Talk:Supergirl (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Supergirl Wikipedia 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). Poroboros (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Article title

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 movingThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Poroboros: No one has to approach the page creator about page moves. Just because you created it doesn't mean you 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 Supergirl (U.S. TV series). "TV series" is insufficient as it does not disambiguate from Supergirl (Japanese TV series). --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wynn Schott

Rather than continue to get into an 'edit war' over the issue, I figured I'd start a discussion here as it concerns the way in which Jeremy Jordan's role as Wynn Schott is mentioned in the article. Even though the article(s) announcing Jordan's casting refer to him as a guest star, all other information points to his role being, at the very least, a recurring one. Not only was the role of Wynn originally meant to be that of a series regular, audition sides point to him having a very significant part to play in the series as it relates to Kara, not only as her co-worker at CatCo and her neighbor who has a crush on her, but also as a confidant for her as she begins her superheroine journey, to the point that he's even responsible for making her costume.

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)

Zor-el

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)

Show classification

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)

Leak

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. Alex|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 AlexTheWhovian commented on regarding this on his talk page saying, I see the point in not needing the content for the leak of a single episode that's not overly news-worthy. The Flash and Supergirl were only one episode; Doctor Who and Game of Thrones were almost half of their respective seasons, hence the inclusion of the leaks on their respective pages. I changed my initial support for mentioning about the leakage because I agree with his point. As it's only single episode it won't have a 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)

Lois and Clark filming location

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)

Fan site references

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)

Recurring character additions

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)

Kal-El / Superman

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)

Supergirl's age

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)

Ratings

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 WP:TVRECEPTION. Readers may not understand much of the production information, or what an executive producer is, and yet it's included. Besides, there's a link to Nielsen ratings in the header row for further understanding for what "Rating/share" is. This is all valid information related to the series. The articles should have split season pages by the time that it is necessary to split the ratings table, much like Agent Carter (season 1) (noted, a Good Article) and it's ratings table. You speak of duplication - I'm not seeing DVR ratings or shares in the episode table. Alex|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 other pages doing it doesn't make it right. The average reader looks for total viewers. They shouldn't have to go to another page just to try and understand "shares" and percentages of stuff, only to come back to this page and try to make heads or tails of the information 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)

@Kiraroshi1976: It did become an edit war, and when warned, the editor warring decided to simply revert it. When it comes to articles such as these, it's the "experienced" editor's way or the highway. Apologies for that. Your work was well done, and I'm sure it'll be reinstated in the future. Alex|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)

Some people understand it Aussie, most do not. The difference is that I'm not calling for the deletion of the article on ratings information because people don't understand it. I'm saying that including data on a metric that the majority of readers do not get is not appropriate. It's indiscriminate information. Industry leaders like it, yes, but if you have to constantly send people to other pages just to understand a simple figure then it's not doing any service to the reader to know about it. Someone reading about particle physics and seeing "Baryons", and then subsequently going to that page would be appropriate. They are directly linked. Reading about the reception of a show and trying to figure out the difference between "Total viewers" and "point/shares" (that are only relevant to industry leaders) isn't the same comparison.

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)

Did they broadcast "livewire"?

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. Alex|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. Alex|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)

Character biographies

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. Alex|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)

Removal of Plot Summaries

I am creating this talk page thread to inform everyone that some of the plot summary content in this article are copyright violations (see this comparison with this external source). There is an IP that keeps adding it back (this person has been reported at AIV); there is still more copyrighted content in the article - I'm going to remove it now. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Silver Banshee

See also: WP:CRYSTAL

I removed the words "Silver Banshee" from the character's name in Recurring characters section. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we need to wait until she is called Silver Banshee in the series before we start calling her that. The citation states that she will become Silver Banshee, but she doesn't start off as Silver Banshee. I kept the "Toyman" in Winslow Schott Sr.'s name because the citations seem to indicate that he's already Toyman in this universe.

In order to provide an analogy for those unfamiliar with the Wikipedia guidelines, this situation is not dissimilar from the List of Gotham characters. In that article, we can't call Tabitha Galavan "Tigress" because she hasn't been called that in the series. However, we can call Francis Dulmacher "the Dollmaker" because he is called Dollmaker in the series from the very beginning. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Boots

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

Column widths

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 Talk:Agent Carter (TV series)/Archive 1#Episode table column widths. The same issue was also recently discussed at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Scream Queens episode table sizing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:AlexTheWhovian) I've reverted this edit at 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. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move that may affect this article

There is a move discussion at Talk:Supergirl (Japanese TV series) that may affect this article. Please have your say. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ANMTV

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. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Episode plots

Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot lengths are all fine (Pilot is 211 words, but that's not overly detailed at all). Alex|The|Whovian 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that this week's plot is pretty long, especially given the fact that this series has separate articles for every episode, which is fine but would lead me to think that the plot summary in the main article could be a little shorter. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Episodes to new article

The episodes portion is getting quite lengthy. I suggest moving it to a 'List of Supergirl episodes' or 'Supergirl (season 1)' type. Any suggestions? -- S ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Usually only done after completion of first season. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"List of Supergirl episodes" should only be created at least once there's a table for a second season, and "Supergirl (season 1)" should only be created if there's enough casting information, production, development, etc. Realistically, many of the summaries on the episode table should be shortened. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. I figured since the plot summaries are getting lengthy it was time - especially since there are 20 episodes ordered. Considering each episode appears to already have an article, I think it's appropriate to trim them down on the main page don't you think? -- S ^talk/_contribs 03:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely is. Even if it were split to a Season 1 page, they would still need to be shortened. I've added a tag to the section, and if time permits, I'll help shorten them myself later on. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you. I will do my best to help as well. -- S ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as I already commented earlier in the page, especially in a show like this where every episode has it's own article, the summaries on the main page should definitely be 1-3 liners. Also, I don't think the original intent of episode summaries was to give a play by play of the entire episode, or to be a spoiler; rather to be a short intro, so to speak, of what happened. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is meant to describe the episode in its entirety, just simply in a length not as long as what is currently displayed. We do not filter against spoilers or episode endings per WP:SPOILER. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There should not be a season article until more than one season is confirmed, and even then I doubt it will be appropriate given the state of this article. The list of episodes page shouldn't be split off until there is a table for a second season. I suggest that if someone feels like the table is too long, they shorten the summaries to a more user-friendly length. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition to what Alex has pointed said, the episode summaries are supposed to be 100-200 words, not 1-3 lines. The number of lines varies according to screen resolution, the number of words does not. Episode two's summary is right on the limit at 200 words, which is just under 7 lines at 1280px. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I just added the summary for episode 15. no need for 200 words. short, sweet, and to the point. I don't see why the rest of the episode summaries can't be the same. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• "When a hacker gets the information from a cheating website" - What information?
• "destroys all of National City's infrastructure" - How? Everything? Roads, media, water, sewage etc? Did the hacker physically destroy it or just shut it down? This really needs clarification.
• "The hacker is revealed to be Indigo" - Who is Indigo? Yes there's a link to the comics version, but who or what is Indigo in the TV version?
• "refuses to return to the DEO" - When did she leave?

Summaries need to adequately summarise the episode for all readers, not just for the fans of the TV series, and in this case some tangentially related comic books that aren't mentioned in the TV series at all. That's why we need up to 200 words. 54 just doesn't cut it. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The summaries are not to replace watching the actual episode. According to you, there should probably be a word for word dictation of the entire episode on the page. I don't think that was the intent of the creators of Wikipedia. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your belief. However, episode summaries are meant to list the events of the entire episode, just simply not in such an extremely detailed manner. Take a read of WP:TVPLOT for more information. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You say "the summaries are not to replace watching the actual episode", but that is not true. We add plot summaries to our articles, be they about films, books, or even television series, to add context for all the real world information (casting, production, release, reception, etc.) we have on the subject. Therefore, someone should be able to read this article having never watched the series and still be able to understand everything. No, the summaries shouldn't be a play-by-play of the episode's events, or include lines of dialogue or irrelevant jokes, but they do need to be more substantial than 50 words so that a reader who hasn't seen the episode can still know what happened. And really, 100-200 words isn't that much, in fact you really should struggle sometimes to fit the events of a 45 minute episode under a limit of 200 words. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"According to you, there should probably be a word for word dictation of the entire episode on the page." - No, I never said or implied that, and it would be impossible to do in 200 words.

"I don't think that was the intent of the creators of Wikipedia." - I don't think the creator of Wikipedia really thought about it much, if at all. He was too busy with other stuff. Plot summary lengths were decided by the editors using Wikipedia. We should neither be exceptionally brief or overly detailed when writing plot summaries. The main points should be covered, without sacrificing context. That's why we specify 100-200 words, not 0-200. It's not really possible to write a decent summary in less than 100 words, without sacrificing context. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever dude. Just chill. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the length of the episode descripitions are quite fine. I wonder why some people seem to be obliged always to find anything "too long" or "too detailed". These episode descriptions are not long enough to "replace watching the actual episode". For that they would have to be much more detailed. I think they are all right the way they are now. And, Jdavi333, your last comment is not exactly very helpful.--Maxl (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Worlds Finest?

Episode 118 is currently titled "Worlds Finest". Grammatically, there has to be an apostrophe somewhere. I'd guess that since it's about Flash crossing over from a parallel world, that "Worlds" is plural. So in that case it'd be "Worlds' Finest". Leaving it out completely would be just illiterate. I know we have to follow the official source, so I hope that the current source (a press release) is just a typo. 202.81.249.219 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do. If it's titled "Worlds Finest", then it's "Worlds Finest". Discussing it won't change this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we unilaterally change it. The only source we have now that the title is "Worlds Finest" is one press release. When it airs there will be more sources that can be used to confirm or hopefully correct it. 202.81.248.227 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That's the title. The sources already exist, and despite maybe being grammatically incorrect, it is the title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

All I said was that we should check the damn thing after it's broadcast, since no title is firm until then. Since it is clearly wrong maybe someone at CBS will fix it before then. 202.81.248.227 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not "clearly wrong". It is "Worlds Finest". It's right. It does not need to conform to grammatical laws. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And that's all I said, it is wrong grammatically. I really don't know why you need to repeatedly hector me about this. Is it uncouth to suggest we confirm it after broadcast? And by the way, I noticed on the article page that the title is written "World's Finest" in at least one place. I'll leave it to you to make it "right". 202.81.248.227 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is we don't need to check after its broadcast. The plethora of sources available now aren't going to change after the episode airs. That's what we're getting at. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

cancelled

http://www.inquisitr.com/2927868/supergirl-canceled-cbs-leaves-supergirl-off-renewal-list-creates-rumors-about-cancellation/

Majinsnake (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Rumours and nothing else there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Cast list accessibility

I just noticed there's a problem with the cast list. Each character name is in a separate <ul>...</ul> list, and the descriptions are outside those. Screen readers can't really make much sense of this. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, hadn't really thought about this. If this is an issue for screen readers, then this could be applied to a multitude of cast lists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure how to fix this while preserving the visual breaks there for readability. In this case, wouldn't it be possible to just have a listing of the main cast in the main article, since the character list article has the same descriptions anyway? nyuszika7h (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this really a problem? Reading MOS:ACCESS#Block elements I don't see the issue. There has been a WP:LISTGAP problem in other character lists, but BG19bot has been fixing those. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the character/actor names before the descriptions are using normal bullets rather than ; (using that would also make it bold unless explicitly styled), so rather than being a proper definition list, it alternates between a single-item list, single-item definition list, single-item list, and so on. It can still be read like lists suffering from WP:LISTGAP, but with confusing announcements about the start/end of lists. I'll try and see how exactly it's read by JAWS, for example. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that WP:LISTGAP explicitly mentions this case: "Likewise, do not switch between list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) in one list, unless embedding lists starting at the highest level." – nyuszika7h (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Alex Danvers

An anonymous editor added Alex's full first name but it was removed by another editor. Just in case it's raised in the future I thought it prudent to cite it here, rather than lose it in the article's edit history. These things have a habit of popping up long after the initial event and by then, people have a hard time finding the original mention:

• Alexandra "Alex" Danvers

Other than that, this really requires no further discussion at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Hopefully a script will turn up--that would pretty much end the debate.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Aussie, no one is denying what her full name is. The point is that we don't list characters by their "full" name in the show, but by the credited name on the show. And she is credited as "Alex Danvers", not "Alexandra Danvers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that anyone was denying it. I was simply archiving the reference here in case it's needed sometime in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and Bignole: I'm wondering, where is she credited as Alex Danvers? Futon lists her as Alexandra "Alex" Danvers. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

All the original press releases. "Alexandra" was developed later. The Futon Critic is merely reflecting in-universe information, not actual press releases. CBS's own description: Here, and how they actually credit them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the links. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Production is not the same as License

In section 4. 3 Filming, it states the following: "Each episode cost approximately $3 million dollars to produce, which included one of the highest license fees ever for a first year show."

This is incorrect. The article that this line cites - https://www.thewrap.com/supergirl-renewal-drama-talks-center-on-possible-jump-to-cw-budget-cuts-exclusive/ - states this: "The roughly $3 million per-episode price tag CBS pays to broadcast “Supergirl” — one of the highest license fees ever for a freshman show"

So the claim that Supergirl cost $3 million to produce is wrong. The $3 million that The Wrap speaks of is just license fees CBS pays to broadcast and has nothing to do with production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.174.12 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

This one probably qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}, but I think the old one was much better than such a plain logo. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. For some unknown reason, all of the Arrowverse series (other than Constantine) seem to use a plain logo rather than the regular title card that almost every other television series uses. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove CBS Television Studios from the production companies list

This is incorrect. Nothing in the source indicates this. In fact, it states the opposite:

Being based on a DC property, if it moves to the CW, Supergirl would remain solely owned by WBTV and not a co-production with CBS TV Studios as the original CW series automatically become.

Ttll213 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, that's what I read. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I read it wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

CBS Studios may not be producing the show going forward, but some mention should probably be made of the fact that the company did produce it during its first season.DigificWriter (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

CBS Studios never produced this series to begin with. Supergirl has always been a Warner Bros owned series. I think you're confusing the fact that The CW is a network owned by CBS and Warner Bros. The CW has its fair share of shows that are fully owned by CBS, and shows that are owned by Warner Bros. For example Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tommorow, Supergirl are Warner Bros owned, while say Jane the Virgin, Reign, Crazy Ex Girlfriend are CBS owned. 82.9.222.193 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Cast section

Just noting that "Cast" and "Cast and characters" are both correct per WP:TVCAST, but I also think "Cast and characters" is better. Either way, it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily so AussieLegend's revert was correct. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 additions

I was wondering why the new cast additions (Hoechlin, etc.) haven't been added to this page yet? Jester66 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This page only includes main cast members. All significant guest stars, including Hoechlin, are listed at List of Supergirl characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wentworth Miller and John Barrowman appearing on Supergirl season 2?

I was wondering if the new contracts of Wentworth Miller and John Barrowman being on the other Berlanti shows, also include appearing on Supergirl? I know Matt Webb Mitovich said in the comments of this link that this contract involves all the Berlanti shows including Supergirl, so does that mean both will be on Supergirl as well? http://tvline.com/2016/07/08/arrow-john-barrowman-series-regular-flash-legends-of-tomorrow/ Jester66 (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't know exactly how this is going to work yet. When we do, the appropriate pages will be updated accordingly. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 Production dates

I discovered this link stating the dates Supergirl will be filming season 2, there's also another one from the Directors Guild of Canada don't know which one should be used? Jester66 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Supergirl joins Arrowverse

...or will she, even after moving to the CW? THR says, "And now that Supergirl is on the same network as Arrow, The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow, and all four shows will cross over in one big event this fall, Supergirl will become incorporated into the so-called "Flarrowverse" this season." Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the plan and the crossover will probably help with that. But for the first 7-8 episodes or so of the second season the show will still be on an alternate earth. If you want to add anything about this, which I think is fine, just do it with wording along the lines of it "being the plan" and not saying it definitively, because things can still change and we don't actually know how this will happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Found this saying Supergirl will in fact be joining the Arrowverse permanently, rather interesting if this will be reported elsewhere. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/08/08/supergirl-merges-with-cw-earth-one-in-flashpoint-and-other-dc-tv-rumours/ Jester66 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cast list formatting

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#MOS:LISTGAP question, the formatting of the cast list in this article has accessibility issues. I have re-formatted the cast list to eliminate the accessibility issues per the discussion linked above. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Episodes split?

Didn't want to do it before discussing, but since the first season had 20 episodes, the second is scheduled to have 22, and we have a table for the first episode of season 2, I think it would be okay to split them off at this time, given WP:SIZE and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and do it myself. The split is done, and the move has been attributed on both talk pages. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Superlative

With Season 4, Supergirl became the longest-running English-language superhero series focusing on a female protagonist (following Bionic Woman and Wonder Woman, both of which ended at 3 seasons). Not sure where this could go in the article but I think it's worth mentioning and it's a record that'll likely stand for a while as the only series in line is Batwoman which starts this fall and it would have to run for more seasons than Supergirl eventually does. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)