters section. Per

In order to provide an analogy for those unfamiliar with the Wikipedia guidelines, this situation is not dissimilar from the

Are obviously OTK, not knee-high. This is a vital distinction.92.12.60.184 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Per a recent dispute, I've never seen an article with one season table require widths. In fact, forcing the widths will cause more issues on a screen with lower resolution than allowing the columns to naturally adjust would. I've personally put widths on a single table before, but I can see the error of this way; the discussion is at

(moved from

Supergirl (U.S. TV series) because your assertion that "One-season shows do not require widths for their episode tables" isn't actually correct. As I've put in my edit summary, column widths are required regardless of the number of seasons, particularly for readers with lower resolution screens to minimise the number of rows that spacing hogging cells use. By "spacing hogging cells" I'm referring to cells such as "Written By". At higher resolutions, it isn't an issue, as the cells stretch, but at lower resolutions, some of the "Written By" by cells take 4 lines while others take 3. At 1280px, without cell widths 6 of the 11 episodes use 2-4 lines for the row headers, while with cell widths it's only two episodes (1 & 10) do that. --AussieLegend (✉

) 06:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, forcing the widths will cause more issues on a screen with lower resolution than allowing the columns to naturally adjust would. - This may be true at some articles, but not all. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Here the column widths help. At Agent Carter the examples there ignore the episode titles, with only "TBA" listed as the episode titles. The titles here are much longer than 3 characters, and the "Written by" fields here contain a lot more information than at the Agent Carter articles. Now that Agent Carter has individual seasons, widths are being used and work just fine, so natural stretching of the columns just doesn't work. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure since it was mentioned here, doesn't this same issue apply to the Scream Queens (2015 TV series) episode table too? Because the writing credits for episodes 1, 2, 12 and 13 are way too extensive to fit without the widths. Thank you — Artmanha (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha:Yes, that article would benefit from formatting as the episode number, air date, production code and viewers columns are all too wide at lower resolutions. Row headers for four of the 13 episodes wrap without formatting. With formatting, none wrap. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:13, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC+11)

This discussion should belong at the talk page for the article in question, not here, also given that there was consensus not to include widths.

?

13:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a move discussion at

I just noticed that the contact page of the reference that was used for episodes 14–17 says it's a fan site ("Nuestro portal está hecho por fans y para fans."), so that's probably another reason not to trust it as a reliable source.

Good to know. Thanks for the find! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Kiraroshi1976 (talk