Talk:Adventures of Superman (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Superman This article is part of WikiProject Superman. The purpose of this project is to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on and/or related to Superman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

Contents

[edit] title

I think this article needs to be renamed Adventures of Superman (TV series). First of all, Adventures of Superman is the correct title as noted in the article. Second, there should be a clear disambiguation with the comic book series.Rhindle The Red 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Just as the page The Mary Tyler Moore Show emphasizes that Mary Tyler Moore is the correct on-screen name of the series, Adventures of Superman (a title lifted directly from the comic books in both wording and style) is the correct on-screen name of this series. The complication comes later in the series when you have the voice of Charlie Lyons announcing, The Adventures of Superman over the title card which still does not include The. I'm inclined to agree with your approach, to have a disambiguation page and presumably to have this page redirect to it for those who expect it. Note that The Mary Tyler Moore Show is the title of that article despite its own explanation to the contrary, because that's what people expect to find, rather than a disambiguation page for "Mary Tyler Moore". However, in this case you simply have two different media with effectively the same name. Wahkeenah 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Coherence and Presentation

Why is it important to deal with the question of Canadian returns of the initial DVD run in the body of the text? Surely this is an historical footage at best. Likewise, if there's a separate entry for Panic in the Sky (the best, no doubt about it), the comments about Seinfeld, et al, should be after the text, not as an introduction.

Neat to have all this info about the effects, but it should be... will be... coherently presented.User:Ted Newsom

  • Good work, even if you gave away the ending of Panic in the Sky. :) The Canadian DVD problem might have been significant a year ago, but it's old news now, so zapping it makes sense. I think at the time that little news blurb was all there was about the DVD's. I added some stuff, which by now needed some editing. Wahkeenah 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, anybody, where does this Sep 19 1952 debut date come from? Grossman-- and he's right 95% of the time-- gives a specific LA premier date of Feb 9, 1953 on KECA, a NY debut on April 1 on WABC. Yes, some of the title cards may say "1952," but that doesn't mean they were shown that year. User:Ted Newsom

  • I think if you look back through the lengthy talk pages from last spring or so (when that "George Reeves project" lunatic was constantly vandalizing the George Reeves page, and probably this one also) there is some information about it. That guy kept trying to change the dates for reasons known only to himself. That's a bit of a side issue by now. Sorry. Wahkeenah 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it comes from the IMDB site [1] which lists first-run dates for all the episodes. That begs the question of what their source is. Wahkeenah 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The date applies only to Chicago - according to newspaper TV Listings, the series was to debut at 7:30pm on WENR, September 19. However, the Chicago edition of TV DIGEST for September 26 lists the plot of "Superman on Earth" (same time and station), so it's possible that the premiere was postponed for a week. MikeH0714 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Michael J. Hayde

There seems to be too much duplicate info now, between the "visual effects" and the "series history". I am inclined to lift the info about effects out of the series history and blend it into the "effects" section, leaving the "series history" to be more about the presentation rather than the effects, for better balance and conciseness. What do you think? Wahkeenah 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I was in the process of doing just that, simultaneously with your corrections-- and that wiped out a half-hour worth of rewrites. There's a lot of fannish comments in general that I think could be clipped, too. I love the show, but... hey...Ted Newsom

You didn't have to lose those rewrites. You could paste them elsewhere and work them in. I'm sorry about stumbling on each other. It's clear we're both fans of the series, and we want a good article about it. Maybe I'll just leave it alone for a little while and let you have at it some more. Wahkeenah 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we include the Series Cancellation?

Hey guys, we've written and posted series history, visual effects, popularity, filming locations, so why don't we include a section on why the series was cancelled? I can think of a few good reasons: First, the show became too campy and then too repetitive in plots (several of the last episodes had Supes saving Lois and Jimmy again and again, the fact that George Reeves was too old to play Superman (since Supes will always be 30-something), or the fact that the youth audience started listening to Elvis, Buddy Holly, and rock and roll as they grew up.

Seriously, we should also include the fact that Robert Shayne, who played Inspector Henderson, was also blacklisted as a Communist during that time. Although he was acquitted, this woulda done some damage to the show's reputation! What do you guys think? --Jonathan.Bruce 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's already covered to some extent, or at least it was unless somebody rubbed it out. And it's not up to us to think of reasons, they have to be researched. TV shows are typically cancelled either due to failing ratings or the non-interest of the participants. The fact that they were about ready to revive the series when Reeves died suggests it was more likely the latter, but that would be speculation, you need to find a credibile source. Shayne's political problems were settled early in the run of the series, so it was not a factor. Wahkeenah 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Actor?

I just got wind of an interview with a John Fredrick (he acted in Ten Commandments and Cleopatra (the 1963 version), who said in an interview with DesMoinesRegister.com (article: Famous Iowans) that he played Superman for 18 unaired episodes in 1958 to 1959. Apparently, he said he was hired to try and bring George Reeves back into the fold. However, a guy at Supermanhomepage.com contacted Jack Larson (Jimmy Olsen) and Noel Neill (Lois), and they said they never heard of him or worked with him. Does anyone hear anything about this? Help me out, sounds like he's starting a rumor to get "fame," if that's what he's after. I have great doubts. It's right here: [[2]] --Jonathan.Bruce 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

This article should definately be added to the following articles, except that I don't actuallly know how to go about doing that, sadly enough.

Now, the reason should be fairly self-explanatory. However, there might be some controversey, in that it debuted in some markets in 1952 and others in 1953, according to commentary on the Season 1 DVD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiphone83 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Done. --UpDown 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locations

The actual name of the 1st Season Daily Planet exterior is the "Wilson Building". The Carnation Building was a smaller (less than 5 stories) building; its front doors were used for entrances and exits by "the Planet staff" in "Crime Wave" and "Superman on Earth." I've updated the text (although it seems to have instantly disappeared), but cannot change the caption on the photo. MikeH0714 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Michael J. Hayde

Restored, as per user-page discussion, and also fixed the caption and the photo link. Wahkeenah 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode notability

Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. TTN 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Superman Title Cards.JPG

Image:Superman Title Cards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening narration

Quoting this narration in its entirety may have copyright issues. Keep? Delete? Anyone? Overjoyed (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been part of the Superman saga nearly from the beginning, in one form or another. There are also factual points being made about the narrations. The owners of Superman guard their rights very zealously. I think they are way much more concerned about theft of imagery vs. merely quoting something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but unless the narration or the series and its content has been released to the public domain, quoting has copyright issues for WP. Song lyrics, for example, cannot be quoted at WP. Overjoyed (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Quotations and song lyrics are not against the rules as such. They are like slices of a larger work. I can quote a few lines from a song, but I can't reproduce the entire song or a significant portion of it (unless it's out of copyright). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, if there was a serious problem, I think we would have heard from Warner by now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The opening narration is from a script which may or may not be under copyright. We don't know but we need to find out before we include it in an article. I've left it for now. Overjoyed (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Memorable episodes and "Panic"

This is POV. It appears one editor has decided what is "memorable". I suggest the episodes be merged into a stand alone List of Episodes. "Panic" too appears to be one editor's opinion. "Panic" should have a stand alone article if notability can be established or merged into a List of Episodes. Overjoyed (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's relatively more "memorable" in that it has been reworked in later series, and critics have labeled it one of the best in the series (Garry Grossman, in particular). I don't think "memorable" is too much of a POV-push, but maybe there's a better term. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think someone started some individual episode guides. Not sure how far he got with them, though. That's a fair amount of tedium, since there are 104 of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Even Grossman's assessment of "Panic" is POV. Anyone can call himself a critic or scholar, "review" an episode, and publish it. That review however needs mention and scrutiny in third party sources -- newspapers, university publications, peer-reviewed journals -- to render it notable at WikiP. And those sources need to be cited in the article. I've moved "Panic" to a stand alone article where it remains unsourced. At-length reviews of individual episodes don't belong in articles discussing complete series. Overjoyed (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a verifiable source. Are you acquainted with his book, Superman: Serial to Cereal? If not, you should try to find a copy somewhere. It's been out of print for awhile, but it has a great deal of info about Superman outside the comic books: radio, cartoons, serials, and this TV series, as well as other shows as of its 1976 publication date. Also, I thought there already was a standalone article about Panic in the Sky. Not sure, as it has been awhile since I did any work on this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a secondary source however and much here needs tertiary sources -- newspaper articles, TV Guide articles, Variety articles, university publications, peer-reviewed jounrals, etc. Even as a secondary source it needs in-line citation -- not a mention in "References". As it stands, a lot in this article appears to be original research. Overjoyed (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Grossman book is the source for much of it. Observation from the DVD's is also a source, and is an acceptable primary source. I get the impression you are unfamiliar with the Grossman book. He studied the series in depth, interviewed its co-stars, and is also on some of the DVD extras. I'm seeing that as this in-line reference stuff gains in popularity, so to speak, that many articles seem to consist of about 50 percent citations. Go for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Other sources beside the Grossman book should be referenced. An article like Adventures of Superman should not be based on one source. There must be other materials about the show -- reviews, historical information, commentaries, for example. The fact of the matter is this: There is simply not enough material about older television shows readily available. Reviews, historical information, commentaries, and other tertiary information about the show would be found on microfilm or microfiche in a university library or large metropolitan public library.
The article is about the show -- material about the lives of the stars should be in articles about the lives of the stars. For example, the information about Neill and Larson appearing at Superman conventions years after the show was cancelled in the section "After the show" should be taken to articles about those stars -- unless it could be shown (through sources) that their appearances at such conventions had an impact on the show -- fostering a popularity for the show after its cancellation, for example. The impact their appearances had on the show should be included in this article -- not the simple fact that they made appearances. However, the death of Reeves (though personal) should be included in THIS article because it had impact on the show.
DVDs are acceptable as primary sources for facts (roles and performers, plots, crew, for example) not interpretation. Editors should not watch an episode on a DVD then write, "This is one of the best episodes in the series." That's interpretation, even if it's stated in a source like Grossman. An author can rave about a television show in his book, but an editor at WikiP can't do that. Wiki readers should be allowed to decide for themselves whether the episode is one of the best. An editor can, however, state something like "The episode was one of the highest rated episodes in the series" and THEN cite an in-line source like the Neilsen ratings to support the statement. Overjoyed (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to look for other sources. And feel free to answer my question as to whether you've ever actually read Grossman's definitive study of the series (it sounds like the answer is NO). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you're concerned about copyrights, that episode list reads as if it was lifted directly from another source, without attribution (until I asked you about it and you provided a generalistic answer). If that's all it is, the same list can be achieved from a simple link from the main AOS page, and avoid any issues with copyrights. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look for other sources. No, I haven't read Grossman's book but I will look for a copy. Whether I've read it or not is somewhat immaterial. I'm not questioning information in the article, I'm questioning its source -- and the source needs to be cited in-line. References are being cited in the Episode List. Episode Lists, however, can be created from DVDs as a primary source because what is being noted are simple facts -- performers, roles, directors, plots, air dates. I was tired and made a general note last night before I went to bed about references as a reminder for today. I agree about linking to external episode lists but WP likes its own lists. If an external list should be shut down for some reason, or vandalized, or have other issues, at least WP has its own episode list. Overjoyed (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding it, as it's been out of print for awhile. I don't know of any better source, but maybe you can find one. I don't think IMDB is going away, but you never know. Internet sources in general are the least reliable, because they can disappear at any time. But if all you did was copy-and-paste from TV.com, that's against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not likely to find anything about Nielsen ratings for a 1950s syndicated series, but good luck trying. The references to an episode by well-known fans like Seinfeld provide useful (i.e. verifiable) information about the impact of an episode. Noel Neil's use of it in her college tours also suggests that it was taken to be popular by its contemporaries, which is why it's appropriate to retain that info, either in the main article or in the article(s) about the episode. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, feel free to search the libraries for old copies of TV Guide to supplement the sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Internet sources like IMDb and even Wiki are unstable and unreliable -- that is, they are user-created, subject to vandalism, etc. Ratings for the show probably are non-existent. The show likely never made the top twenty-five -- which, AFAIK, are the only records Neilsen retains. But ratings is the kind of information Wiki likes.
Seinfeld is POV. It's his opinion. He likes a particular episode. So what? Maybe the Queen of England likes a particular episode. Are we supposed to list that? Maybe George Bush likes one, maybe Britney Spears likes one, maybe the Pope likes one, maybe Mrs. Hammacher down the street likes one. So what? Are we supposed to list everybody's favorite episodes? It really doesn't speak to anything. And it's POV anyways -- even if it can be sourced from Grossman's book or a tv documentary. POV from secondary sources should be included in a Wiki article ONLY if it's a part of a significant controversy and then all opinions should be covered in the article without giving undue weight to one or another. Overjoyed (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to look for sources that you consider reliable and that point out noteworthy episodes. Meanwhile, I'm curious if you even like the series, let alone any particular episodes. Your user name belies your seemingly skeptical (and seemingly un-knowledgeable) comments about this series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list

The episode list is a good overview. I recommend that you list your source(s), before sometime slaps a "missing sources" tag on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overjoyed (talk • contribs) 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fancruft, etc.

This article contains a good deal of minute detail about minute detail about the show. It's unsourced, its fancruft and needs to be edited. Some sections like "Locations", "Visual Effects", and "Music" carry undue weight and overwhelm the article in their individual lengths. Encyclopedic information like Cultural Impact, Reviews and Ratings, etc. have never been touched in this article, which is essentially a collection of trivial details about the series. Free free to begin editing the massive amounts of fancruft while trying to fill the gaps about Impact, Ratings etc. Overjoyed (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How did you get involved in writing about this, if you're not interested in the series? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The image ADV Stars 02.jpg is from "Beware the Wrecker". Which episode is ADV Stars 01.jpg from? I'm guessing it's "Blackmail", but not sure. I don't know the color episodes as well as I do the black-and-whites. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Other than your concerns about "Panic in the Sky", what neutrality issues are you seeing? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example taken directly from the article:
"Kirk Alyn, who played Superman in two serials, stated over the years that he refused the TV series role for fear of typecasting; producers of the series say neither Alyn nor his serial co-stars Noel Neill (who later replaced Coates), Tommy Bond, or Pierre Watkin, who later was considered to be the new Perry White, were never seriously considered for the inaugural season. Glimpses of Alyn's work, shown in Look! Up in the sky! suggest that he was really not athletic enough for the role. Radio's Superman, Bud Collyer, felt he was too old (at 43) to play the role."
The first sentence should be sourced. Alyn said something ... where, when? An in-line source should be given. Next, the producers said something. It should be sourced. An in-line source should be made after the word, "typecasting" and after the last word "season" -- even if the source is the same for both statements.
The second sentence "Glimpses of Alyn's work ..." is POV. It appears a Wiki editor watched the documentary and decided Alyn was not athelic. That's POV. That's opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. If the sentence cannot be reliably sourced, it should be deleted.
The third sentence about Collyer should be sourced. Collyer "felt" something. It should be sourced. Overjoyed (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to review the listed sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point. Statements in the article are probably accurate but need in-line sourcing -- not a single, collective mention at the bottom of the page under "References". If an article contained 12 different references and the editor neglected to make in-line citations, the reader would have absolutely no idea from whence a particular statement has its source. Should the Wiki user read through 12 different sources to locate the source of one statement? No. that one statement needs to be sourced in-line by the article's editor. It's about Wiki-style and the MOS. There's a Wiki page about writing "television series" articles. Check it out. In-line citations are needed in this article, otherwise statements can be challenged and deleted. A general mention at the bottom of the page under "References" is not sufficient. It opens the door to having the article challenged and deleted. Overjoyed (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do that work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Overjoyed's edits

To Overjoyed: (also posted on your talk page) Point of information: Is there a reason you choose not to rewrite the article from scratch, exactly as you want it to read, instead of making 88 individual edits to the page in three days? Your changes to the page, while substantive and substantial, are almost impossible to follow from edit to edit. I hope it is useful to suggest that you gather your thoughts and all your research about a page, then rewrite the whole article in one edit. That way people can see exactly what has changed without having to track minor (and frequently reversed) changes through nearly a hundred different edits. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Featured Article

I believe this article is a far as one can go with it and should be nominated for a featured article. Please comment. TimmyTruck (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Material Found "Elsewhere" in Article

Please remember the "lead" or intro to the article is intended as something of a summary to the entire article. Don't delete material from the lead simply because it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Some material in the lead will be found elsewhere. This is typical of Wiki articles. TimmyTruck (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The material I deleted is (a.) not focal enough to be part of the lead and (b.) virtually word-for-word repeated in a much more suitable place later in the article. There is no need for two virtually identical paragraphs in the same article, and the Hollywoodland reference is far more appropriately placed where the latter reference has it. IMHO. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adventures of Superman: Images

I'm wondering why the side-by-side images of the "Look Up in the Sky" moment from the show are critical to this article and exactly what do they demonstrate/illustrate/prove? Both images are small and of poor quality to begin with and look almost exactly alike. I don't understand why they are incuded here. Could someone explain? Also, I'm having the same problem with the image of Lois Lane making an exit through a door. What is this image intended to illustrate/prove/demonstrate? A single television article cannot be filled with countless images of every frame of the show. In order to "balance" text and images per Wikipedia's suggestions and guidelines, I wondering if images of the cast be deleted in order to accomodate images that are (IMHO) useless and vague. For my own part, I believe readers would be more interested in having access to images of the cast rather than doorways and vague crowd scenes. We could just as easily include images of the speeding train, the tall building leapt at a single bound, Perry White's office, Jimmy Olsen's blue sweater vest, and countless other elements, but to what purpose? Please discuss the rationales for including images of vague crowd scenes and people walking through doors. I'd really like to know because they're quite inexplicable to me. TimmyTruck (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the List of Episodes page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)