Talk:Gotham (TV series)/Archive 1

Cast order

Is there any organization behind this? Neither the actors or characters appear to be alphabetized. I think it would be good to do it on the basis of common traits. Ranze (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A cast order isn't really necessary at this point. Once the series premieres the list will be organized to reflect the order in which the actors are billed in the opening credits. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisit

Per Template:Infobox television: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." so i redid the infobox to have the pilot cast as credited and then the new regulars in credit order afterwards. I suppose there can be other interpretations since they were all in the cast from the start, just stars and guest stars. I kept the cast list in the currently credited order. We do not have to put the cast list to match the template, but there should probably be some logic, presuming that other new cast members may be added and others removed in the future. Any thoughts/comments?AbramTerger (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

per WP:TVCAST, I have redordered the cast list and recurring list.AbramTerger (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Dini and Smith

Shouldn't there be some mention of how this show was originally announced to center on Commissioner Gordon, but after Paul Dini and Kevin Smith brainstormed an idea for a "young Bruce Wayne" show on the latter's podcast, the show was announced to have changed and now resembled their idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.84 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Series Regulars

@DigificWriter:I have put the series regulars as listed in the pilot. There was a report about several becoming regulars, but the report is mistaken that they were all Guest stars in the pilot, only 2 of the 3 were, Corey Michael Smith was a regular even in the pilot. I think we should keep the information from the primary source (the show) until their status changes. If they become regulars they can be added into the regular listing with the billing order they receive.AbramTerger (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: That makes no sense at all. They were announced as series regulars before the Pilot even aired. Ignoring that announcement makes it seem as if it didn't happen, despite the fact that it's clearly referenced next to their names (as well as Cory Michael Smith's).DigificWriter (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@DigificWriter: Corey Michael Smith was listed as a regular in the pilot, not a guest star as the report claimed. Therefore the report is mistaken. Can't you wait until Monday when the facts can be verified?AbramTerger (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Many TV shows have a different cast listing for the pilot than the rest of the series. In these cases I would go with whatever the referenced source states until the second episode airs Liambarrett1986 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2014 (GMT)

Liam is correct. Pilots go through many stages before they air-take Constantine (TV series)'s for example. They completely wrote out one of the characters to replace with another. We should see how ep 2 and 3 list stuff to get the best overall picture. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I updated the cast list and starring per the 2nd episodes credits to include the 2 detectives and John Doman.AbramTerger (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recurring vs Guest stars

An edit was made to make the actors recurring and removed the citations. In principal I have no issue with this, but as of now (2 episodes in) only the mayor and Butch are recurring as they are the only ones other than the regular cast who have been credited in both episodes. The others I think should wait until they are recurring or should have a citation that the role is recurring and not a guest shot. I also think there should still be citations for actors who have not yet appeared on the show that they are recurring. If the citation does not indicate a recurring role, and they have not been credited in the show more than once, I think the names should be removed. Any thoughts/comments?AbramTerger (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reordered based on when they first appeared. I re-added the citations for those who have not yet appeared. I removed the name for Paxton's character since it was not given in the citation. If someone has a WP:RS for the info, please re-add it with the citation.AbramTerger (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we be distinguishing between Guests and Recurring? It seems to me that a guest appearance is not recurring until they are on more than once.AbramTerger (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I had added, and then removed the credited minor role of Lazlo by Milan. I am not sure of guidelines but would imagine that we should keep it to recurring guests, not any recurring credited role, especially if the recurring roles could become large in the future. Any thoughts/comments?AbramTerger (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Recurring is a loose general definition of appearing in at least 4-5 episodes for the season. Granted, that is for a 22-24 episode season, so with 16, that would be about 3 appearances to be defined as recurring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The question was more about recurring guest stars or any recurring appearance (eg Milan who is credited during the end credits of 2 of the 3 episodes. If he did get to 5, but was never credited at the start, only the end, would we still want to include him as "recurring" since the role is minor. [If we waited for 3 appearances or even 4 or 5, we should not be listing anyone yet as recurring: there are 2 guests who each have 2 appearances, and Milan who also has 2]. Currently people are adding just guests, presuming that they become recurring. At some point we will probably have to prune the ones that did not appear at least 3 times.AbramTerger (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we include the repeat appearance of Lazlo as recurring? He appeared more than once, but the show indicates he is supposed to be killed, so will not be recurring any more than those 2 appearances. His role was also minor (credited at the end). I think he should not be listed as recurring. Any thoughts/comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbramTerger (talk • contribs) 08:45, October 11, 2014‎ (UTC)

Ratings table

@AlexTheWhovian: Your edit is creating a whole lot of unnecessary whitespace, and making the table look all cramped and squished together. Now, we can't let aesthetics trump Wikipedia rules, etc., but we're not, because there is nothing saying that the ratings table should look like that. There is a reason why other pages use this format, and no, we don't have to do it just because others do, but we also don't have to not do it just because others do either. If your edit had any other benefits, then that would be fine, but the only result of it is to squish up the table and leave a whole lot of unnecessary whitespace. Now, the MOS suggests we don't stretch out small tables across the whole page, because that just replaces unnecessary whitespace with unnecessary padding in the table, and forces people with larger monitors to deal with info spanning their entire screen when it doesn't have to. But this isn't a little overview table or something like that, this is a full ratings table, with enough info to fill the page width without appearing stretched or full of padding. In fact, the table at 99% width actually has less padding in it than the episode table at the same width. I seriously don't see the logic with compacting the table down like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Do you wish to reply to me, or should I take it that you are no longer interested in this subject? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd forgotten to reply to this thread. The table doesn't look cramped at all, with the exception of the Air Date column, which can easily have padding applied to it. Stretching the table to remove the "white space" outside of the table simply creates an equal amount of white space inside the table. And if the default width of the table (without stretching) was almost the width of the page, then there'd be no problem with stretching it. However, without stretching, it takes a width of only about three-quarters of the page - not enough to stretch, and hence still considered a small table. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I wouldn't really call the table small: at three-quarters it takes up the majority of the page, and with a little bit of extra padding for the air dates and maybe even the titles, the difference in width between the stretched and non-stretched tables would be minimal. Also, when at full table width there would just be extra padding in each cell, which is preferable, I think, to a large area of whitespace beside the table. And I have looked at several other pages that use the full width, and I haven't seen any other complaints about it, so I think the general consensus is in the full width's favour. Perhaps if some other editor s had thoughts on this, we could see for sure? I just think, especially with how whitespace seems to be such a big issue with everyone, that we should minimise it as much as possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Episodes

I'll freely admit that I've not previously tried to edit in WikiProject Television's domain, so forgive any ignorance displayed here. But I find the edit miniwar immediately following the airing of a new episode to be highly frustrating. As I type this, the most recent episode finished its initial airing less than an hour ago, and there have already been nine edits made to the page, mostly to the new episode's description. Is this typical for popular current shows?

Where it's frustrating is that these edits all seem to be made to make corrections to errors made by one of the previous edits, but other obvious errors remain. Many of the errors are being made by anonymous users, and I give appropriate thanks and kudos to the vigilant editors trying to make it correct (h/t to CAWylie and Rtkat3). But while they're trying to fix things, other "gotta-be-first" folks are rushing in with their own additions and/or corrections. The result is an overlapping maze of edits that leaves things in a muddled state.

I came here tonight because I like to reference the page contents while I'm watching each episode. I didn't come here with the intent to edit anything. But when I see that some anonymous person has posted a poorly-written, meandering, error-filled description, I have this overwhelming impulse to fix it. (After all, I joined GCE for a reason.) I just don't want to step on the toes of any other legit editors who are trying to do the same thing.

So my question is: Is there, or has anyone considering having, a policy regarding editing pages for current shows, such as this one, during the first hour or two after they've aired? (Yes, I know this question is better directed at the project's members at large; I'm starting here because this is where I've first seen it. Depending on the response I get here, I will likely pose this to the project itself.) It would make sense to me to have a single editor keeping an eye on the page during that time, and politely requesting other well-meaning users to refrain from making corrections until after. That would keep us from stepping on each other's edits.

I know it's important to have a description up quickly, because people will be coming to the page during and immediately after the airing to read it. But short of obtaining a description prior to airing, setting that to go live as soon as the episode finishes, and locking the page to all other edits between start of airing and an hour or two after end, I'm hard-pressed to figure out a reasonable way to keep these miniwars from happening. - Quantumpanda (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Quantumpanda, your issue does have merit and its global suggestions might have greater notice at a WPTV talkpage. However, I think blocking people from making erroneous edits might face stiff opposition. If it was blatant vandalism, sure, that can be individually handled, but locking a page almost weekly is a task some might not like taking to task nor would, regarding adding to/changing episode summaries, no matter how far from the episode they are. As for those rushing to a TV series page within an hour or so to add a summary, I myself (CAWylie) am also guilty of doing so, even pushing the limits of summary lengths. As for "fixing" others edits, good faith only goes so far. Feel free to edit and/or trim. — Wyliepedia 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I also see this as an issue, on multiple series pages, and I have found the best thing for me to do is just leave for a while (a few hours or days), and once the "miniwarring" has calmed down, re-write or fix up the summary. This obviously doesn't solve things in the short term for those who visit the page straight after the airing, but it helps to avoid unwanted stress and frustrution on my part. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Episode Airing

According to http://comicbook.com and the promo video episode 11 will air January Monday (making it January 5.) at 8 PM. Could this be mentioned somewhere? Kamila 064 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Accolades table

@AlexTheWhovian: Can you please explain to me exactly how the accolades table is broken, and exactly how the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:OTHER is relevant in this situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply because something is done one way on one article, doesn't mean it can be applied to another article. And your constant need to stretch tables (in this case, one that only takes up half the page) causes too much table-whitespace. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you might need to read WP:OTHER because it actually doesn't support your position. And I don't have a "constant need to stretch tables", I just don't understand why you keep on messing up the style of pages and adding unnecessary whitespace. The table was 80% width, I put it to the full 99% width which took all the unnecessary whitespace and broke it up into the individual cells, not to mention that all the table were then same width which is preferable to having random sized boxes all throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You do. The table didn't even need an 80% width, let alone a 99% width. The unnecessary whitespace is added when you stretch the table - the cells are filled with the empty whitespace. It's not like the whitespace caused by having a lack of width is going to do any damage, and does it really matter what size the boxes are? Not everything needs to be controlled so perfectly. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Perfectly"? Really? It's just making the tables the same width! It is splitting up unnecessary whitespace, and cleaning up the overall aesthetic of the page. I suggest you give WP:OTHER a good read, because it suggests we look to the stylings of other similar pages for this sort of dispute, and other similar pages, as far as I have seen, have accolade tables at full width. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what pages you're looking at, but the ones I've seen haven't been forced to a full width. You seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that the whitespace outside the table is pretty much the same as the whitespace in the table, when it comes both to the awards and ratings table. The article also suggests it, not demands it. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to demand that WP:OTHER be followed when you think it supports you, but then say it "suggests it, not demands it" when you realize that you read it completely wrong? And I don't know what pages you're looking at, but here are just a few examples of pages that force 99% widths: List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Iron Man (2008 film), List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, House of Cards (U.S. TV series), Arrow (TV series), X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series). Some of these are good or featured articles. Finally, you say I "seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that the whitespace outside the table is pretty much the same as the whitespace in the table", but it is you who cannot comprehend the situation. When the whitespace is outside of the table, it is a big block of clear whitespace, all together. When it is inside the table, it is broken up into individual cells, and surrounded with text and borders, etc. We are going from having over half a page of clear empty space and a small cramped table with no space, and are getting a table that is nicely spaced out, with no more space than text in each cell. And yes, this gives overall consistency to the page and the encyclopeadia, as is suggested in WP:OTHER. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: If you want to make that edit, then you will discuss it here. I cleaned up the mess that you had created because you had not responded to me in 20 days, but now that I have done so, you are trying to edit war again. That is not the way Wikipedia works. We go with what discussion and consensus finds to be the agreed upon path, not whatever you want. You do not WP:OWN this page. If you don't want to be reported for edit warring, I suggest you continue this discussion, or let the matter go and allow the page to return to its former state. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as you are trying to edit war with me, it's a two way street. You do not WP:OWN this page either. I see no policy nor the "back up" of other editors calling this particular format "superior". AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need everything spelled out for you? Why must everything be either in the "rules" or your version, and nothing else? And why do you think you can just ignore discussion for almost three weeks and still have your way? If you still want to make this edit, then explain your reasoning here and we can discuss it, otherwise, as I said, just let it go. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the rules and policy is how I run by when editing Wikipedia articles. Also, because I forgot this was here. My bad. But please, explain to me why the Awards table needs a special column for a single reference, whereas the Ratings table can have multiple cells un-referenced, and have the reference for all the information in the final column? Which is exactly what I'm doing with the Awards table. Also, the fact that there's no reason at all to force the width. I also still see none of these editors backing you up on this "superior" way? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What other editors? This conversation is just between you and me. If someone else wishes to join in then that's fine, but we can't rely on that happening. Now, since I'm pretty sure there are no existing guidelines for us to look to (correct me if I'm wrong), I am going to follow WP:OTHER and look to what other pages are doing. A common format used for accolade tables is the one that I have introduced here, which can also be seen here, here, and here, as well as many other place, and which I believe has come from Template:Awards table3, but I could be wrong there, puts the reference in its own column at the end of the table. This is, as you have pointed out, similar to what the ratings table has done in that the reference is for all the preceding columns as well. The difference between the ratings table and the accolades table is that the last column of the ratings table is just a number, whereas the last column of the accolades table is the result column with the result templates {{won}}, {{nom}}, and {{pending}} in them. By adding the refs to these, the result is not only that the ref isn't as obvious, an issue whenever a ref is in a cell that has been coloured, but that it breaks up the whole idea of those templates, in that they generate the result and appropriate colour and fill the entire cell, creating a certain effect. No, it isn't a pressing issue or anything, but the result templates serve only an aesthetic purpose, so messing with that aesthetic is counter-intuitive and unnecessary. This whole issue seems to be fueled by your incessant need to squish tables together and create large and unnecessary areas of whitespace in articles. I have given plenty of detailed explanations for why there is no need to do so here, the last of which you never replied to, so I don't know whether you are still hellbent on that conclusion, or whether you have moved on from that matter and this entire issue is about something else entirely. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"[B]ecause there is a simple alternative that is widely accepted by other editors as superior" Is this just you making stuff up to make your edits appear more reasonable? You say that other edits will certify that it's more "superior", then claim otherwise. I don't follow what other articles do, because they're not edited by me, so I'm going to pass on that completely unnecessary essay. Next. Does it matter if the ref is not as obvious? If they're only for a aesthetic purpose, then we don't really need them. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a colouring in book. Next. You complain about whitespace, yet are more than willing to create whitespace in tables. Is this some strange, twisted logic? Please explain. Next. Please present a compelling argument, for further counter arguments. Thank you, and Happy Holidays! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think your childish and condescending tone is going to get you out of this discussion, then your wrong, as I have no intention of stopping until a proper conclusion is reached.

If hundreds of other editors, being those who have made many thousands of contributions to the pages I listed above, believe this format to be the way to go over the others, then this format is "a simple alternative that is widely accepted by other editors as superior". That's not me making stuff up, it is common sense. Just because it isn't stated in some rule, or spelled out in some discussion, doesn't mean it isn't true or that it is all of my own invention. And your statement that you "don't follow what other articles do, because they're not edited by [you]", is exactly the sort of behaviour that I am talking about. You are not higher than anyone, and you don't WP:OWN Wikipedia. Everything is a collaboration here, and if you don't make a decision or edit it doesn't mean that it is an incorrect or bad one. On the contrary, it can sometimes be a better one than your own. Accepting this and learning to work in with everyone else is a vital part of joining the Wikipedia community, something that I hoped you would have learned already, considering your seeming experience in editing television articles here. Next. No, Wikipedia isn't a colouring book, but it is a resource used by (I'm guessing) millions of people around the world. Therefore, it can't be an amateurish mess, which is why there are style guidelines, and suggestions like WP:OTHER that hope to have atleast some thought given to aesthetics and consistency. The Wikipedia rules about structure, copy right, etc. always come first, but then we are morally obligated to give readers of Wikipedia an optimal experience, whether that be in ensuring that prose is well written, text flows naturally, and the article as a whole is as visually pleasing as possible. If that isn't your thing, then that's fine, but don't get in the way of people who do care and do wish to make the best encyclopaedia possible. Next. I have already explained why whitespace in the table and whitespace around the table aren't the same, but you didn't feel like reading it, so I don't see why I should repeat myself again. Suffice it to say, they're not. Next. I have already given an argument, which you decided not to counter. I then asked you for an argument that I could counter. You kinda did that, so I have attempted to counter with this and several previous comments. I don't see why the conversation needs to be reset again. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Adamstom.97. It is definitely apparant that we are dealing with a user feeling they WP:OWN the page and exhibiting a very heavy edit-war type mentality. I think that WP:OTHER, just to take what you said, is the correct route, as it very often is. Looking at the said pages, List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Iron Man (2008 film), List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, House of Cards (U.S. TV series), Arrow (TV series), X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series), definitely leads the way to getting a -what do you know- encyclopedia feel to Wikipedia. The whitespace otherwise created using the 80% rather than 99% is noticable, distasteful and aside from the norm that WP:OTHER tries to reinforce. I give Adamstom.97 my support because it's clear that AlexTheWhovian is editing without fully consulting neither Wikipedia nor this Talk section. Editors like this are dangerous and don't help push for what we're trying to accomplish in making information accessible and free to everyone. In this case, emphasis on accessible.Complete turing (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar

Can I suggest that an awards table with only one ceremony is unnecessary? True, there are three individual awards listed, but wouldn't prose be sufficient until two or more arise? — Wyliepedia 07:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ep 10 is "Lovecraft", not "LoveCraft"

See http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2014/11/24/the-dctv-secrets-of-gotham-episode-10-lovecraft "The #DCTV Secrets of GOTHAM: Episode 10 - "Lovecraft" "

http://www.fox.com/gotham/ "Gordon is reassigned to Arkham in "Lovecraft." "

etc, etc

Futon made a dumb typo. Every other source indicates the normal spelling of the name. Actually, even Futon has it right on this page: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20141105fox01/ "Gordon is reassigned to duty at Arkham Asylum in the all-new "Lovecraft" episode of GOTHAM airing Monday, Nov. 24" 202.81.249.118 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Episode counts cluttering the character list

Two issues with this: 1) It's non-standard in TV articles; and 2) In the current proposed text, it looks cluttered. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Hi. if the

are too long, should they not be condensed or the

taken off? Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

They should be condensed to 200-300 words, then the Plot templates taken off. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the plot summaries for ep11 and ep12 and I removed the tags. I also removed the bit about Gruber being the Electrocutioner because that wasn't established in the episode. Lose311 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Electrocutioner and Amygdala

There has recently been a lot of editing and reverts lately, as there has been disagreement that Jack Gruber is the Electrocutioner and that his accomplice is Aaron Helzinger. However, Gruber is blatantly referred to in the promo for the show's 12th episode as "the Electrocutioner." As I put a link to the OFFICIAL promo (as it even aired on the TV network) as the source, it was removed simply because it was on YouTube. In this case, I believe it is acceptable to use the video promo because, despite just so happening to have been posted on YouTube, the promo is legit.

Also, people keep removing information for the character Aaron Helzinger because there is an IMDB link posted with it. This is a misunderstanding, as IMDB isn't used as a source. The reason there is an IMDB link is because there isn't a Wikipedia page for Kevin McCormick (the actor who plays Helzinger; keep in mind there are Wikipedia pages for different people of the same name), so some editors have posted a link to the actor's IMDB page, as apposed to not posting any link regarding the actor at all.

The final thing that should be brought up is that I don't think we should call Helzinger by the name Amygdala until he is referred to that in the show. Does anyone disagree? Darkknight2149 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)User:Darkknight2149

A) Please read WP:VIDEOREF regarding the YouTube link. Because it is not coming from an acceptable official channel (in this case Gotham's), we can not use it. B) We should never link off Wikipedia like that to an actor's name if they don't have an article here. The content is still unsourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Favre1fan93 Fair enough. I will remove the link to IMDB. As neither the official YouTube or Fox have posted the promo on their channel, I removed that Jack Gruber is the Electrocutioner in the "Guest stars" section. Keep in mind that the fact that Gruber is called the Electrocutioner in the promo implies that he will almost certainly be called that in an upcoming episode, which can then be used as a source.Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)User: Darkknight2149

@User:Favre1fan93 Looks like you edited before I did, haha.Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

@Darkknight2149:, yes, after the episode airs, it can be used. But it would still be good to have a source to back it up. (Maybe from an episode review). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Favre1fan93 UPDATE: the official Google plus page for Gotham posted a promo poster of Jack Gruber labeled "The Electrocutioner Is Coming." Here's the URL. Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

Costume design

I haven't read through it yet, but there might be some usable stuff in this.- adamstom97 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Electrocutioner link

Can someone please explain to me why this character is different to any other? Bruce Wayne, Oswald "Penguin" Cobblepot, Barbara Kean, Selina "Cat" Kyle, Edward Nygma, Ivy Pepper, Harvey Dent, Larissa Diaz, and Aaron Helzinger are all character links in this very article that use the in-series name, but link to the appropriate page. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the above, except Larissa Diaz, are known by both names and are mentioned as such in their respective articles. Their names are also redirects to their respective articles.

More importantly, to quote WP:EGG: For example, do not write this: Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[parton (particle physics)|particle physics]]...Instead, reference the article with an explicit "see also" or by rephrasing: Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[particle physics]] (he proposed the [[parton (particle physics)|parton]] model). This is because The readers will not see the hidden reference to the parton model unless they click on or hover over the piped particle physics link; in hard copy, the reference to partons is completely lost. DonQuixote (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which names these characters are known by, what matters is that it is the appropriate article. With the example from WP:EGG above, the issue isn't that particle physics has never been referred to as "parton (particle physics)" (although it hasn't), the issue is that when reading the article, you will rightly assume that that is linking to particle physics, and if don't click on or hover over the link, you will never know that it actually links to a completely diffent page, and you will therefore not understand the full meaning of the sentence, whereas there should be no such issues with the second version. Here, when you are reading the article, you will rightly assume that the Jack Gruber link is linking to the Jack Gruber page, which it is, because at Electrocutioner is an entire section about Jakc Gruber and his appearance on Gotham. This is the same for Larissa Diaz. If the reader does not click on the link, or hover over it, they will not miss out on any hidden information or Easter egg whatsoever. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. A reader will miss that Jack Gruber is the Electrocutioner because you'll be hiding that information in the Easter Egg link. The only way they'll know is to hover over the link or click on the link. Not many people have seen the rather obscure photo that we're using as a source and thus not many people know who Jack Gruber is. DonQuixote (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point at all, it doesn't matter that the reader doesn't know that the character Jack Gruber is based on went by the name Electrocutioner in the comics. Somebody might see the link Bruce Wayne and not realise that it leads to the page about Batman (not everybody will know this), but it is not an Easter egg, because the reader will think it is just the link to Bruce Wayne's page, and that is what it is, no matter which name is used. If you really think that this fact is something that people should know, then just say "he is loosely based on the DC comics' character Electrocutioner" or something like that. That way, we use the correct name (because he cannot be credited here as Elecrtocutioner until that term is actually used) and people still realise that he is based on this character. Problem solved. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you really think that this fact is something that people should know, then just say "he is loosely based on the DC comics' character Electrocutioner" or something like that.

Er...that's what I've been saying, and in fact I think your wording is an improvement. And that's the point. We should be saying that Gruber is based on the Electrocutioner explicitly rather than hiding it in an Easter Egg link as that will be lost to the reader until the link is clicked.

As for Bruce Wayne, if you think that's an Easter Egg link, then go right ahead and fix it. As for myself, I'll just limit myself to obvious abuses of Easter Egg links (such as Gruber) because they're easier to spot and correct. DonQuixote (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Bruce Wayne is an Easter Egg link, but it is exactly the same situation as these other two characters, in that the reader won't necessarily know that he is Batman. If somebody linked Clark Kent on an article to Superman, that would be, by your reckoning, an Easter Egg link, but the reader doesn't necessarily know who Clark Kent is, and could miss the fact that he is Superman if they don't follow the link. So I still don't really understand why these two characters, Electrocutioner and Copperhead, have to be special cases. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're just summarizing what an Easter Egg link is. Go ahead and fix the Easter Egg links for Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent if you wish. As for Electrocutioner and Copperhead being "special cases"--they're the most obvious cases. Not many readers know who Larissa Diaz or Jack Gruber are, particularly since those names have been created for the show, so if you want to connect them to the comic book characters of Copperhead and Electrocutioner, explicitly stating the connection is better for the reader. DonQuixote (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the c/e you just made was not the change that I suggested, so saying per talk is not accurate. How about just wait for the discussion to finish before making any changes? - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your words: If you really think that this fact is something that people should know, then just say "he is loosely based on the DC comics' character Electrocutioner" or something like that.

DonQuixote (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If wanted to implement it immediately, why didn't you ask for my entire opinion? I was thinking:

• Christopher Heyerdahl as Jack Gruber: He is an inmate of Arkham Asylum who has been experimenting on other inmates with electroconvulsive therapy. He escapes from the asylum with his ideal prototype of a factotum, Aaron Helzinger. Gruber is loosely based on the DC Comics character The Electrocutioner.

This way, we are still linking the character correctly, because Electrocutioner is the wikipedia article about Jack Gruber, while we are explaining this fully in case someone doesn't notice. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the correct way is to link the Electrocutioner to the Electrocutioner article. It's a direct link with no need for piping. And the article is not about Gruber but Buchinsky. There's no need for Easter Egg links, which is discouraged. DonQuixote (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack Gruber is the Gotham version of the Electrocutioner. Jack Gruber and the Electrocutioner are not separate characters. And the Electrocutioner article is actually about several different characters who have gone by the name Electrocutioner (an unnamed Buchinsky, an unrevealed person, Lester Buchinsky, another unrevelaed person, Jack Gruber, another unrevealed person, and the Arkham Origins version of Lester Buchinsky). Therefore, Lester Buchinsky and Jack Gruber are both the same links - they link to the appropriate article, where information on their character is held, but their name is visible to the reader. Just because piping is used, does not mean this is an Easter Egg, because it isn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that calling Jack Gruber the Electrocutioner in the show is NOT an easter egg because he is called that in the show. They blatantly refer to him as The Electrocutioner in the show. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

Thanks for pointing that out. DonQuixote (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have to scroll down to "In other media" to find Gruber, then the article is not about Gruber. And the point is that if the reader has to scroll down to find the first instance of Gruber, then it's confusing to the reader and a WP:EGG violation. We can state in this article (as well as that article) that Gruber is the show's version of the Electrocutioner and directly link [[Electrocutioner]] so as not to confuse the reader who doesn't know who Gruber or the Electrocutioner is. DonQuixote (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, if the character is indeed referred to as the Electrocutioner in the series, and since he has been officially called so by the production, I don't see any issue with crediting him as Jack Gruber / The Electrocutioner. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that'll be fine since the Electrocutioner is mentioned explicitly in the link. DonQuixote (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Fish Mooney's Name

Her name is clearly Marine. Why does someone keep changing it to Maria? Is there an official source that spells it that way? I definitely heard "Marine," and there are some online pages that also call her Marine (one calls her Marie, but I could swear I heard "Marine"). "Marine" explains how she got her nickname "Fish." Chaotic Purgatory (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Chaotic Purgatory) While I obviously can't speak for every editor, here's what I would suggest doing if you honestly believe her name is Marine (personally I missed her real name when I watched the episode): find at least 2 or 3 reliable sources (note that IMDB and rumour/gossip sites are not considered reliable) that refer to the character as Marine and use them as citations when you change her name back to "Marine." If another editor reverts your edit without proof or a citation, then click the "undo" button and state in the edit description that you brought this subject up in the Gotham Talk Page and that it has gone unchallenged. This will encourage the opposing editor to visit this Talk Page and discuss why they disagree. After discussing the matter, you and the editor should be able to eventually come up with a solution.Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

Reliable sources for Maria: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] By the way, what you hear isn't concrete, you need reliable sources before you can change something based on "what you heard". One person is not a reliable source themselves. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Split

Proposing creation of a sub-page for the list of characters of the series. The section is getting too long, especially once the second season starts, but leaving a brief description for the main cast, similar to Arrow and List of Arrow characters. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I think it should happen. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. If no other editors disagree, I'd say go for it.Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

Episode guide split

Hi, I'd like to propose that the episode guide with synopses be split off into its' own page. It's getting pretty big now compared to the total size of the page, and will only get bigger once info starts coming through on season 2. KoopaCooper (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, I believe the consensus is to wait until we get episode information for Season 2 before making a List of Gotham episodes article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what Darkknight2149 said - the general rule is to split into a separate article only when enough information becomes available for the second season. A two-row series overview table can't be created until a table can actually be created for the second season with at least two cells of information. Alex|The|Whovian 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kiraroshi1976 decided to spin off the episodes into their own page. Unless I am mistaken, this is currently not needed on this article, as was said literally a couple of paragraphs up. Am I missing something? | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not until we have more information on Season 2 episodes. Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation (False Alarm)

A web search conducted by User:CorenSearchBot has found that the opening paragraph of this article is copied and pasted from here. This is a direct copyright violation and the opening paragraphs of this article need to be re-written. Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That page sources Wikipedia, and even if it didn't, prominently displays a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license grant. —Cryptic 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Season 2 critical response

I was going to start the Critical response section for Season 2, since the reviews are already up. However, I wanted to make sure that there is no opposition before I do so. We can, of course, update the section as the season as it comes along. Thoughts? Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerome is the Joker?

I've reverted this out a few times both here and in the article, Joker in other media, both opposed by Alexthewhovian. The problem, as I see it, is that the showrunners for Gotham are keeping the identity of the Joker a very close secret. I, of course, have seen the same speculation as others with regards to the identity, especially after the very next episode "The Red Hood". Until we have confirmation, we should not be Sherlocking our way into Original Research. We are not in a hurry - we should wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking around, and reviews are all, "is he or isn't he?" They have been offering different folk as possible candidates for Jokerhood. Kinda reinforces my point about waiting until the character actually shows up and identifies himself One or two sources guessing aren't going to be enough, especially when there is a mountain of contradictory citation at this point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The producer's were very clear that something from that episode would hint at the start of the Joker's origin. It was never stated as being Jerome, and I do agree that many believe he is not that reference. Some (as an example) said maybe that little boy next to the blind man was the Joker. We just do not know at this time, so we should not be linking specific characters to the Joker in other media page until there is a more concrete answer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Jerome's character is at least somewhat based on the Joker and showrunner Bruno Heller stated that the introduction of Jerome's character is and I quote "the true beginning of the Joker saga — the first page of the first chapter of the story that brings the villain known as Joker to life. And that’s what I’ll say about that!”¹ Combine that with the fact that the Joker link was reliably sourced to begin with, there is absolutely no reason NOT to link Jerome's name to the Joker in other media page as it was before.Darkknight2149

That is Sherlocking, Darkknight - drawing inferences from a vague source. As has been noted here and elsewhere, the sources are not in agreement with whether Jerome is the Joker, or one of the Red Hood Gang (or that random guy there at the end of the eponymous ep) or the kid with Cyrus, or someone else entirely. While i think your deduction has merit, we as editors don't get to draw those conclusions. We wait until we have solid sources (that are not balanced by an equal number of sources that say the opposite or are on the fence) telling us one way or the other. That's how this works. I've said it elsewhere, but it won't hurt to repeat it here:

We are not in a hurry.

There is no deadline for our information. It is better to be right than first. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this source. It gives a quote from producer Bruno Heller "We're going to find out how the hell Jerome, the proto-Joker we met earlier in this season, connects with the Joker as people known him. That's the big focus of the beginning of the second season. We're going to tell the story of how the Joker came to be". That seems like a confirmation that Jerome and the Joker are connected. Snowy66 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's confirmation enough to link Jerome to the Joker. This is coming directly from the show-runner and it is reported by the Hollywood Reporter, perhaps the most reliable source on the internet. I honestly don't see why this can't be used as a citation. Do any other editors have any thoughts on this? Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it's enough to say that he's connected to the Joker, but not necessarily that he is the Joker. He could end up influencing the person who becomes the Joker, or teaching him, or even being the guy who knocks the Joker into a giant vat of chemicals (as a nod back to the Batman movie with Michael Keaton, among other Joker origin stories). This is still open to a lot of interpretation, and as a few other people have mentioned, we're not in a hurry to declare who ends up being the Joker. JMcGowan2 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no room for questions when there are sources being quite straightforward about it:

The trailer also briefly shows Cameron Monaghan's Jerome "Joker" who appears to be in an incarceration facility.

— The Christian Post

Jerome embraces his Joker alter-ego

— Daily Mirror

There's also this Huffington Post article being nearly as direct:

While the teaser didn't explicitly name the Joker, it did say that the new villain was "no joke" before cutting to a quick glimpse of Cameron Monaghan, called Jerome on the show, maniacally smiling and laughing.

— The Huffington Post

--Rose (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

All of those sources are vague and unreliable, except for the Huffington Post. And even the Huffington Post is just speculating. There has been absolutely no official confirmation that Jerome is the Joker, nor has there been any confirmed connection between Black Mask and Richard Sionis (apart from them sharing the same surname). Until we have an official confirmation, we can't link them. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In the quote posted by Snowy66, Jerome is officially called "the proto-Joker", and there's only one definition of "proto", which means "first". That alone is enough to say he's a version of the Joker and at least link Jerome to the appropriate Wikipedia article. --Rose (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have missed the part earlier when we said that when we have explicit, specific statements saying 'yep, he's the Joker' from the show runners, then - and only then - will the Joker be tied to Jerome. There is no hurry. Sit back and enjoy the ride, instead. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's the logic you're applying, then Selina Cat Kyle isn't Selina Catwoman Kyle, because their names don't match word by word. The sources used in our article don't have the actress or anyone involved in the making of the series say "she's catwoman". --Rose (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Check again. For one, you don't need a source to know that Selina Kyle is Selina Kyle. Considering the name isn't generic and the series is an adaptation, that's a given. For two, it has been officially confirmed numerous times that she will become Catwoman. She is even listed in the credits as "Selina Kyle/the future Catwoman". When has anyone ever confirmed that Jerome Valeska is the Joker? Never. Even the showrunners have stated that Jerome might not become the Joker. And Jerome isn't even the only potential candidate to become the Joker that the series has introduced. So I'd suggest you stop making assumptions and, if you haven't already, read WP:OR. It's not official until it's official. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again you're trying to say that "the future Catwoman" somehow makes the connection more obvious than saying "the proto-Joker". You're applying common sense when establishing that Selina from the series is the Catwoman but when it comes to Jerome, you're consistently refusing to apply it. It doesn't say "pre-Joker", as much as that's what you and some other people here want to believe. Wikipedia is about reflecting what sources say, not expressing editors' beliefs. --Rose (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just my point, BloodyRose. You think Jerome is the Joker, because you are putting different, non-specific sources together to draw conclusion that Jerome is the Joker. We call that Synthesis. That you have found a source that supposes he is the "proto-Joker" is not the same thing as stating that he is. Earlier, I stated without equivocation that we needed reliable sources that explicitly identify Jerome as the Joker. We do not have that. Without that, we cannot Sherlock it into the article.

And another thing, what is your rush? We are an encyclopedia, not some crufty fansite. There is no hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Supposes"? The proto-Joker part is a quote from the creator of the show. Have a look at Snowy's article again. --Rose (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Proto-joker" ≠ the Joker. there is no simpler way to say it. Wait for more explicit wording. Imagine how dumb you're going to feel if Jerome is the father of the Joker or something. Third time: there is no hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As at episode 2.02, Jerome's character is obviously meant to suggest he will be the Joker. But no more than that. In S1 there were several characters (stand up comedian, etc.) who also caused speculation they could be the Joker. The showrunners are feeding the speculation but not confirming anything. They may not have decided who will be the Joker, If Jerome is a hit they might make it him. Or not. Anyway, until he's actually introduced on the show as "the Joker", or at least paints on clown makeup, it remains speculative. 202.81.248.190 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen the most recent episode, "The Last Laugh" (Season 2 Episode 3), Jerome is officially dead. The episode went even further by showing several random characters begin to exhibit Joker-like behaviour. Not only should that close this discussion (unless other editors think otherwise) but it should also keep more discussions like this from opening in the near future. At this point, there is absolutely no way of knowing who the Joker will be and there are absolutely no reliable sources that claim otherwise. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It'd be good if you'd attached a link supporting the part in which you say that he's "officially" dead. Whatever you may have seen in the episode and your interpretation of it can't be relied on. What I personally saw is an interview with the actor behind Jerome in which he didn't deny the possibility of him returning, saying "it's a comic book world and you never know for sure" to "the end of the episode is left a bit open to interpretation". Based on this, and the show creator calling Jerome "proto-Joker" and being somewhat vague, there's no way you can just "close" this kind of discussions as long as there are reliable sources featuring this sort of quotes. --Rose (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"He's dead, Jim!" Jerome was just the latest of several characters they introduced to fuel speculation about who will be the Joker. Until someone is actually called "The Joker" in the script, not alluded to in an interview designed to hype the show, it's nothing. Maybe next year Monaghan will turn up as Jerome's twin brother. Maybe the show will be cancelled before we ever get a Joker. 202.81.249.113 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Cast list.

I've had to revert out a significant change in the structure of the Cast section. Twice - even after I pointed out that BRD is to be used here. AlextheWhovian did so thinking that reversing the cast list from characters then actors to the reverse was in accordance with WP:TVCAST. It is pretty clearly not. A quick survey of the pertinent section in MOS/TV linked indicates:

"we indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of the portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character.

""Han Solo (portrayed by Harrison Ford): The pilot of the Millennium Falcon""

A further check of our FA content indicates this principle is fairly universally followed. I invite Alexthe Whovian to join us in the Talk Page to explain his reasoning for the departure from general guidelines, not to mention his failure to participate in discussion and reverting twice when his bold edit is reverted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You missed out the most important part, matey: Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast list" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member, followed his or her noteworthy role(s). Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon. This page gives the cast list, List of Gotham characters gives the character list. Please explain to me your (somewhat strange) sense of requiring two character lists. I've seen barely any article go by the way you're dictating for the main article. Shall I give you example links?

Here you go: Game of Thrones (season 5), IZombie (TV series), The Flash (2014 TV series), The Messengers (TV series), Wayward Pines, 12 Monkeys (TV series), Agent Carter (TV series), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Arrow (TV series), Backstrom (TV series), Castle (TV series), Constantine (TV series), Continuum (TV series), Galavant, Outlander (TV series), Scorpion (TV series), Sense8, List of The 100 characters, The Big Bang Theory, The Musketeers, Undateable, Vikings (TV series) Alex|The|Whovian 02:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To begin with, I am going to invite you to undo your fourth revert, Alex. If you fail to do so immediately, I will be forced to file an edit-warring report. Your first stop after being reverted the first time, as per BRD, was to come to the talk page and sort the matter out. You have complicated matters by failing to do so, and have exacerbated matters further by edit-warring the incorrect viewpoint back into the article in violation of our policies.

Secondly, you need - as advised earlier - to re-read the MOS guideline you linked. Most of our GA and FA content utilizes - for television series - the character name first and then the portrayer of said character. This is simple common sense, as you have failed to provide real world content on how the actor was cast, or how they chose to portray the character; if you had provided such when changing the cast order around, you would have a stronger position from which to defend that change. You do not. If your argument is instead that the section should be called "Characters" or "Cast and Characters", that would be a good point for discussion.

Until then, I think you should probably self-revert immediately and continue participating in discussion. As noted previously, I will wait only a very short time before filing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at the article history, I noticed that you had no problem with it when it existed in this state - that is, before the main content got separated to a new List of Characters article. Why is that? I'm also not familiar with the terms "GA and FA content"; I have also not failed to provide anything - it was another user who added the information in after I removed the table. If you believe such real life information is necessary, I'd recommend that as fellow editors of this article, everyone puts in together and adds it as a collaborative edit. I'd also note a lack of attention to the articles I linked you to - many of those are in the format "{actor} portrays {character}" with a distinct lack of real-life information. It is not strictly necessary, hence this does not support your argument. Alex|The|Whovian 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My concern doesn't address the actions of others; it addresses yours. The other users did not choose to engage in edit-warring. You did. The others did not choose to violate 3RR to push their viewpoint while ignoring repeated requests for discussion. You did. And by doing so, you undermined any argument you might make here.

An argument, I will add, is not served by your selection of other articles. I will ask you this: how many of those articles are Featured Articles? How many of them are Good Articles? Since we are aiming to make articles that get better, it seems stupid to make changes that hinder our ability to improve them. If you think the actors should be listed first, then add content about the actors' interpretation and casting, as in Agent Carter (TV series). Most of our FA exemplars use this method to distance themselves from in-universe content. If you are going to make this change, then you need to back up that change with, you know, actual change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian @AlexTheWhovian If I may suggest: if we added cast information to the character descriptions, then would it be settled or would one of you still have reservations? If it would settle the dispute, then I could probably add casting/behind the scenes information to the character descriptions when I have time. Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Darkknight2149. To answer your question, I'd be delighted in real-world content would be added to the Cast & characters list; it would certainly make listing the actors first more sensible. Until we do, I think it is far more reasonable to list the characters before the actors, since the descriptions only discuss the backgrounds of the characters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny. I suggested doing that exact suggestion in my last post. Alex|The|Whovian 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Being snarky is not serving your cause, Alex. Perhaps if you had suggested it when originally requested to instead of edit-warring, you wouldn't find your behavior being questioned. Next time, use the talk page instead of an edit summary - the latter rarely work to create converts. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian @AlexTheWhovian It took me a while (I had to do a lot of editing on my Sandbox) but I finally finished working on changing the character list to a cast list. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty nice improvement, Darkknight. I like how you expanded upon most of the actors' development and/or interpretation of their characters. That said, there should be further development along this line, with, for example, Essen. Defining who she is supposed to be in the series is not the same as defining how the actor sees the character. Without that very important part, the whole entry is weakened. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a good improvement. You don't have any character descriptions in the section anymore. A short one should be the first thing after the "Actor as character" format. Secondly, the section is cluttered with casting info, which is better suited farther down the article in the "Casting" section. The quotes are definitely good from the actors describing things about the character, but are formatted improperly (italics are used). And some of the quoted material is a WP:COPYVIO. The section needs work and a copy edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We came to the conclusion in our discussion to add real world information to the list and make it a casting list, especially since there is already a character article. As you obviously don't like it, suggestions are always welcome. I was under the impression that direct quotes aren't copyright violations if they are sourced (?). Darkknight2149 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the intent is 100% in the right direction. I myself would have suggested as such. But as I said, the end result still needs work. First, I'd say look to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. among other examples, for what this section should look like. While you do want to keep as much of the info as real world as possible, you still need to include some form of character description, or else you are not helping the readers by not having a quick description. And directly quoting material from press releases etc. as done here with some of the character descriptions, is a WP:COPYVIO. You are free to use the source with the information, but you just have to put it in your own words. So for example, Jim Gordon's entry should look as follows:

* Ben McKenzie as James Gordon: A rookie detective at Gotham City Police department[Deadline McKenzie casting source] who investigates the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents and attempts to take down the corruption in the police department. Describing the character, McKenzie stated that Gordon "is a truly honest man. The last honest man in a city full of crooked people. He’s not an anti-hero, he’s a true hero – but he will have to compromise."[IGN source]

I hope this example will be useful to help refigure the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I intend on doing some reconfiguring to improve the section. However, that bio was in my own words. The words "On 24 September 2013, it was reported that FOX was developing a TV series centred on James Gordon's early days as a police detective and the origin stories of various Batman villains. On February 2014, Ben McKenzie was casted in the titular role." weren't ripped word for word from the sources. However, sometime soon (perhaps tomorrow) I will re-read through it to make sure I didn't take anything word for word from the sources (I agree that would be a copyright violation). I'll also begin working on adding character information to the characters that need it (such as Sarah Essen and Leslie Thompkins). Darkknight2149 (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The stuff you quoted here was fine. It was the material you have taken care of with this edit that was the issue. And as I stated in my first comment, much of the information you have pulled for each character is "Casting" info, and should be added there. See my Gordon example again for what the outcome (generally) for each character should look like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Paramartha Wayne

Galavan refers to Martha Wayne as Paramartha Wayne at the end of Monday's episode. Looked up the name on Wikipedia[7]. (50.71.59.91 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Country of Production

@Harper9979: Before anyone violates Wikipedia's edit warring policies, please explain how the American-based series is a British production. Simply because it is produced by a British person, that does not make the series itself British. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The is series is British when it was developed by a British producer Bruno Heller screen-played and made by a British Production company Primrose Hill Productions. Just like another British-American tv series in Hollywood which have British and American credits

Really? Because Primrose Hill Productions is tagged as an American or production company stub (that is, the 2013 version of it, which I recently restored from the edits of an editor with very similar edits to yourself). And again: Simply because it is produced by a British person, that does not make the series itself British. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Primrose Hill Productions is a British production company founded in London UK it has a headquarter in Primrose Hill street in Regent's Park in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harper9979 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your source for this? And that does not automatically make the series British. (Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thank you.) (I'm smelling sock-puppetry between you and the editor previous enforcing these edits... You both tend to want to force a British viewpoint on similar articles.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

how about The Dark Knight Rises this film is British when it was fully made by a British production company, British director and British producers, and the majority of casts were all British — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harper9979 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I ask again, please sign your posts. And I note that it is British-American. However, you are attempting to force this page to make readers believe that the series is entirely British. I would also point out that the cast could be entirely French and the producers Spanish - this would not make the series itself neither French nor Spanish. I will also kindly ask you to restore the status quo while this discussion is in place. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

the series is not French or Spanish Because the French and Spanish casts did not make this series by Directing, Producing or Screen-writing. It's British when the series is created by The British — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harper9979 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That was merely an example. It was not in connection to this series. The series was not created by the British. Am I to assume that you will neither sign your posts nor restore the status quo either? Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of The Dark Knight Rises, whatever is on that article is 100% irrelevant to this article, so please don't bring up other stuff. I'd also recommend reading WP:SEWAGE, as that is a brilliant editorial that can be applied to this situation. I'd suggest keeping your arguments limited to the topic at hand (which is the nationality of Gotham). DarkKnight2149 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Aren't D.C. and Warner Brothers who own the rights to the show both american companies? So wouldn't the series be American or at least British/American? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Cast question: Ivy

I missed the first few episodes of the first series: was Ivy ever referred to be a nickname "Pamela" as implied in our cast list? I know that's the character's name in the comics but I've only heard her referred to as Ivy Pepper in the TV series. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

She was referred to as Ivy "Pamela" Pepper on the viral site, as cited on the Character page. DarkKnight2149 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And why don't someone make a page on the WIKIPEDIA about Maggie Geha who play's Ivy? Would like to learn more about her! thank you!

Name Gotham?

Could you please explain how it came to the name Gotham? In the German Wikipedia I read that Gotham city is a nickname of New York City. It’s well documented there. Is there a similar entry in the US Wikipedia? Does the TV series implicitly refer to New York City? — Fritz Jörn (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

See Gotham City. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gotham (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150522054915/http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)