Talk:Supergirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Supergirl article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Supergirl of Planet Argo

my first posting. please don't yell, tho' I haven't read the manual (life's too short, kids). I believe yet another kink in the supergirl origin may've been introduced in a comic by evan dorkin (of "milk and cheese" "fame") and sarah dyer (of "action girl"). in this "contranuity", kara-el, if I don't mistake her name, is from krypton's sister planet, argo, is immune to kryptonite, though has a phobia of cold (not shared by other argoans), and remains his cousin. I might be wrong. thanks for your forbearance!

Welcome. It's customary to sign any discussion posting you have with --~~~~. Don't sweat it, though. (You might want to check out the Sandbox for getting used to the system.) Oh, I also hope you don't mind if I put a section header to this, for neatness. Anyhow, you're thinking of the animated Supergirl, born Kara In-Ze. She has a fear of cold because she and her family were the last survivors of Argo, knocked out of its shared orbit with Krypton after the latter exploded. She and the survivors of her family created stasis chambers designed to let them survive until help arrived. When help did arrive, in the form of Superman, only Kara's chamber was still active and undamaged. She subconsciously fears returning to the cold threat of death. She's technically not related to Kal-El, but they both consider themselves adopted cousins of a sort. If this isn't in the main article already, it should be; if it weren't so late local time, I'd do it myself right now. --Joe Sewell 02:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I added the information you suggested. --Joe Sewell 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brought back the Alex Ross artwork

I can understand the desire to have Helen Slater as the main pic, but since the article still referred to the Alex Ross artwork, I saw the need to correct the comment, or bring back the picture. I chose the latter, with an appropriate correction to the verbage. I'm not completely happy with the page layout, but it works for me for now. --Joe Sewell 02:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Crisis Kara Zor-el Website

I don't know how to fix this.. but I am the host of the Post Crisis Supergirl Website that is listed in the Links section.. the address has changed.. .the new address is www.karalives.com ... I hope this gets fixed and thanks to whomever posted the link...

[edit] Firey Wings = Sophisticated?

I don't want feel it's my place to quash someone's point of view on the level of maturity or sophistication of a comic, but is it really accurate to say that the Supergirl books where Linda was an "Earth-born angel" are more mature than most other superhero books? I read them, and that's not the impression I got at all. In fact, I had the opposite feeling for these stories, and I thought that they were kind of obvious and gimmicky, like the angel they had serving on the JLU for a couple of years, for another example.

I don't think we need to editorialize for the reader. Just explain what the story was about, and let the reader of the article decide for himself (or herself) whether it sounds mature or sophisticated.

The bit about Lilith being Adam's first wife is also a little vague and out of context. Why put in that bit at all? Just link to Lilith's own article.

And on another note, the grammar in that section is all out of whack (a young boy who [sic] she believed was God). At the very least it should be fixed up for that reason.

Mael-Num 07:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also...I did a teensy rewrite on the "heroic death" of Supergirl, noting that it was Byrne's Man of Steel that necessarily caused her sacrifice to be forgotten. If I'm mistaken, by all means put it back. Mael-Num 01:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I have just reported the recent 3RR violation by the anonymous user 24.168.61.123. You can look at it or add comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:24.168.61.123 That's just the beginning of the policies his recent edits ignore, but one thing at a time; a block for a clear-cut 3RR is not something he can fail to notice, and maybe that will get him engaging in some kind of dialogue. Or, failing that, just leaving the article alone, which would be less good but also acceptable. PurplePlatypus 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we have another "reversion" of this anonymous user. I also think there's need for a reversion, thing that I did some minutes ago to the last version of the anonymous user 172.143.71.43. But I will try to attempt a contact with our anonymous. Wikipedia is like a real encyclopedia, only faster and opened to all potential editors. As such, every writer must add only contents based on real and verifiabile sources, knowing that at every moment the things he has written could be modified. We all know that. But are now matter of discussion two big issues:

  • This is the Supergirl page, so argument of discussion is how this new Kara Zor-El is presented to the reader by her autors. Not Darkseid, not Superman. Supergirl, Post-Crisis Kara Zor-El
  • We all know that logically a young girl cannot be physically stronger than a grown-up man, we also know from the DC event "One Million" that a Kryptonian gains more powers the more he stays under a yellow sun, but, considered that the only sources at the moment on Kara are an interview to her main author and the comics, we can easily read that the current plot device is the feeling of uneasyness of the superhero community for a young girl that _they_ perceive as unnaturally strong, even compared to Superman's standards. So, at least until DC will give through comics or confidential sources the solution to the Supergirl dilemma, we cannot express a partial or personal point of view, but only the sum of the given data. At least, I think so. 172.143.71.43 has clearly given a fully un-personal POV, so I reverted the text to his version, not the plurireverted 24.168.61.123 one.

I only hope that 24.168.61.123 will try to keep in mind some of this to attempt a new way of contributing wikipedia DrTofu83 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supergirl?

By no means expert in DC stuff, let me raise a Q. Isn't the "first app" tag reserved for the gennie item? OK, Jimmy's "wish girl" was super, but was she Supergirl? I'd say no, Supergirl deubt in Action 252, which is where the Overstreet & Comics Journal (as I recall) both put her. So whassup with Action 123? Trekphiler 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kara from Superman/Aliens

Should there be a separate paragraph for the last survivor of "Argo" named Kara in the Superman/Aliens miniseries? Kaijan 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Will you infants stop switching the images of Supergirl? Dyslexic agnostic 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Found a second version of the image used on this page, clearly the same image but higher resolution. Wondering I should use it or that I'm even allowed to use it.
Location: [[1]]The main site: [2]
It looks like the same resolution to me. --Chris Griswold 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's the same picture but higher resolution, after some research it seems that the one I linked to here was actually based on the current image in the article just enlarged to fit a 1024x768 desktop. the quality of the image is therefor lower the one used now.

The current opening image is somewhat misleading. The pre-Crisis versions of Supergirl outfits never that that soft-porn feel to them. Luis Dantas 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative strength

"We all know that logically a young girl cannot be physically stronger than a grown-up man, we also know from the DC event "One Million" that a Kryptonian gains more powers the more he stays under a yellow sun, but, considered that the only sources at the moment on Kara are an interview to her main author and the comics, we can easily read that the current plot device is the feeling of uneasyness of the superhero community for a young girl that _they_ perceive as unnaturally strong, even compared to Superman's standards."

I don't think it is impossible for Supergirl to be stronger than Superman. My reasoning is that this incarnation of Supergirl is technically older than Superman, thus it is probably that her powers are more developed. in the Superman/Batman comic book Superman meets an "older" and "stronger" Superman, which suggests that this incarnation of Superman's power is still developing. anyways its still too early everything new talked about is left to speculation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.180.15 (talk • contribs)


It's all moot anyway - Superman IS more powerful than Kara and it's all explained in Issue 5 of the most recent series.

--Charlesknight 12:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrix and the Kents

Matrix lived with/was raised by the Kents, but did they refer to her as their daughter? I can't remember. --Chris Griswold 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. --Joe Sewell 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I checked my Supergirl comics, and they do refer to her as their daughter and have a loving parental relationship with her. After the merge, they continue to maintain that relationship, and become friends with Linda's birth parents as well. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Should Acquaintance Be Forgot

I added a section about the original (Pre-Crisis) Kara Zor-El's last appearance, in the 1988 Christmas with the Super-Heroes #2, in which she cheers up Deadman Boston Brand at Christmastime. This is a relevent and important part of the Supergirl mythos: an actual goodbye and remembrance of the character. While I can understand if someone might edit the section, I would like to see it stay. --Chris Griswold 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris, could you provide a source for the rumor about the story's impact on Waid? While I don't think rumored information belongs in the entry, informed speculation that could be referenced and cited would be OK. (For example, I'm thinking of a statement from someone who worked at DC with Waid at the time -- someone who might actually know the circumstances of his having left the position.)--Galliaz 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you're right. I decided to start trying to find out about this, but forgot to delete it. Will do that now. --Chris Griswold 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I forgot to mention that the section is a nice addition to the entry!--Galliaz 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Zor-El only?

Since it seems that all of the other Supergirls (Matrix, Linda Danvers, Cir-El and Power Girl) have their own articles, should we turn this article into a Kara Zor-El only article, or make an article devoted only to Kara? Coronis 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold and I have been talking about the very same thing. We thought that moving Kara Zor-El to her own page would be more appropriate. (Obviously much of that interchange happened before your additions to the Matrix page). CovenantD 02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Zor-El split

if you guys want to give Kara another article, her history in this one needs to be severely cut down or we have two articles saying the same thing.

Not only that, we can combine the two Kara Zor-El sections into one. Also make major re-edits. A lot of her biography is covered in her own article already. We don't need to give too much detail. Let this article be about the different characters who are called Supergirl and some background info only. --Destron Commander 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with The Supergirls

I think the limited history of The Supergirls would tie in better with the information of this article because now it's all about every Supergirl. 75.4.131.148 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Supergirls aren't really Supergirl, they're just a name Clark used offhandedly for the teaming of the three.
I don't think they're really a team. It's like, i dunno pointing to a bunch of random guys and calling them "dumbasses." It doesn't make them a new team named "Dumbasses." -- Exvicious 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge. CovenantD 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

don't merge

Kara Zor-El should stand on her own...especially now that the Matrix Supergirl and Cir-El are both "no longer in continuity." The Supergirls were never a team - they were just a off-hand comment made by Superman. One third of them (Mia/Cir-El) has now been deemed to never have existed. Let's not bog down Kara Zor-El's article with them. 69.137.100.108 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically, this isn't "her" article. It's the Supergirl article. Calling this her article is like calling "Nightwing" Dick Grayson's. Anyway, I have no real opinion on the merger. ACS (Wikipedian) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Kara Zor-El with Supergirl. Due to Infinite Crisis events Kara is once again the only Supergirl and the others are just wiped out of continuity, perished versions.--The Judge 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological order?

While it makes some sense to put both versions of Kara Zor-El together, it also makes the article somewhat confusing to go from reading about the Pre-Crisis Kara, then jumping ahead 20 years to the Loeb-created Kara, then jumping back to 1988 to the origin of Matrix. Would anyone else rather see the Pre- and Post-Crisis versions of Kara separated, so that the article reads in chronological order? Meaning Pre-Crisis Kara-->Matrix-->Earth Angel-->Cir-El-->the Loeb Kara. --SHODAN 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be in chrono order. They used to be.... CovenantD 03:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I also agree the two Karas should NOT be merged together, until IF & WHEN DC Comics state clearly that both girls are in fact one and the same. I think we are years away from that moment so...do not merge.

DAVID

[edit] Superwoman

Is it really appropriate to have a Superwoman listing here, since she/they has/have her/their own article? CovenantD 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

it mentions her as a precursor and doesn't really go into detail. Exvicious 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, It needed some work. I've done that. Cheak it out! ACS (Wikipedian) 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Much nicer. Thanks. CovenantD 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DCAU

What's the source on Superman beginning to the end of JLU being 10 years? I realize it might have been 10 years in real time, but time passes differently for comic characters. So which holds true in this case, real time or comics time (or neither, or a combination)? Darquis 22:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Zor-El (Black Costume version)?

Some discussion of the black costumed version of this character who appeared in the most recent Supergirl title (2006) would be useful. This character seems to be an aspect of Kara Zor-El's personality which has been submerged, perhaps deliberately, only to be freed by exposure to Black Kryptonite. In the fight she has with her "good" counterpart black-costumed Kara reveals that she was sent to Earth not to care for the infant Kal-El, but to kill him as part of Zor-El's plan to revenge himself on Jor-El. While this has not been fully explained in the comics, it has nor been contradicted so far and the latest issue of Supergirl (#8, 2006) seems to suggest that the current Kara Zor-El, operating in Kandor as Flamebird, still retains the memory of Zor-El charging her with this revenge mission, suggesting that this is the black-costumed "evil" Kara, or a merged version of both Kara Zor-Els previously seperated by Luthor's exposing Supergirl to Black-K. -- James C

[edit] Quote Removal?

Kara is described by the Question and Gilbert Hale as ‘She’s just a girl! Blonde hair, blue eyes – real farmer’s daughter type!’ ‘And a handshake like a vice?’ (Fearful Symmetry, Justice League Unlimited)

Should this be removed? I watched this eposide today and the statement was about Galatea, her clone. While both had the same appearance, they don't share the same personality.

If the info is incorrect, then yes, it should be removed or transferred to Tea's article. CovenantD 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versions of a character or different characters.

Supergir-Matrix was intended to be Kara Zor-El, that's why she wasnt ever called "Supergirl II". Matrix was the Supergirl revamp after the Crisis. The same hero reimagined, just like the Supremes and Judy Jordans of the Supremacy. And Linda Danvers is not yet another one, that is still Matrix, only merged with the body (not with the person, since the girl died) of a girl.

Since ten year from now nobady will remember there was a "Matrix" supergirl that wasn't called Kara Zor-El, which is the already popular version adapted not only in the movie but also in the DC animated universe, I think there is no need for a Kara Zor-El separated article.

However, I do see the need for a Matrix article, since, although intended to be the same character as Kara, the now wiped out of continuity character had a full background and several adventures covered in a considerable number of issues.

My proposal would be to make a pre-Crisis Kara section, then a post-Crisis and then a section called "Other Supergirls", with intros to Matrix-Danvers, Cir-El and the short-lived versions before Kara.--The Judge 09:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion like 4 months ago. The article is no longer about Kara Zor-El, but the history of characters with the name Supergirl. Much like the Robin (comics) or Wonder Girl or Nightwing pages. Before your changes, the article was told chronologically, not with sections per character. That's why Silver Age history came first and the modern incarnation came last. That's also why there was no "powers and abilities" section. All that was in the main articles. While I agree that there should've been no split in the first place, the chrnology thing was the consensus. I do agree the Supergirl main page should be Kara's. To sum up:
Supergirl= Kara Zor-El. She should have her own section, but i think there should also be a History of Supergirl section, told chronologically somewhere on the page, instead of "other supergirls".
The Linda Danvers and Matrix (comics) articles should be merged.
The discussion has not reach clear consensus yet and the merge tag is still on.
I support the merge, Supergirl is almost only popular as Kara. Since Kara is the current Supergil, as she was 30 years during silver age and in all other media, as time passes, only comic book "experts" will remember there were other "Supergirls" (which were more like versions of the same character). Pardon my English.--The Judge 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Merge You have a Kryptonian powerhouse, a psychokinetic shape-shifter, and a fallen Earth-Born Angel, I don't think that makes them versions of the same character, just three different women who assumed the same identity. We should have articles for the three women so that "non-experts" can familiarize themselves with these different characters. NeoCoronis 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry hahahaha. The Idea is not to erase the matrix article. Only to move the Kara article here since Kara is the Supergirl. The other supergirls section should be kept as well as a matrix article. I readed the angel story-arc and it was good. I wouldn't like it not to have an article. Linda Danvers died, matrix only took her body and some memories, so the "psychokinetic shape-shifter", and "the fallen Earth-Born Angel" are the exact same character going through change. --The Judge 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when Matrix was removed from Linda, Linda had all her memories (her own superpowers), and said that she owed Matrix for redeeming her soul. So they are two different people. This page should be for all the Supergirls, with Kara keeping her own article, that way, the Supergirl article wouldn't be to long. Usually, when more than one person shares an ID, like Green Lantern, Blue Beetle, Spider-Woman, etc. then there is one article which highlights each character, then seperate articles for the individuals. The Green Lantern article has info on all of the people who have been Green Lantern, then seperate pages for Hal Jordan, Kyle Rayner, Alan Scott, etc (even though Hal Jordan is the more "popular" Lantern). NeoCoronis 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IF you are interested in merging, you should start a dedicated merge discussion and list it at the WP:CMC notice board. The merge discussions there should give you an idea of proper formatting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The Kara article is not that much longer than this. I'd like it to be merged, but I don't mind it that much. I'm happy with Kara occupying the Silver age and Modern age main sections. As he analigically did in comics.--The Judge 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara In-Ze 28,000 years in the future, or 1,000?

It's been a while since I saw the fifth season of JLU, but is the recent edit that says the animated Supergirl is staying 28,000 years in the future correct? I know she's with the animated version of the LSH, but the comic version is only a millennium ahead. --Joe Sewell 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I used my memory instead of researching... I thought the Legion was from the year 30, 000, are they from year 3000? --The Judge 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The comic-book LSH was from the 31st century, making it roughly AD 3000. I seem to recall they may have played around with that for the JLU incarnation, which is why I'm not sure, either. --Joe Sewell 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't rely on your memory. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a machine, you know? Excuse me. Would you reserarch uf you had to fill a blank for Supermans native planet? It's kind of the same, I was so sure I thougth I didn't need research, but I was wrong. What happened, then? We fixed it. Once again, excuse me.--The Judge 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If I weren't very knowledgable about the topic, yes, I'd research it. The Legion's time being one thousand years in the future is a core part of the concept; you apparently aren't very familiar with the Legion, so I would ask that in the future, when writing about that topic, please double-check. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you have any manners? You've lately been talking about some of my work and I get that you have some sort of higher rank with some authority and call the shots, but that doesn't mean you get to be so impolite, and inconsiderate with other people work. I commited a mistake, we fixed it, I'm sorry. --The Judge 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you be calm in your responses. I mean no offense by asking you to make aure you have the correct information before adding it to an article. I have no higher rank. I understand that you have admitted your mistake and now have apologized, and I appreciate that. I do not believe I have impolite or inconsiderate, but I have found your responses to be more dramatic than necessary. We're both working to improve Wikipedia; I'm not your enemy. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Chill out, Chris. I suspect many of us edit from memory, rather than have stacks of references handy. If that's not "appropriate" here, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for most of us fallible humans. Besides, as I said, I seem to recall some slight differences in the DCAU version of the Legion, which could've included its point in time. (Now, see, I realize I don't remember for sure, which is why I brought it up here rather than just fix it in the article.) --Joe Sewell 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand what the problem was. I asked him to double check to be sure what he is adding is corect and was called inconsiderate and impolite. I don't need to chill out because I'm not upset. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a more reasonable tone from an editor. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is your arrogance upset me. I'm all for researching, but that was a human mistake. And your tone when you write is awful and unpolite. That's why I feel angry. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel about the issue.--The Judge 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please cease the personal attacks. Comment on actions, not editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? *you* attacked me. I'm only trying to explain it to you it wasn't nice.--The Judge 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's review: So far, I've asked you not to rely on your memory, to research a topic when you are not knowledgable about it, and to make sure the information you add is correct. You have questioned my manners and have called me impolite, inconsiderate, and arrogant. I'm finished with this conversation. Please remember to be civil in your future dealings with editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That's was my whole point! You need to be civil, Chris!! You were, I only pointed it out--The Judge 08:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Merge with "Kara Zor-El"

[edit] Discussion

Spearheaded by edits from The Judge, this "Supergirl" article has returned to being very Kara-centric. Initially, I thought there would be more resistence, but there have been no reverts as I can see. The problem is that now we have pretty much two of the same article with Supergirl and Kara Zor-El. So either we radically re-edit "Supergirl" or merge "Kara Zor-El."

I support The Judge's argument that Kara's "return" ends up making all the other Supergirls footnotes in history. Kara was Supergirl for about 25 years before Matrix. Matrix was Supergirl from about 1988-1996. The Linda Danvers/Matrix Hybrid was "Supergirl" for 4 years and Linda Danvers was Supergirl solo for two years after they split. Cir-El was Supergirl for a little under a year, I think. Then we have the return of Kara who will probably be Supergirl for the forseeable future.

The argument against that is "there's four supergirls, people will get confused."

Anyway, I vote merge, or someone needs to seriously edit the Supergirl article -- Exvicious 07:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Merge per my nom above Exvicious 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - I really like the superhero disambig pages we have, such as Nightwing, Robin (comics), Flash (comics) and Green Lantern, and with the Matrix-Linda era spanning almost 20 years, I think that's a major part of the character's history. Additionally, I would not want the article to diminish the importance of the earlier versions of the character. I have not paid close attention to the recent edits on the article, but I will have to do so now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Per above, we need to work within the tapestry laid, not nit our own. As with Flash, Green Lantern, etal, we need to stick to a separate page for each individual and a cover-all page for all individuals with the same alias. NetK 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Per above, despite my having grown up with the original Kara (1959), and sometimes feeling that she's the one and only Supergirl. But my feelings are not the issue, comics history governs. Of course, there's the need for summaries in the main article to whet the reader's appetite to read the separate pages for more details. I like what we have now but future editors will have their say! AlanSKaufman 23:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Per the arguments above. --Joe Sewell 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Per the arguments above, excepting Joe, to whom I apologise for the cut and paste. But yes, oppose because the way it's done at those articles is good. It informs the readers and assumes no character has precedence. Hiding Talk 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge -Per everybodie´s arguments above. DAVID.-
  • Do not merge -Per arguments above. -NeoCoronis 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge -Per arguments above. —scarecroe 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge per above -HKMarks 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - I'd advocate renaming the two articles Supergirl (Pre-Crisis) and Supergirl (Post-Crisis). Just seems more accurate.VanPelt101 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do not rename - no need that I can see. --Joe Sewell 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I did some work tonight, and I want to make sure I explain it. I copy edited the entire article, fixing the tense and condensing where necessary. Some sections were unnecessarily long, particularly since the article itself says that pre-Crisis Kara is the best-known version, and her section was less detailed than some of the others. I also took out a "powers" section that is redundant with regard to the one in the Kara Zor-El article and which pertained to that character alone despite the article describing a number of characters. I also re-ordered to article to reflect actual publication history as tends to be the format for these articles.

Oh, and I linked to Streaky and Comet. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job. In this format, do you think there should still be a superhero box? Exvicious 10:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I really don't. The SHB is not right foir this type of article, just as the team and series SHBs would be ill-fitting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supergirl's powers

Shouldn't there be a list of Supergirl's powers somewhere? I'm only a minor comics fan, I don't actually read them (and only dabbled when I was younger) but love some of the characters and ideas in them. Anyway I don't know if there are any differences between what Superman can do and what Supergirl can do (and I can't remember much about the Supergirl movie). Does she have heat vision? X-ray vision? Can she blow to move stuff (and freeze stuff)? Or are her powers a modified version of Supe's set along the lines of Spider-Woman? I came to this article to find out but couldn't. I found the article named Powers and abilities of Superman but there should be a short modified version of this in Supergirl's article. Mr.bonus 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several different Supergirls each with their own different powers. In each section, there's a "Main Article" link that will take you to a individual character page with the powers and abilities listed for that particular Supergirl.--Trademark123 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And yes, for the most part there is no difference between Supergirl's powers and Supes. Also, this article is Green Lantern or Flash. Most articles about shared identities don't bother with a "powers and abilities" section.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Helen Slater as Supergirl.png

Image:Helen Slater as Supergirl.png 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 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 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville info

The entry has to provide complete citations: "an interview in the TV Guide" is not OK. We must include the date upon which the interview appeared in print (or online).--Galliaz 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Zor-El

I re-added the stuff that was on here (then removed) earlier today, but with a less confrontational wording. I haven't seen many positive reviews form any serious sources, and I think it's worth mentioning, at least in passing. Mentioning (and citing) serveral different negative reviews isn't really ust presenting one's own opinion is it?

--Aylwinatrix 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning a widespread critical evaluation. The first wording was overly opinionated and seemed biased (it likely was) but I don't see anyone having a problem with this addition, especially with the citation.

--70.64.6.8 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be on the Kara Zor-El page anyway? (not that i agree with you). Also "it should be noted" is a weasel wording. Should be noted by who? you? you could probably just cut that phrase out. and blogs aren't an adequate source for opinions or reviews. i mean what's stopping me from opening up 5 blog accounts to counteract the opinion you're presenting. --EXV // + @ 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you make a good point about the blog thing, although some of those are online magazines, which is a bit different. Also, print magazines like Wizard and Comics Buyers Guide recently had similar reviews (I think one of those blog links quoted Wizard directly, but I'll try to find a proper link to that). You're right about the "should be noted", I'm still pretty new at the whole wiki thing, but it is pretty weaselly, I'm going to remove it. This section should ALSO be on the Kara Zor-El page, but I think it belongs here too. The comic being currently published under the Supergirl name belongs on the main Supergirl page, don't you think?--Aylwinatrix 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Weasel Words <-- for future reference.

You could also argue that the criticism is directed over character differences between the pre-Crisis version and the character since her return. Also, she appears to be portrayed differently than in Legion of Superh-Heroes. Plus, I think there's enough debate for a "Criticism" section, with comparisons of pre-Crisis, one year later, and the legion versions. For example, I think Joe Kelly responded to Supergirl being "unlikable" because she's basically a teenager and what fans feel she should act like is what she will eventually grow into. stuff like that.

This article is more for the history of everyone called Supergirl and the critiques actually only analyze the new Kara. That's just what I think, though. --EXV // + @ 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: :I don't find "reviewers have said" material to be at all useful in an(y) entry. It's near impossible to be truly inclusive and representative of critical reaction; editors adding a description of critical views are often putting forth points of criticism that they themselves agree with (or have written). For example, I can describe and cite 5 reviews that have appeared in print publications that are very positive about the character's new direction. Where does this leave us? Some reviewers hate the new character; some reviewers like the new character. In the end, this is rather trite, self-evident, and obvious.--Galliaz 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes to the entry says it quite well. I admit, I do hate the direction Joe Kelly has taken the character (I didn't mind Jeph Loeb's stories much at all, but have really disliked the plotlines since he left, but I digress) but that doesn't have to be a part of the article, and I'm sorry my opinion clouded the article. The changes ahve repaired that, and i see that it's an improvement. You've said it very well yourself--some people like the changes, some do not. But I think it's worth mentioning (weasel word!) that there HAVE been changes, and these changes have split comics fans. The article currently reflects that. It doesn't say that people have unilaterally hated the changes, but does mention that some have not enjoyed it. The main thing is that this artcile mention there is a difference in this incarnation.

I disagree about the reviewer thing. Lots of entries about classic movies or novels contain references to critical reaction. To completely ignore this because you can't find unilateral concensus doesn't make much sense, for a comic, novel, film, album or any other work. IN my opinion, anyway --207.47.141.65 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the entry shouldn't "cherry-pick" from a small set of blog-based opinion/reviews that might support a particular (personal) opinion in order to provide a simulacrum of objectivity.--Galliaz 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I gotta agree with Galliaz there. Explaining only the negative veiwpoints gives the article a bias towards the negative.--Marhawkman 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, just keep reverting it then (despite the fact that posts on this discussion page in favour of not reverting outnumber your own opinion). Almost all of the mainstream comics media (Comic Shop News, Comic's Buyers Guide, Wizard, The Comics Interview) has been negative toward the character change, and people here have found citations to reflect that (unlike MANY of the other statements throughout this page that no one has seen fit to remove). If the majority of credible reviews about something are negative in tone, should that not be represented here on Wikipedia? Aren't reviews mentioned on pages of famous film and literary flops? Is this a bias?

I suppose the fact that DC has removed Joe Kelly from the book and is replacing him with one of the writers of the much less often maligned "Supergirl and the Legion" comic is "evidence" enough for me. I had thought Wikipedia was concensus by majority, rather than stubornness. I don't have the time to keep checking back here, so if you feel the need to make changes despite this discussion page, I'm not going to stop you. Aylwinatrix 10:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no two ways about it: it is indeed evidence of a bias when you insert your personal point of view into the entry and then selectively cite negative blog entries to provide pseudo-evidence or support for your own opinion. --Galliaz 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of thing before. No matter how many of us agree that the changes shouldn't be reverted, Galliaz is just going to come back here and keep reverting them likely because of his own personal opinion. I don't think that it's fair to say the articles cited are "cherrypicking." Actually, I couldn't find any reviews that spoke positively of the run in question. But I guess majority rule doesn't always work. Apparently "Wizard" is no longer considered a credible source (!) despite being the only widely available comic forum. Just move on Alwinatrix. THere's no winning in this situation. Mikhaileyepatch 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm very new around here. Can one poster simply overrule a majority of posters on one subject? Is there some sort of poster ranking hierarchy that give senior posters more "clout" (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm actually curious)? I think a wide spectrum of negative reviews and opinion is worth a mention on this page. For instance the entried on Chuck Austen and John Byrne and the Spider-Clone saga make mention of negative reviews, and rightly so. Anyone who follows comics is aware of how resoundingly negative the response has been to Loeb and particularly Kelly's runs have been. If it matters, I thought the entry worked pretty fairly before Galliaz's revisions. It made mention of the reviews without saying they were necessarily "right". So I vote the undo his changes, if "voting" indeed counts for something. Signsadded2002 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate: my only point is that the Loeb/Kelly SG has gotten positive reviews as well, and the changes did not reflect that. I'm a bit unhappy with how this has become personalized: this question is entirely about the entry, objectivity, and the rules of citation and evidence. At every step of the way I have justified the changes I have made by referencing accepted rules of substantiation: personal opinions or points of view are not what's at stake here. For the record, I actually don't like the direction that the creators have taken with the "new" Kara Zor-El. But, I don't consider a Wikipedia entry to be the proper forum for me (or anyone else) to express my personal displeasure. I don't expect that readers coming to this Wikipedia entry are doing so in order to read my personal opinions; conversely it would be improper for me to force my views upon them. If critical reception is brought into the entry, it must be done objectively. Again, all I'm saying is that the entry can't just cite a few bloggers in order to "prove" that that the new SG has gotten "universally" poor reviews. (And it doesn't seem to me that a central question of substantiation like this can be open to revision by popular vote.)--Galliaz 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It was never my intention for this to become about you Galliaz, I just disagree with the reversion you've made. I simply am unaware of even one positive review of Joe Kelly's run (though I will admit I did see a few reviews that enjoyed Loeb's initial run) and given his recent termination from the book, thought it was worthwhile to say that reviews have been negative (the version of the page you deleted didn't say anyhting about them being "universally" reviled, merely that there was SOME negativity). Also not to hairsplit here, but can a blog not be a cited as a source? Does it depend on the popularity of the blog? There are a number of political articles on Wikipedia that cite the Huffington blog, for instance. In my mind, there is a difference between an on-going, well-established comics review blog and just an ordinary blog. The blogs cited above (many of which I had nothing to do with posting) have been up and running in a serious way for a very long time. If it's a matter of equal time, then why not allow the unreverted page, but then include a credible positive review? Lastly, I do indeed think that substantiation is open to public debate and indeed popular vote. I may not have as many edits as you, but I am equally entitled to have an opinion on what is a credible source or edit, as does anyone else who posts here. I'm not trying to disrespect you here, but I do think it would be a tad arrogant to think that only you have an understanding of what a valid source or edit is. Isn't that the way Wikipedia works? If a majority of people feel something is valid and worthwhile, does anyone have the right to casually revert them because "they know better"? Aylwinatrix 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial for me to state that the rules of citation and substantiation are not up for debate or review: they exist and are the standards we follow. Someone with 10,000 edits is bound by them in the same way that someone with 2 edits is. Regarding reliable sources, we also can reference the Wikipedia content guidelines on Reliable Sources. [3] The most relevant point in the guidelines for our purposes is this one: Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.--Galliaz 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the RULES aren't open to review but whether someone is folowing them or not IS open to review, especially when you capricously delete something. I don't think you have the right to decide for everyone who is following the standards and who isn't. I'm fully aware of the policies Wikipedia has in place, and I believe the edits you reverted followed these policies. If this is about the blogs, then remove those citations. Wizard Magazine is a credible source, whether you agree with its assessments or not. We're not saying that the critics are necessarily right about the changes to the comic, we're merely pointing out that there has been some critical reaction to these stories, which there has been. ONE poster with 10,000 edits certainly does not have a right to negate the judgment of several other posters, regardless of how many edits those posters have under their belt. Mikhaileyepatch 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikhaileyepatch, I don't think that you quite realize that your final sentence is a restatement of my recently-made point. (Namely, that number of edits does not matter.) Since you've accused me of capriciousness and bad faith, I don't think that we can get any further through continued discussion on this talk page. Let's put this matter up for impartial arbitration and have others look at the entry, the changes that I have made, and our exchanges on this page in order to suggest a fair resolution. I've never requested this before, and will need to figure out how it gets done, but I am willing to abide by the conclusions of an objective observer.--Galliaz 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Mikhaileyepatch, there's a difference between Wizard's Online "Thursday Morning Quarterback" feature, in which comics are subject to paragraph-length assessments, and the articles and reviews that are printed in the monthly-appearing print version of Wizard magazine.--Galliaz 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration sounds fine to me as well, although I also don't know much about it. Also, I disagree with you about the Thursday morning quarterback thing. IS CNN.com not "really" CNN? How about an online edition of the NY Times, or Entertainment Weekly. EW.com has online extras that don't appear in the print edition. Does that make these extras unfit for Wikipedia citation? No, the Thursday Morning QB doesn't have the length a regular print review would, but I don't think that makes it any less valid of a review. In fact I think you find a more critical eye in the online edition where they don't have to worry about angering print sponsors. 207.47.141.65 19:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it's appropriate. There really isn't a need, and there's no way to write it in, that doesn't have some sort of bias.--Marhawkman 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside Opinion - I was asked by Galliaz to look over this dispute and offer an impartial third opinion; I'm a regular contributor on articles like Cassandra Cain, Squirrel Girl, She-Hulk, and some of the other comic book character articles.
After reviewing the situation here, I'm going to make the following suggestions.
  • There are adequate primary and secondary sources to indicate that the reaction to the most recent Supergirl run was largely negative. However, claims such as "universally" negative and words like "reviled" should be avoided.
  • Blog reviews aren't sources that I'd use to support such a claim. However, the Wizard reviews would be suitable, as would other reviews from dedicated comic book websites such as Newsarama and Comics Nexus.
  • It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to also include at least one positive review, to maintain NPOV.
  • While directly connecting the two would definitely be speculation, it wouldn't be out of line to mention that DC replaced Joe Kelly as writer starting with issue #19, leaving certain of his plot threads (Kandor, in particular) unresolved.
  • Because this section has a great deal of potential for POV-pushing, even accidentally, please be very careful to make sure you maintain NPOV when writing it. There's nothing wrong with reporting critical reactions, so long as we maintain balance and NPOV in reporting them.
These are just my suggestions, and I don't have any power to enforce them, but that's my view of the situation. Hope this helps! Rdfox 76 01:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you've given us all a great starting point. I certainly have no problem with your suggestions, and will adhere to them. 71.17.155.4 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fanfilm???

How is that noteworthy?--Marhawkman 05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed references to the film from the entry. It is not a notable media depiction, and the most recent edit about it, which rehearsed one side of the facts in a possible dispute with the producers of Smallville over intellectual property rights, did not enhance the entry.--Galliaz 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can we get a more detailed reason and explanation for why the main image is being removed? It seems a perfectly acceptable fair use to me, since it is an extremely useful image in this context and it is at very reduced resolution and everything. I think we deserve more than an edit summary. -- Lilwik 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of contention seems to be WP:NFCC#4, in that the artist who published the work on a website was not the copyright holder. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a derivative piece of art that neither DC nor it's parent company either commissioned or licensed. Regardless of the resolution, it isn't within the bounds of fair use.
There might, might be an argument for using it as an example of Ed Benes work, and that he works for commissions outside of the direct work he does for publishers. But unless there is somewhere that the image has been published, either under licence from DC or as part of a secondary source review, it is an unpublished and unpublishable image. And to be clear, the person who commissioned the art putting it up in a commercial gallery site as a "Look what I got!" isn't publication as part of a review in a secondary source. - J Greb 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would it matter if DC had commissioned or licenced it? The copyright holder is either the artist or the one who commissioned it, not DC. The rule about publication says: Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia. Well, this has obviously been published outside of Wikipedia. Maybe is hasn't also been published by one of the copyright holders, but it most likely has been published somewhere other than the place we've found it and the rules doesn't say anything about that. The rule doesn't say anything about review in a secondary source. Where are you getting that? Plus, it is obviously of far more value in illustrating Supergirl than it is in illustrating Ed Benes work. -- Lilwik 23:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it that way there are 2 copyrights and 1 trademark to look at. DC owns the characters, lock, stock, and pumps. That matters.
If it's been published elsewhere, find it. Otherwise it doesn't fly.
The "in review in a secondary source" is a work around. If the piece is the subject of a review piece, or part of those used in a review of related works, two thing happen. It will have been published in a venue that does not require anyone holding an interest in it to have signed off on the publication. And it will show a degree of notability for the piece itself. That removes the problem of the image only having been "hung" in a digital gallery. - J Greb 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If the trademark matters, then find a place that says it matters. If the original artist was allowed to even create this work then the trademark issues must have been taken care of somehow. I really don't think that trademark is an issue and I don't know of any wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Correct me with a link if I'm wrong.
I don't see why it should need to have been published elsewhere. The rule doesn't say anything about having to have been published twice. Why is it an issue that it's hung in a digital gallery? It has been published and so that is the end of that issue. We take care of the copyright issue using fair use. -- Lilwik 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It also fails a number of the projects infobox image guidelines [4] - the infobox should have an uncluttered full body shot of the classic Supergirl. If other images of other versions are needed then they can be added into the relevant sections (as is already done for some). (Emperor 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
Fair use rules say that we should reduce the amount of nonfree material that we use the the very minimum. Removing this image and replacing it with many images to show the various versions of Supergirl would be obviously going against the spirit of that rule. Supergirl has no one especially recognizable costum since she has had so many variations and this image reflects that. Each particular version in this image meets project guidelines quite well, being in mostly simple poses. I think this image meets the spirit of those guidelines very well, and fair use rules say that we should use the most useful images that we can find. This is a very useful image for learning about and identifying Supergirl. -- Lilwik 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PORPSED MERGER SEPT 07

Since Kara Zor-El's Supergirl has been the only Supergirl to have been adapted into other media, I believe it would make more sense to move the section to Supergirl (Kara Zor-El). Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree--the Supergirl of the DC Animated Universe is defined as being Kara In-Ze, not Kara Zor-El, and is in many ways rather similar to a mixture of Kara Zor-El and Linda Danvers. That alone means that we shouldn't transfer the entire section there. However, maybe we should move the Kara Zor-El depictions (for example, Helen Slater in the '84 movie) to the KZE article, with a brief mention and a "see-also" link to the KZE article's other-media section? Rdfox 76 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that but Kara In-Ze is almost a direct representation of Kara Zor-El. The only similarity she has to Linda is her costume.
  • Her given name is Kara; Her last name "In-Ze" is taken from Alura In-Ze, Kara Zor-El's mother
  • Her home world is the planet Argo; homage to Kara's home of Argo city
  • Her adoptive family is the Kents making her Superman's legal, though not biological cousin.
  • Her original costume was unique to the series(1998) until Linda Daverns adapted it in the comics(2000), which was then modified to represent Kara Zor-El's current uniform.
I don't suggest moving the complete section to kara, but reducing the section to a few bullet points with the bulk of information being in Kara's article. for a better perspective look at my edit to adaptations in other media for Batgirl which redirects to Barbara Gordon. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Alternate versions of Supergirl

  • nominaton/merge - Due to the multiple interpretations and incarnations of Supergirl in the past 50+ years, the current separtion of alternate verisions framents the article. The amount of information that would not be reduplicated would not be enough to put the page over 36Kib. In short, for the purposes of style and cohesion the pages should be merged, and size is not a factor. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Do not merge: Examples of mainstream continuity Supergirls (Ex: Kara Zor-El, Linda Davners, Cir-El, Power-Girl) can be removed from Alternate versions of Supergirl, but the Elseworlds versions and other examples need to remain in a seperate article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
note: the fictional character biographies in this article can be removed since the individual character articles have full biographies- its unnessecary detail. This article should only focus on the publication history of the use of "Supergirl" EX: how supergirl came to be, and the real world impact of the various character's use in mainstream DC publications Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No merge Keep the main article short. -Freak104 (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merging is unnecessary. While I was initially opposed to the creation of the article, I can comment that it DOES have room for expansion on real-world notability and cultural relativity. The Supergirl/Power Girl dichotomy for one thing, makes "alternate versions of Supergirl" particularly notable where we see Power Girl adapated into other media (i.e. Galatea in JLU, Fake Kara in Smallville).~ZytheTalk to me! 11:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed with consensus to not merge.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)