Talk:Constantine (TV series)

Reverting Edits
When reverting edits, please keep in mind that per WP:ROWN "Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit."

Other important parts of WP:ROWN to keep in mind when reverting edits are:

"Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above."

"The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism. If you see an edit that you're sure was intended by its author to damage Wikipedia, and it does, there is no need for further consideration. Just revert it."

"Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." Pjstar35 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:ROWN is an essay, not policy. It's okay to revert an editor who keeps re-adding content which has already been disapproved of by other editors on the talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The disapproved content in question, on the talk page, is Bill Gorman's predictions. My edit on 3/16/2015 was completely new content citing multiple sources, not just one, and was still reverted due to what I believe is retaliation.  Regardless, I have now made a brand new edit, not containing any speculation and only containing exact quotes from NBC executives so all should be well now.Pjstar35 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:PARAGRAPH: "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs". AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you said ...and I quote... "WP:PARAGRAPH states no one-line paragraphs." What you've referenced above clearly does not say that. "used sparingly" is different than don't use at all. You are once again twisting things to your benefit. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if it actually says no one-line paragraphs, it says not to use them in generally, and this is a case where we should not be using them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never reverted or disagreed with your edit. In fact, I thanked your for it and even said that I agreed with your reversion. My botheration isn't with you but rather those people, AlexTheWhovian specifically in this case, who claim that a Wikipedia policy says something that it clearly does not. I would have chalked this up to ignorance on the part of AlexTheWhovian but when I asked him to point out where it said "no one-line paragraphs", as he had claimed, he quotes back the second part of WP:PARAGRAPH which does not say "no one-line paragraphs".  At that time, and now, the only assumption that can be made is that he's just being intentionally dishonest which is a very contemptible trait to have.Pjstar35 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Either that, or your immaturity is descending to being absolutely pedantic, which is just as bad. No one-line paragraphs; sparingly use one-line paragraphs. Same thing. Basically, "use them sparingly" means don't use them when you obviously don't need to. And then trying to butter up other editors by saying that you agree with their edits, when said topic has no relevance to the topic at hand, when the editors that you're attempting to butter up are agreeing with what I've said about the policy in question. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor you're claiming that I am "attempting to butter up" is someone who has been against me since the beginning of all of this so why would I even do that? The fact is, I'm attempting to be more civil and I appreciated his most recent reversion of my edit and his civility in that matter.  You then came in AFTER he had already said that and put in an unnecessary WP:SUMMARYONLY comment.  Had I reverted his changes or argued about his changes I would understand your comment then, even though you were and are delusional about WP:PARAGRAPH, but that wasn't the case and you were just itching to get in one more word on the matter because of your apparent dislike for me.Pjstar35 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the latest version? If not, let's stop bickering here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No problems from me with it at all. I'm just irked at the fact that we have provoking immature editors still attempting to make a scene here on Wikipedia. Let's continue to edit this great show's article in peace. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm good with the latest version. Hopefully AlexTheWhovian will be able to get past being "irked" and then all will be well. I agree with his comment on editing this great, albeit unfortunately short-lived, show's article. Once officially announced as canceled in May, the article will need no more editing anyhow which really is unfortunate because I really like the show.Pjstar35 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Luckily for us, your claims of cancellation are unfounded and groundless; I eagerly look forward to editing the article more actively once it is renewed in May for its second season in the 2015-16 television season. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope you're right because I'm really enjoying the show but unfortunately, they're not my claims nor are they unfounded and groundless. So many times over the past several years I've seen Bill Gorman mark a show that I really liked as canceled, despite no official announcement, and hoped it would get renewed and they never do.  Every show he's marked with an official "canceled" designation prior to the announcement by the network has been canceled. It's very unfortunate for us fans that he's so good at his job but I guess that's why we leave this kind of thing to the professionals.Pjstar35 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Surely common sense has to come into play here. I mean, Bill Gorman doesn't work for NBC, he stepped back from day to day operations of TVbythenumbers when it was sold, he doesn't have any say over what show will be renewed and when, he can only predict. He's not a reliable source, sorry. Besides posting the ratings, TVbythenumbers quotes press releases from networks and sources from websites like Deadline etc when posting breaking news about cancelations or renewals. Take with a grain of salt any predictions of cancelation until official, it's not noteworthy enough to be added. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The weathermen don't work for mother nature but they make weather predictions. I suppose they're not a reliable source for the weather forecast by your logic! Pjstar35 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That has absolutely no relevance here, and you know it. Now you're just pulling out random crap to support your failing argument. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you figure there's no relevance? First, the weatherman makes predictions, which is what we're talking about here. Second, the weatherman makes said predictions based upon research, data, and historical information.  Bill Gorman makes predictions doing the same exact thing.  One is acceptable and one is not?  That sounds like hypocritical logic to me. Pjstar35 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And yours sounds like nonsensical "logic" to me. Stop trying to "win". You're just making your case worse with each post. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also the argument that he's always right doesn't have much merit. The predictions are never static and are changed weekly if the ratings continue to drop. If a show starts off poorly it's a no brainer, but if a show starts off well and drops weekly, a prediction that's always changing shouldn't really be credited as being accurate, because it wasn't from the start. Anyone in that position could do the same with the same degree of success if they adapted their predictions to suit the numbers. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly have no idea how TVByTheNumbers or Bill Gorman's predictions work. To say the predictions are "never static and are changed weekly" is highly inaccurate.  Yes, they usually change shows predictions between "certain to be canceled" to "certain to be renewed" but in the case of Constantine it has been marked with a flat out "canceled" designation since December 2nd, 2014 which they only do when there are extenuating circumstances indicating the demise of a show, in this case it's the fact that it's a rookie show that premiered in the fall and did not get a back nine order.  I challenge you to find a show in recent history that was a rookie show, premiered in the fall of a non WGA strike year, did not get a back nine order, and was still renewed. I'll wait. Pjstar35 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How to Get Away with Murder. Your wait is over. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How To Get Away With Murder was announced as a limited series at the TCA Press Tour in July 2014 (see the development section on the Wikipedia page you linked). It was never intended to be a full season to begin with so it was never going to get any more than the 15 episodes for the first season.  Constantine was not announced as a limited series. Come on, you can do better than that.  Still waiting. Pjstar35 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously guys, just drop it. We created an acceptable content edit based on information available. We know we are getting a decision by at least May, and then we can continue editing the page based on that decision. Let's just move on. If you still have an issue with each other's opinions, take it to YOUR talk pages, not this one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, and I'm exercising my right of reply here, I know full well how TVBythenumbers works. I believe I was spot on with my assessment too. His predictions are changed often to reflect a shows numbers, that is a fact. I don't see how anyone who constantly changes his predictions can be seen as reliable, it's common sense to guess something with horrible numbers as cancelled, but when you change your mind often it calls into question the validity of your claims. If show A starts off well and declines, he'll naturally mark as four/five smileys and remove one depending on how badly it continues to do. Also his weather analogy is nonsensical. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record IP, my above comment was not directed at you. After clearing that up, I am no longer contributing to this thread. It's closed in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this being closed, at least until the official announcement. Some people are so close-minded that they'll never see reason or logic so I suppose there's no need for me to continue this back and forth. Have a great day everyone. Pjstar35 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't sure how to add my reply to the ones aimed at me. It absolutely wasn't aimed at you Favrelfan93. I didn't expect a huge number of responses and wasn't sure how people would react if I inserted my response higher up. Anyways, PJstar didn't have to be so insulting with that response. I'll happily consider this discussion done. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said: making your case worse with each post. Personal attacks. Please, do keep going. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I tried to keep going, as you requested, by posting on your own talk page, as others have asked us kindly to do, but that just ended up with you deleting whatever I posted on your talk page. With your childish attitude regarding this whole thing, I really can't say I'm surprised.  See you in May. Pjstar35 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Easter Eggs
I feel like the information regarding Easter eggs in the show's episodes that I added is being removed out of spite rather than in good faith. At least one of the users that has reverted my edit has a personal issue with me, as is evident above on this talk page, and the other user makes vague comments for the reason they are reverting without attempting to explain what is wrong with the information posted (WP:UNRESPONSIVE). If either of them had referenced a specific Wikipedia policy I was violating I could probably understand the revert but to simply say the information isn't "notable" is a matter of opinion and may not reflect the opinion of the millions of people that read the information posted on Wikipedia. Hopefully an unbiased 3rd party can take a look at this and let me know what exactly is wrong with what I added. Thanks! Pjstar35 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a show that has source material to pull from, so of course there are going to be easter eggs. All it is WP:TRIVIA, which is not allowed. And if we were going to mention them at all, there has to be some notable aspect to why we are mentioning them. And you don't have that at all in the content you added. So all the users that removed this, are correct in doing so. We are not a fan service site, we're an encyclopedia. Save that info for a wikia or other forum. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. I will say, however, that easter eggs have a more "notable aspect" than ratings or a "Production Code". No one really gives a shit about how many people in a certain demographic watch a particular episode, except maybe people that make predictions on the future of shows but those people are idiots and don't know anything if you ask the editors here on Wikipedia. And that production code .... most people don't even know what the fuck that is so where's the "notable aspect" in that? I digress. Back to your explanation though, which I appreciate you taking the time to type .... apparently that was too difficult for the other 2 people that reverted the information.  I suppose had they followed WP:UNRESPONSIVE and explained their reversion in the first place there wouldn't have been a need to add this section here on the talk page. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, however, considering the "pick and choose" attitude on Wikipedia in regards to which policies people choose to follow. I suppose that makes it easier for the "good ol' boys network" here to berate newer editors and make them feel stupid because they're new. Well played Wikipedia, well played. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, it seems that a repeat is needed on the fact that we are an encyclopedia, not a fan service. Of course there's going to be "easter eggs" from the comics, it's based entirely upon the comics. Just as you asked me to provide a show that got renewed without a back-nine order, I request an article that gives such an important note about such eggs. A fan site would give information about Easter Eggs - hardly notable. An encyclopedia would give real-life information based on the article on hand - for example, production codes and ratings. There was no explanation as to why these facts were included; why they were so important; what was included was merely trivia. Production codes and ratings are important to the series in the way that they are connected and related to the real-life side of the series. It matters not what what "millions of people" care about or have use for when it comes to Wikipedia, we list what needs to be listed - again, furthering on the statement that we are not a fansite. You go on about editors only using what policies that they require for their argument, and yet you can't follow WP:CIVIL by spreading such profanity throughout your replies. It seems that hypocrisy has dealt its hand here. I most certainly did explain my revert in the edit summary; however, the properties you have shown rather obviously throughout these past few weeks in concern of this article decided to ignore it, including your stubbornness, enjoyment of personal attacks, your view that because you're new you must be respected above experienced editors, and that you're apparently always right. Being reverted by editors that know what they are doing has always been considered "pick and choose" by lesser experienced editors, and done out of spite, since they view it as decided to keep only what they want on the article, and not what others think should be included. This stems from not reading the policies and being non-knowledgeable in the ways of standard practices for these articles. Whether content is notable or not is not a matter of opinion, as you declare it; it's from experience of editing articles such as this many times before, and getting a base knowledge on what to include or not, as part of standard practice. Not everything that is reverted on Wikipedia is due to policy; it's knowing what to include and what not to. I used to be the same when I was an IP editor, then I bothered to ask questions and learn. Explaining these edits would have required a new section on the talk page anyways, so explanation or not, a discussion on the talk page of an article is always considered good.  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Once again, it seems that a repeat is needed..." - No, it's really not. Favre1fan93 did an excellent job of explaining.  This is obviously a trait you should learn.  I asked for an unbiased 3rd party to give their input, I got it, so your post was not needed, required, requested, or necessary.  The majority of your post was simply repeating what Favre1fan93 already said, in an absolutely unnecessarily lengthy way, and the rest of your post was just further passive aggressive acknowledgement of your dislike for me which is already well documented in previous posts. Wikipedia already has a well known reputation in the media for being full of sexist, elitist, bureaucratic editors - see WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Media and research - so I thank you for continuing to prove them right. Pjstar35 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In no way do you own this article, this talk page, nor any page on Wikipedia, so in no way do you have any right in declaring who can and cannot reply to talk pages, and what posts are necessary or not. You most certainly did not "get it", given that you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts that any basic Wikipedia editor knows; basically rendering you completely useless when it comes to editing this site. In fact, pretty much everything that has been said to you concerning the multiple talk page topics in concern to you has the requirement of being repeated, given your complete, utter and unbreakable stubbornness. And the WikiProject you linked pretty much has no basis on the topic at hand. Try harder, mate. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not this again. You two need to get a room. If you have to argue in public then please strictly limit yourselves to the topic at hand. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to. And yet, another certain editor continues to attempt to bring our past issues with both the article and personal history into our current affairs. I expand upon another editor's explanation and add my own to clarify to the troublesome user, and I simply get insults and demands of silence from him. What's a man to do? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize Jeraphine. I got an excellent explanation from Favre1fan93 and although I did have to point out the irony of saying this wasn't a "notable aspect" despite other less than notable aspects that are accepted, I had decided it wasn't worth it to fight to allow the information as it was never going to happen anyway based on past history on this article. However, since someone else decided not to let it go I felt I had to reply.  I said what I needed to say, I got the answer to my original post and since I started this section I'll just go ahead and close it since nothing further, on topic, needs to be said about it. Pjstar35 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Series revived on The CW Seed
...but in animated form. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources have not indicated that this is a direct revival or continuation of this series. Only that Ryan will once again portray the character in an Arrowverse animated series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it says there are not any plans For Constantine to appear in the arrowverse, but he is appearing in the second half of legends of tomorrow season 3 24.18.38.178 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Unproduced episode and the episode table
Should unproduced "episode #14" be included in the episode table? Please indicate "support" or "oppose" to its inclusion in the episode table below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll start this off: I oppose including an unproduced, unfilmed episode in the episode table. It's possible that this should be included not in the 'Episode' section but somewhere else, but it should not be included in the episode table IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - there really is no reason not to. Lets start with the technical side - no guideline or common practice or Episode list template documentation that says it shouldn't. Now looking at the actual issue, the episode information was already in the list, but was placed outside of the table. In the table it was clearly written as unproduced and irrelevant fields were marked with an em-dash. What is the difference between it being outside the pretty table and in? Are we harming some sacred episode honor that I'm not aware of? On the other hand, the table, unlike outside the table, offered a more readable entry and more context (which is why Episode list is used over simple bulleted lists). --Gonnym (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, should remain in prose and should probably go in the "Cancellation" section. - Brojam (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Should be mentioned in article prose if there are reliable and sufficient sources about it that it's not just trivia, but common sense dictates the episode table is clearly for episodes that i.e. have been produced and could actually be watched by someone (whether or not they were released/aired). Otherwise it creates a false equivalency between extant episodes and ones where filming never took place. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)