Wikipedia

Talk:Supergirl (TV series)/Archive 2

< Talk:Supergirl (TV series)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by DonQuixote in topic Criticism section
Archive 1Archive 2

S1 Eps 4 and 5

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Now that the home media has released, did anyone on here pick it up? If they did, could they let us know what order "How Does She Do It?" and "Livewire" are? If they are presented in "actual" order with "HDSDI" first and "Livewire" after, I think we should reflect that in the table here, and have it be presented by production/intended order, rather than actual air date order. Once someone can provide this info (I have not picked up the season yet) we can discuss doing this, or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And a general note, with the CW reairing all of season one, they have aired "Livewire" before "HDSDI". I took a screen grab of how the eps appear on CW's website for others to see before it disappears. http://imgur.com/a/tSnlw - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The press release for the DVD released lists "How Does She Do It?" as #4, then "Livewire" as #5. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Then I think we should adjust the table here, since that is the proper production order, the home media uses that order, and the airing was swapped around sadly to the terrorist attacks. The ref notes can obviously stay to give the readers the info for why they originally aired out of order. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that they should go in production order with notes on the airing, as long as the home media does support that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone object? If not, I will make this change and update hidden notes accordingly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No objections from me. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good to me as well. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This seems reasonable, but we do need clear notes in the episode table as to why the episodes are not listed in chronological order, as someone is bound to come along and change it. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Will wrangle something up now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The current note is incorrect, as Favre said that "Livewire" was still aired before "How Does She Do It?" when the CW re-aired the episodes, so "subsequent airings" did not use the original production order. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, are the individual episode articles to be updated, or remain the way that they are? Alex|The|Whovian? 10:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
My version of the note was just to state, the episodes are listed in the production order due to how they appear on the home media (and it being the proper order), with the home media press release to cite. This is more of just a clarification note. Adamstom.97's version, as I'm reading it, is more of a reactionary statement, saying "since subsequent airings and the home media are using this order, we are using this order". But as pointed out, subsequent airings on the CW was not in the proper order, but "original" broadcast order. I still prefer my version, as it more just a statement of the why, not giving it as "this happened so the editors did this" which I'm getting from Adam's. - 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the subsequent airings bit above. My problem with your version Favre, is that it says 'We are listing it in the production order (just 'cause) which also just happens to be how they appear on the DVD', whereas my version (ignoring the subsequent airings part) says 'We are listing it in the production order because that is how they appear on the DVD'. Not only is my version what actually happened, but it also avoids insinuating that we decided the order that we wanted arbitrarily. If you want a different take on it, how about stating "For the season's home media release, the episode's were restored to their original production order. That is the order in which they are listed here." - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah maybe this then: "For the season's home media release, the episode's were restored to their original production order, which is how the episodes are presented here." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

‘Supergirl’ Season 2: Calista Flockhart Returning as Recurring Guest Star

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Also she Calista Flockhart TV credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecto~enwiki (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also Calista's name now is shown in the Guest Stars section in the opening credits of both Episode 1 and 2. And she also says that she is leaving CatCo during Episode 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecto~enwiki (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Already sourced in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Placement of episode list

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I feel that the placement of the link to "List of Supergirl episodes" is wrong and should be further down in the page ie in the "Broadcast" section OR it should be in a section "Series overview"

List of episodes is not a premise!!!

Ecto~enwiki (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The list of episodes has all the episode summaries, which counts as further information after you have read the overall series premise. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That would work if all current shows followed the same layout, many shows use the heading "Series overview" and some still have an "Episode" heading as well, Arrow, The Flash, Gotham (TV series) has an "Episode" section and a "Premise". It would be cool if there was some consistency. And looking at shows that have been around longer then all these combined "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" The heading order should follow the same order on all TV shows.

  • Premise
  • Cast
  • Episodes

Series overview should be used if Episode details are in the section. Premise for those with no episode details in it. AT the very least the Overview episode table should be at the top of bottom of section ie closest to the "Further information: List of Supergirl episodes" line. --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, I didn't realize that everything was so inconsistent. There has been a recent push to line up the styling of the Arrowverse shows, Supergirl, Gotham, Constantine, etc., so I think the format here should be the same as is used at Arrow and The Flash, and any other shows not using that formatting should be changed as well. It shouldn't be a major change at any of the pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people argued that every section should contain prose, but that has been proven wrong (see User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 14 § Prose in all sections). I think the series overview should be simply under an "Episodes" heading, which is the most common layout anyway, and as it turns out, not against the MOS. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I do, however, continue to go by the argument that all sections should contain prose. Regardless of your linking to my archives. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 Episode 7

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is Season 2 Episode 7 titled "The Darkest Places" or "The Darkest Place"? Originally it was titled "The Darkest Place", which is still supported by Futon, but 74thClarkBarHG recently moved the episode article to "The Darkest Places", stating "The official website lists the episode with an "S" at the end". What do we go on? Alex|The|Whovian? 12:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be "The Darkest Place" given TV Guide and Zap2It list it as such, along with Futon. At least at this time, the CW site does not have this episode to view, so it can't be verified if it was indeed with an 'S'. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved the article back, until any further sources can be provided that the title is incorrect. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 The CW website may not have the episode to view anymore but there is an extra for the episode on the CW website that states the episode title. "Supergirl - Inside Supergirl: The Darkest Places" [1] 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
There are still vastly more reliable sources stating the episode is "The Darkest Place", not "The Darkest Places", including several that take press releases put out by the CW for the episode. This is per WP:NOTTRUTH. We are in no rush regarding this content, and we can wait until more info is released on the matter, perhaps with the home media release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Katie McGrath

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding this edit, Joeyconnick, I agree with Favre1fan93 and don't see why we should wait until season 3 to note that Katie McGrath is now a series regular. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the description at {{Infobox television}} for "starring" is "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" - we can't exactly add a cast member if they haven't had any credit yet, can we? -- AlexTW 09:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
But since we are past the first season, she will be at the bottom of the list regardless. And if other new starring characters are added, we can readjust as necessary. But why supress the info now because of this? As I provided in my edit, the Arrow article did something similar for Echo Kellum when he was promoted to starring for season 5 before the end of season 4. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. We don't need to rush to add content and it's been a long-standing practice that we don't add cast until they've been credited in an episode. If an actor has not been credited in a starring role, they should not be added to the infobox as a starring character. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing for inclusion in the infobox, though, and I don't see that Favre1fan93 was either. I do still disagree without excluding this information, especially since Favre1fan93 has pointed to a case where the usual routine wasn't followed and there was no problem, but I'm not going to argue over this. I just wanted to note that I also see things from Favre1fan93's point of view on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine without it in the infobox, but it should be in the "Cast" list section IMO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That section only covers actors who have been credited in a starring role. When she is credited onscreen in a starring role she can be added there. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Politics

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I think it would be worth a description somewhere of the show being quite remarkably pro-feminist and anti-Trump. A quick google search gives plenty of sources about how season 2 in particular had lots of Trump references. I don't want to add this myself as I'm not conversant in the ways of genre TV on Wikipedia, but the article does seem remarkably light on the feminism aspect of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Such an addition would be irrelevant and trivial commentary. -- AlexTW 01:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No, trivia would be noting how lines of dialogue match a 1975 comic. Noting that almost every important character is female, that the show frequently alludes to modern Trumpian/GOP politics as bad, when multiple sources state that is adding critical commentary and explanation to help readers understand the show.
That was from a very quick search for Supergirl politics on google. There's a lot of material out there. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Just because there's a lot of material on a topic, doesn't mean it's necessary to include it. -- AlexTW 09:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
That really depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to write an in-depth article, which I would hope all articles should aspire to, then purposely ignoring something which makes this show distinct, which has been widely commented on within the media, is an abrogation of editorial judgment. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 3 July 2017‎ (UTC)
I see no problem with adding a section as long as it is cited with reliable sources. There's no denying that the show has many social and political themes, ex: the season 2 finale was named after "Nevertheless, she persisted"[1]. Black-ish has a similar section. - Brojam (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mattbuck and Brojam. I'm more for building comprehensive Wikipedia articles, and that includes adding themes in a television show. Our WP:GAs and WP:FAs commonly do this. If I had the time, I'd type up something and propose its inclusion here on the talk page. I might do so later. Sometimes proposing text is better than simply adding it since adding it without discussion can lead to edit warring and other issues. Good on Mattbuck for suggesting the content so that it could be discussed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above, I see no problem in adding it as long as it is properly sourced. The feminism theme is something that has very clearly been part of the show since season 1. As long as it is properly sourced, I see no issue with it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No need for politics here. Tybomb124 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tybomb124, what are you basing that on? We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. It is not about a personal or subjective need. It is about objectively, comprehensively covering a topic. Either way, if I do get around to typing something up on this matter, I maintain that I will propose its inclusion here on the talk page first. I will also ask WP:TV to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, how am I supposed to know every single rule? Tybomb124 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Tybomb124, I don't expect you to. You should familiarize yourself with the core WP:Policies and guidelines, though. And for fiction, looking at WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction can help. I was simply asking you what you were basing "no need for politics here" on. Wikipedians should know that we are not supposed to write these articles based on our own personal opinions about the topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

___

References

  1. ^ Abrams, Natalie (May 1, 2017). "Supergirl finale title revealed". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For the |related= field of {{Infobox television}}, the instructions say Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc.
(For example, The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (US TV series); The Upper Hand and Who's the Boss?; etc.) Note that simply sharing crossover episodes does not make series related.. Firstly, Arrowverse is not a show, it's an entire universe. Nor is it a remake, spin-off or adaptation of this program for different audiences. It should therefore not be populated with Arrowverse. If other articles are doing so they should be fixed. This article should not be made compliant with other non-complaint articles. I'm well aware that an RfC determined that this program was part of the Arrowverse but that doesn't justify misuse of the field in the infobox. It is quite correctly stated in the lead that this program is set in the Arrowverse. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then I believe that the parameter documentation needs updating. The title given in the infobox is "Related shows", and the Arrowverse is a list of related shows. Many of the Arrowverse shows are indeed spinoffs off of each other. It's barely a matter of "non-complaint", it's about what the documentation should really mean. -- AlexTW 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There have been numerous discussions about the documentation and it has been updated where necessary. We don't change it just because it's inconvenient for a small group. I think you'll remember that we went through that for series start and end dates. Arrowverse lists shows that are related to each other in the specific universe, but that doesn't mean they are related for the purposes of the infobox. There are valid arguments that programs that have crossover episodes or characters are related in some way, but that doesn't mean that they are are added to each other's infoboxes, otherwise Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit would be related, as they shared a common character. To be fair, "Related" is probably a poor term to use in the infobox, but no better suggestions have been forthcoming. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

DVD and Blu-ray releases

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
 
DVD regions
 
Blu-ray regions

Blu-ray and DVD regions cannot be combined as they were in this edit. For a start, the regions are not the same. They are vastly different as can be seen in the images to the right. Countries that are in the same DVD region can be in totally different Blu-ray regions. For example, while Australia is in DVD region 4 and Blu-ray region B, Most of South America is in DVD region 4 but Blu-ray region A. You can't therefore list "Region 4/C". For Australia this "should" be Region 4/B while for South America it would be Region 4/A. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that combining the columns is misleading with respect to release dates. The release date for Region 4/C is shown as July 27, 2016 but this is actually only the release date for Region 4 DVDs. No release date for region C exists in the table. Even worse, the Region 4 release date is actually only for DVD releases in Australia from JBHiFi. This is likely completely irrelevant for, say, Chile and Mexico. Similarly, the Region 2/B release date is July 25, 2016 but the source is for UK release and is not necessarily the release date in Australia. Another factor, which I mentioned in an edit summary is MOS:SLASH which says "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how." Replacing this with "and", as suggested by AlexTheWhovian[2] would not be appropriate. As mentioned earlier, there is no Region C release date listed so July 27, 2016 is NOT the release date for regions 4 and C. The table needs to be accurate or not included at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I get all of that. But the dates are identical for them and thus can be combined in that format. That's why I labelled it "Release date for DVD Region 1 & Blu-ray Region A". Not combining based on country or region, but by date. Just label the last column "Release date for DVD Region 4", then. That seems to be the main issue here, the Region 4/C and the slash - or did you not see the latest edit to fix this? -- AlexTW 09:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The dates may not be identical in upcoming seasons which is a problem. You can't change headers to suit the current season. That's why leaving the cells separated as they should be is the best approach. Combining information based on dates is ridiculous when the table shows regions as the column headers. Tables are populated based on row and column headers, not data cells. None of this solves the problems with using dates based on countries. Remember too that these tables are used in multiple articles, not just this one, so they should be consistent for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Then we look at that when dates come out for the upcoming season. At the moment, the only issue here is unnecessary duplication of information. These tables aren't based on countries. Tables are populated based on row and column headers, not data cells. Is that why the release dates for Netflix seasons are listed separately as a start and end date in {{Series overview}}, or are they combined into one cell too, given that tables are often indeed populated based on table cells? -- AlexTW 14:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The reality is that the dates refer to specific countries, not entire regions. It's difficult to get around that but that's the way it is. I have no idea about List of Longmire episodes as I've never heard of it until now. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you back up the statement that the given dates are only for specific countries by giving conflicting examples from other countries? I've never heard of it being situated like that. If the tables were indeed grouped by specific countries, then those would be the table headers; instead, they're grouped by region. -- AlexTW 06:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I've already commented on this above. It's really not rocket science. Amazon is a global company but the UK figures are in UK pounds. JBHiFi is an Australian retail store with 15 stores in New Zealand. While you can probably buy from outside the AU/NZ its pricing is aimed at purely AU/NZ markets. You're not going to find a JBHiFi store in Mexico, which is also in DVD region 4. Nor are you going to find a JBHiFi store in Greenland, which is also in Blu-ray region B. These sites have been used for convenience but that doesn't mean that these are the release dates thoughout the whole region. You should know that it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to the person adding the content to prove that these are the first release dates in the whole region and there is no evidence of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
What I want to know is why this has suddenly become an issue specifically for Supergirl. Wouldn't his be a site-wide thing for all television shows? -- Babspage (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I copied the primary layout for the table from the other Arrowverse shows, where it appears to not have been an issue for years. This is why it should have been discussed at WT:TV or WT:MOSTV. -- AlexTW 02:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Babspage: It only became an issue for this article when Alex expanded the table 5 days ago. Prior to that the table only listed DVD dates. Yes, it is a site-wide issue, which is why I mentioned it at WT:TV.
@AlexTheWhovian: As you're well aware, issues can exist at specific articles for years until somebody notices and fixes the issue. And yes, I agree it should be discussed at a wider venue. We just need to get the ball rolling and this is a start. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You're quite right, those situations do exist. However, when they're updated relatively often and stay that way for years, it becomes less of that sort of situation, and more clear that there isn't really an issue with it, and given that this issue has recently only been raised into a bigger issue by a singular editor, it becomes clearer that it is more of a personal preference and not a massive problem. -- AlexTW 06:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It's actually more that nobody could be bothered checking that the claims are correct. The home media sections are generally only updated once for each season. I wouldn't call that "relatively often". It's actually infreqently. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about the thousands of television series articles that have home media release tables with the columns combined, with releases coming out at any time of the year. Hence, "relatively often". -- AlexTW 08:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Superman and (TV Series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Superman and (TV Series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 2#Superman and (TV Series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There should be a criticism ection. There are political statements in the series, drawing criticism from male fans, because the series makes fun heavily about men being "the weaker sex". Still, the series marks a first, being empowering towards weomen, like Kara not wanting to wear a too-sexy costume baring her midriff (in the series pilot). The discussion could be worth noting. Some examples:

negative: lots of [reviews on metacritic.com: Saemikneu (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those sources. Feel free to write a criticism section based on those. However, be aware that user generated content are not considered reliable and it is unacceptable to use them as sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the whole Danver parents storyline? Dean Cain and Helen Slater - were they written out? If so, why? Wasn't Mr. Danvers storyline supposed to be recurring? Where he went, what happened to him was the most compelling mystery of the show circa the end of Season 2. Cain and Slater are NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the list of characters above - and there is no reference to them in the descriptions of seasons 1 and 2. Is this intentional, revisionist history - or incompetent oversight? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎13.13.157.6 (talk • contribs)

See List of Supergirl characters#Introduced in season one. The second entry is Jeremiah Danvers and explains what happened to him. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supergirl_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1137211816"