Talk:Constantine (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lucy Griffiths

Editors seem to have a polarizing view on whether or not actress Lucy Griffiths should receive a main cast billing, given that she was credited as such in the pilot episode. I personally believe that Griffiths should remain listed in the series regular category and in the information box, with the note of her one episode credit, out of impartiality. If the network deemed her worthy of series regular status for one episode, I believe this article should reflect that. Please voice your opinion on this matter. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of being credited as a main, she was only in one episode, which for all intents and purposes, was a "test" episode (the pilot). If this show were to have multiple seasons, would you still list her as a main character? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

With an asterisk, yes. But that's only my opinion. Thank you for yours, LLArrow (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps we give it a couple episodes to see if she returns, but if she does not (or if we have some other source which states she is not returning) I would definitely take her out of the Infobox.Caidh (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Helmet of Doctor Fate

Pretty sure they showed that in episode 1, the heirloom of the father of Liv Aberdeen. The phrase Doctor Fate was not used though, Constantine referred to the helmet owner by name, but it was recognizable. Should make mention of this, him being one of the magic big-wigs (much like Spectre) and it being a big sorta of Justice Society-tier crossover.

Cool as Jim Corrigan showing up here is, I find it a bit confusing, since he was around in the 40s and Constantine did not show up until the 80s. Then again, Crisis on Infinite Earths probably sandwiched stuff a bit. --Ranze (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it appears you are under the assumption that Wikipedia is a fansite, when it is not. The above info is not informative to anyone, but comic book readers, therefore it does not belong in the article. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Saint of Last Resorts, Part 1"

Which title do you prefer, "The Saint of Last Resorts" or "The Saint of Last Resorts, Part 1"? AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Part 1" is not part of episode 8's title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, episode 9's title is "The Saint of Last Resorts: Part 2", not "The Saint of Last Resorts, Part 2". Colon, not a comma. Check source. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not what we prefer, it's the titles are, and referenced as. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Replace long episode summaries with short episode summaries.

Those long episode summaries need to be replaced with short episode summaries. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

By all means replace them, in your own words. The answer is not blanking entire summaries. That is the sloven way out. Edit the existing summaries or wait for another editor to do so. We are not permitted to copy/paste summaries from other sites, it must be original text. Your recent edits fall under the grounds of vandalism; please cease or you may be blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LLArrow. However, the summaries that you have replaced them with are now on the other end of the extreme scale, and are too short. Take a look at the policy article of what to remove from long summaries. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with LLArrow. The summaries before were perfectly fine, maybe just in need of some editing. The current ones are terrible and way too short. - 187.20.71.73 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

From the edit summaries it seems to me that the editor intentionally made ridiculous plot summaries because they didn't like what others were saying to them. I think the plot summaries should be reverted to their previous state, and just trimmed down to a more reasonable size from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think 8 lines at most is fine for a summary, a little more if the episode is plot heavy. Any more is a bit excessive. I try and aim for 8 lines when writing summaries and people generally haven't had a problem with that. Certainly I've seen a dozen popular show pages that go way over 10 lines for some summaries.86.15.195.205 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Episode summaries should be a MAX 200 words when used in this format. IP 86.15, that should be your guideline, not 8 lines (unless that magically gets you under the 200 word limit). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a guideline that recommends 100-200 words, 350 max for complex storylines. Though there's nothing set in stone. It states it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary. Also there's no rule on that page against long summaries, it comes down to personal opinion more than anything, it basically says long summaries are allowed but not excessively long.86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

IP 86.15, that is referring more towards if you create an article about the episode, where the plot can be fleshed out more. If we are just keeping summaries in the episode table, the WP:TV project suggests the 200 limit be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect that, but a lot does come down to opinion. Certainly I've seen summaries such as The Walking Dead Season 4-5 for example that go way over that without objection, Person of Interest, Once Upon a Time, 24 live another day among many many others have some overly long summaries without much in the way of objections from people. Most of these pages have dedicated editors who update with summaries and such. It's better to have a decent summary than a blank page for that episode. Certainly if I hadn't bothered writing for Falling Skies Season 4 for example there would be nothing there. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because other stuff exists, does not mean it is correct. Users should be following this guideline, and just because users have not come forth about those lengths does not mean they are not a problem.. So if there are wordy summaries out there, those articles are in the wrong, not the ones working correctly within the 200 limit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a rule, it's a suggestion, so they technically aren't doing anything wrong? 86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Question

Why were my updates about the show's status removed? NBC has announced they will not be renewing Constantine, but will instead be possibly shopping it to Syfy and renaming it "Hellblazer". I provided links for both, so I'm a bit confused as to why they were both removed?

http://screenrant.com/constantine-moving-to-syfy-hellblazer/ http://www.hngn.com/articles/67528/20150207/constantine-jumping-ship-to-syfy-being-renamed-hellblazer.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/31622/20150208/nbc-planning-to-put-constantine-on-the-syfy-channel-rename-the-show-to-its-original-name-hellblazer.htm http://comicbook.com/2015/02/07/constantine-on-the-move-nbc-looking-for-a-new-home-for-cult-hit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.255.231 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

All the sources listed are not verifiable in nature. Please also remember to sign your comments on Talk pages. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not add rumours or unverified reports. This may well be true, but we have to wait for some official confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Purchase by SyFy Channel and rebranding

It has been rumored that the show might be moved to the SyFy Channel and rebranded as Hellblazer. While Wiki is supposed to be objective and impartial, I was wondering if it made sense to include this rumor into the article itself. Link to rumor Conchaga (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a rumour. Wikipedia doesn't report rumours. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It was also shot down by Syfy a while back, see here. https://twitter.com/Syfy/status/566345640532512769 I would say such a pickup is the longest of longshots at this point, even with Helix and 12 Monkeys failing. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

DVR millions

Can someone find the numbers for the DVR viewership in millions?? I mean, its odd that there are only the viewer number for the first episode.The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere is reporting the numbers sadly. Typically places will only report the top 25 best performing shows in the 18-49 and viewers. The 18-49 rating is more important to broadcast networks anyway(Though CBS likes the 25-54 too..) renewal is based on how well it does in the 18-49. The same mostly applies to cable too. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Gorman's prediction

It is (for now) not a bad idea to include the statement that Gorman has predicted that the show will not be renewed, along with his reasoning. It goes against WP:BALL to say that his prediction is a definite and confirmed fact. It also goes against WP:3RR to revert three editors five times. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not indulge speculation. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BALL says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." We're not allowed to incorporate our own speculation, but we can include professional speculation. Gorman is a writer in the relevant field. We are not allowed to present his prediction as anything more than his prediction, but it could be included. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion: We still should not indulge the speculation of the matter, especially when we know we are going to get a concrete decision either way in two months time. If the fate really was up in the air about the show, then maybe this could be used. But we know we and the producers are getting an answer from NBC, so why add one person on the internet's opinion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information follows discussion, in the edit just above it, regarding the future cancellation or renewal of the show and is therefore relevant to the page. As stated by Ian.thomson, speculation by a reliable, expert source is allowable per WP:BALL In my defense regarding 3RR, I attempted a couple of times to change what I wrote when I reverted other editors and eventually even conceded to Ian's edit of what I wrote. I'm obviously not going to just give up on a subject that I feel provides informational value to the page.Pjstar35 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not indulge in speculation. LLArrow (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I just attempted to post a similar thing, not knowing about this discussion, and had it undone as well. LLArrow is wrong, Wikipedia does allow speculation or else they wouldn't have said so in their Crystal Ball documentation. I vote for inclusion.AceVPD (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Approve Inclusion: We can't start making up our own rules so since Wikiepedia says in their WP:BALL that it's allowed then it needs to be allowed. Status Quo is now 4-2 in favor of inclusion by my math from this discussion alone.FinkleEinhorn (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and see that consensus is not a vote. 4 to 2 means nothing. Back to the topic at hand, as I stated above, if we had no idea when the decision regarding this would be made, then this might be useful. But we do. We know the producers and then the general public will get a decision in May. So there is really no need for the speculation as to which way the outcome will be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe per WP:CONSENSUS that it may be time for Adiministrative Intervention since Favre1fan93's behavior, that being a refusal to consider anyone else's ideas and the rules set forth by Wikipedia in their crystal ball allowing this information, is clearly interfering with the consensus process. Also per WP:CONSENSUS an Administrator can "make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy" which really seems to be the issue here.FinkleEinhorn (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 is in the absolute right. Speculation is not permitted on Wikipedia. LLArrow (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly time for an admin's intervention. I know perfectly well what WP:CONSENSUS states and right now there is not enough meaningful arguments for its inclusion. I (and LLArrow) know what WP:CBALL states, but the context in which this info is intended to be used is not why that provision exists in that guideline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion: I agree with Favre1fan93 and LLArrow. The editors in question that continue to add this information to the article seem to continuously miss why and how this particular slice of information contribute and give meaning to the article. It has already been stated that there will be a decision made about the series in May. Gorman has stated that the series may be cancelled. I'm not seeing and sourced critics on Wikipedia stating that the series may be renewed. The solid information gives us a solid understanding. Giving speculation which basically ignores this is counter-productive. Besides, it's one quote from one unknown author from one critics' site - why does this particular person and quote get mention above all others? Often Wikipedia policies can clash, one stating that speculation isn't allowed, another stating that speculation from expert sources may be allowed. It's up to you, the editor, to determine which is the correct path to follow. Personally, if I were you, I would follow the word of those who have been editing Wikipedia for far longer than you, who more than likely know more about the site and policies about you. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you and these other keyboard cowboys, Bill Gorman is absolutely not an "unknown author" as you put it. Bill Gorman is a well known, highly respected, expert in his field. TV By The Numbers is also not a "critics' site" as you put it. They do not make criticism of shows. They simply use hard data, ratings, past historical information, and other analytics to make speculation, with relative accuracy I might add, as to the possibility of renewal or cancellation of TV shows. It is absolutely no different than the way that the weatherman predicts or speculates what the weather is going to be. Should all of these sites that post weather forecasts stop doing so because we'll find out the temperature on that day anyway so there's no point in giving us their speculation of what the weather will be like? By your twisted logic I'm sure the answer to that would be yes. However, we accept the weatherman speculation of what the weather is going to be like because they use data, both current and historical, to make their speculations, with arguably less accuracy than Bill Gorman's. You may have been editing Wikipedia longer than me but to use your own words .....Personally, if I were you, I would follow the word of those who have been in the business of analytics for far longer than you, who more than likely know more about the subject at hand than you could possibly even pretend to have knowledge of. If you are going to spout off about a subject, you should as least have an idea of what you're talking about. Your nonsensical ramblings are simply a waste of space as is your existence on this planet.... and just so we're clear, that's not a personal attack, it's just a speculation. Have a great day and on a side note please, for the love of all that is good, stop giving Doctor Who fans a bad name! Pjstar35 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Gorman may be a professional, but he isn't connected to NBC nor the show directly. Thus, his unsolicited opinion about the cancellation of the show is not reliable to include. If we wanted his professional opinion on the show in general, then yes, but in this case the speculation is just that. NBC has until May to make a decision, and if they haven't made one yet, it probably means they are still mulling over the idea and seeing that pilots they have on the block before committing one way or the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

When doing a quick look up on the definition of the word opinion one will find that opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Bill Gorman's speculations are indeed based on fact and knowledge and therefore cannot correctly be called opinion. NBC has indeed already made their decision on the show's future by choosing to not order a back 9 episodes. There is no "mulling over the idea and seeing what pilots they have on the block before committing one way or the other." It's the closed-minded people such as yourself that make Wikipedia so bad that even big universities do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source in their college essays and term papers. When you pick and choose what YOU think should be on Wikipedia, you diminish the value of a site like this as a reliable, accurate, source for anything. Wikipedia might as well just be seen as another tabloid style website .... heck, even tabloids have "sources". Pjstar35 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also smell a set of socks. I find it difficult to believe that we have 3 brand new editors to Wikipedia that magically created accounts just when they wanted to voice an opinion in favor of this inclusion. Maybe it's bad faith, but my gut says that I'm spot on with this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I too smell some sock stench in the area. Back to this though, TV by the Numbers always creates "predictions" (their cancelation bear) for all the shows currently airing during the renewal season. That begs to question, what makes this prediction so special against all the other NBC shows? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It was absolutely relevant to the paragraph just above it and I'm sure you would have seen that if you had actually taken the time to read what was written rather than jumping on this misguided bandwagon. I would be more than happy to post the speculations for the other NBC shows on their relevant pages if you feel that there is an inequality here. I'm clearly playing favoritism for this one NBC show in particular. No other possible explanation makes sense right?Pjstar35 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

But that's the point: this info wouldn't fly on any other NBC article, so this one is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The only reason it "wouldn't fly" is because the same close-minded individuals involved in this matter are the ones that would complain on a different NBC article. Your argument is completely invalid, as I expected before I read it anyhow.Pjstar35 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Filing an SPI now. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that these false accusations have been handled, I would like to get back to the topic here. There's seems to be 2 main concerns here. The first being speculation, which is allowable per WP:BALL as pointed out by myself and Ian in his original post. It's Wikipedia's rules regardless of whether LLArrow or Favre1fan93 like it. They can't just bend the rules to fit their argument. The 2nd concern seems to be that I was singling out one person's speculations, that being Bill Gorman's. Therefore, today I added another edit citing multiple news sources that have all said the same thing, as to please those who didn't like that I was only posting one professionals speculations. I'm trying to work with people here to come up with something agreeable by not singling out one source but LLArrow then undid this edit, once again saying speculation isn't allowed. He is wrong and it's clear he's wrong because WP:BALL says he's wrong. However, if I revert this undoing (more than 3 times) I'm the one that could be punished for it even though he's wrong. There is clearly something wrong with this process. WP: BALL proves he's wrong, it's not rocket science to see that.Pjstar35 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see we are finally working together to make some progress in improving the quality of Wikipedia. Thanks for all of your cooperation.Pjstar35 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)