Talk:Batwoman (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Batwoman (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

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

United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Television: Arrowverse Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Arrowverse task force (assessed as Low-importance). Comics: DC Comics / Batman Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Batman work group.

Text and/or other creative content from Batwoman (TV series) was copied or moved into Pilot (Batwoman). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I was wondering where to put the info, in lead or another section, [1] Govvy (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's later on, but it seemed such a big issue, thought it should also be noted in lead. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should brief so, not the lead section. I recommend putting it under the Casting subsection where it goes into details about Ruby Rose's exit. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you specifically talking about adding about her Instagram post? If so, I don't think that's necessary because she is saying basically the same sentiments that she did in her official statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in instagram, I am just saying that the lead character leaving the show, that to me should be noted in lead. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the lead. Spanneraol (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my question as I did, because you linked to an article mentioning Rose's subsequent Instagram statement. As Spanneraol said, her exit is mentioned both in the lead (very end), and in the Casting section, so if you had missed that, that is why I wanted to know if you wanted to add additional info from the Instagram statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nm, after a cache reload it seems it's on lead, Govvy (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, why do you insist on keeping idle speculation, when even one of the "sources" states that it was printing speculation?136.49.157.251 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today there was some news of a new character being cast to replace Batwoman on the show. The issue is that the only source for that article is a now-deleted screenshot from Reddit, ostensibly showing the casting call post but offering no other evidence it's true. All other sources covering this story now seem to be using this Decider article as their basis. Given that the foundation for this news is shaky at best, should this information be included in the article right now? Caivu (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did think twice before adding it to the article for this reason, but felt on balance that as it is being widely reported (and I was careful to word the addition in that way, not stating definitively that it will be the case) by reliable sources it could be included. Happy to go with consensus. U-Mos (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caivu, A reliable source says so: we shouldn't vet what they say and decide that we think it's not reliable now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, my issue is this passage from WP:FRUIT: "Anyone on Wikipedia must be able to check that the information comes from a reliable source. If the information found on a reliable source traces back to, is attributed to, or re-printed from an unreliable source then the information did not come from a reliable source, but originated from an unreliable source." Isn't that what's happening here? Caivu (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caivu, If *Deadline Hollywood* ends up publishing lots of garbage that turns out to be untrue, then it's an unreliable source. No source is perfect. As pointed out elsewhere, if you are really concerned about misinformation (which is fair), then just put "Deadline Hollywood reported that..." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, how is this not the case here: "If the information found on a reliable source traces back to... an unreliable source then the information did not come from a reliable source, but originated from an unreliable source." Their information about this "traces back" to an unreliable source. So it shouldn't be included at all, yes? Why should there be a "Deadline reported" qualifier for that? Caivu (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caivu, I am not qualified to vet a casting call as I don't know how they are typically worded, when they are released, what formatting can usually be expected but *Deadline Hollywood* is. I also don't have anonymous inside sources who could verify their veracity but *Deadline Hollywood* does. I don't have an editorial board but *Deadline Hollywood* does. I don't know why we're second-guessing them on this teen drama casting issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just hope that Deadline.com didn't border on WP:FRUIT. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the "it was reported that..." wording mitigates that. It was reported; that's a fact. If it turns out to be incorrect somehow, this reporting will still be notable. Plus, Deadline claim sources have confirmed the situation to them, which adds a lot of validity. U-Mos (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, do we need the new big paragraph about what various people in the industry think about this? Does that really matter? Caivu (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit much, and belongs in the reception section rather than casting. U-Mos (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having the critical commentary/analysis is helpful. Since there isn't much else in terms of that type of analysis, having it with the casting info is the best at this time. Should more analysis of any kind be added, then a new subsection in the reception section could probably be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to take up literally half the casting section, though? I'm still not convinced what use it is in the first place, but surely it can at least be trimmed. Caivu (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at moving this and part of the marketing section to critical response, as that's what it is, and it makes a useful start at fleshing out an underdeveloped section. Critical response is probably the most interesting thing about this show in the wake of Rose's exit, so it's good to encourage other editors to build upon it. Happy to discuss further. U-Mos (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you moved isn't critical response though, in the traditional sense. That is generally defined as reception based on reviews of the episodes themselves. So Brojam was correct in reverting the move. As I, and Brojam, said, it's still okay to keep the info where it is, but what you were looking for U-Mos, was to create something like an "Analysis" section. It would have to be it's own, new thing, not adding into the existing sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time, but for anyone who wants to add comments from the showrunner [2] [3]. - Brojam (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brojam, ditto. Though I do have time, I'm not sure how to paraphrase the content. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are a lot of sources that say that Ryan Wilder is "A girl who would steal milk for an alley cat", such as Yahoo, Hollywood Reporter, Denofgeek, News Herald, and so on. Also, there are a lot of sources that say that Ryan Wilder is "A girl who would steal milk from an alley cat", such as Yahoo, Fox News, Cosmic Book, EW, Daily Mail, Heroic Hollywood, and so on. Who is right? IKhitron (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced any of this news isn't at least exaggerated if not outright untrue, but the supposed casting call says "for an alley cat". Caivu (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And actually, I would question it using WP:FRUIT, because all the reliable sources use Reddit as their source. IKhitron (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a rule of thumb, for entertainment news if you have to compare THR with unreliable/banned sources like Fox News, Daily Mail, Cosmic Book; then I'd say go with THR. EW is inconsistent and Yahoo just copies from other sources. That said, I don't believe we need to mention the alley cat part in the article. — Starforce¹³ 17:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant all the new name issue, not just a cat. IKhitron (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, what's with the page locked over some dispute? I've read the RPP request, and it seems to just be an IP adding MoS-defying content, which YoungForever correctly reverted and another editor supported this reversion. There was no heated dispute in the article, nor has there been a discussion or any further resistance from the IP, so there seems to be no issue at the moment. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for transparencies sake, the content in question was previously discussed on this talk in this discussion. WP:UGC was brought up in that discussion as well, because that guideline applies here - we can't just add user scores from aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes as the recent IP from the RPP request was doing. If there's any notability in it, reliable sources will create articles regarding the user scores for the series, which would allow us to put that commentary into the article (which now would be Batwoman (season 1)#Critical response after the split). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But, there aren't any reliable sources that have articles that talk about the Rotten Tomatoes user scores for now. We can't just add user scores based on just Rotten Tomatoes itself. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to protect it at all until you guys started carrying on an argument at RFPP. Since you're convinced the protection is not necessary, I'll unprotect. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YoungForever you should remove a person that has left a show if it has been announced in the news which it has like in The New York Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.35 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:TVCAST which states: the cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list.. We do not remove cast members just because they left the series. Also, New York Post is not a reliable source because it is a tabloid newspaper, per WP:RSP. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i will put Ruby Rose back also after Ruby Rose can i put Javicia Leslie YoungForever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.21.198.35|70.21.198.35(talk) 00:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC) :::Please stop with your disruptive editing, you have been reverted by several different editors already. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC):: Done[reply]

I found the titles of 2 new episodes on IMDB, but i do not know how to add it. Should i add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.35 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IMDB, IMDb is not a reliable source. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Fandom a reliabe source YoungForever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.35 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom is most definitely not a reliable source as it is a user-based website. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now i am confused what is supposed to be a reliabe source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.35 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]