Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 3

List of episodes page
I just reverted an edit, moving the episodes table to a separate List of page. After giving it a quick thought, I am questioning my revert. Is it acceptable for the episodes to be branched off to a List of page now? I know there can't be individual season pages, but as we are going into a second season, does that warrant the creation of the List of page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the page it was moved to was wrong, so if allowed, it would need to be moved to the correct page, List of Arrow episodes, properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It has 22 episodes in the first season and probably another 22 in the next season, best if they had their own page ... I saw the edit too, was about to revert it but when i hovered over his contribution, i realised he created a separate page for it..I would have done the same had it not been done before season 2 began...--Stemoc (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For it too. With more and more information about season two episodes this page is getting clunky and over-burdened.  No reason to create separate season  pages, but an LoE page is a good idea at this point. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to be following WP:SIZE when we split pages off. This page is not that large, and there isn't anything "clunky" going on. We have limited info on season 2 other than some cast announcements. Given that we're not going to have multiple pages saying the same thing, if you separate now you're going to basically dismember this page and leave it virtually empty. What we need to be doing is locating reliable sourced information regarding the show as a whole (and/or over-arching themes for seasons, as that would be relevant here) so that we can populate this page and subsequently separate the episode information to an LoE page (then, season pages later).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Bignole's assessment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sounds good. Will try to find anything to add to Jack's list below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is very large, and nearly meets WP:TOOBIG as 'Almost certainly should be divided'. Almost every objective editor will agree that this article is far too long, and must be split. When this issue was first addressed, a consensus was made to wait until a second season was announced. After that, a consensus was made to wait until second season episodes were airing, and now you all are deciding the necessity of extra information for a LoE article? How far will you go in delaying the inevitable? Also, this article is substantially long, even without the episode information. I strongly support the timely creation of a List of Episodes page. If you want parallels, almost all major US television shows have a LoE page, even some with far fewer episodes.-- ɱ   (talk)   16:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:TOOBIG, you must consider prose only, and this page is only at 8 kB, which is no where enough to justify a split. That is why it was suggested to boost the page with more prose info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that a lot of TV shows have split the pages, and some even when the first season hasn't even ended yet. I can see why some want it to stay the same, but I think a reason for a split should be about how long the page itself is getting over how big in size it is. By the end of season 2, the summary recaps for each episode will probably make the page twice as long. DVD and Ratings/DVR tables could also be added if there's a split. But It doesn't really bother me anyways, just thought I'd put it out there. Buffyfan123 (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is larger then 60kB wiki says it should be done then. When you view this on a mobile page the article is entirely season information, it is way too large compared to the rest of the article unless you are on a desktop with 1080p not even 1360x768 is a good view. It should be moved now.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 13:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Also you guys have not taken this properly. The page in question should have been locked so people would not have moved the page so many times, if you are going to continue to revert until season 5 from your own importance this page needs to be locked. I bet half of wikipedias hard drives are filled with stupid reverts like this.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 13:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SIZE carefully. It specifically says "readable prose". There is not 60kb of readable prose, there is a bunch of coding for all the table to be formatted. That is not readable prose. When you just look at the prose on the page, we're not even at 40kb of information. Please see below on making the main page more viable as an independent article. If you remove the episode table, then you basically have nothing on this page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a contest of how long you need to scroll down the page. The relevance of the episodes list is not as important as the lead, synopsis, and marketing. And you are just using wikipedia to your advantage it clearly does not say only readable size for page size. Wiki markup size, Browser-page size are among the factors of key issues. The readable issues only thing that would keep it on the page is the WP:SPLITLIST, and the list is not summarized enough each episode contains a lengthy paragraph.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SIZE, "These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." - Again, it's readable prose, not the length of the page. There is a difference.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Which brings me back the my third point you are not reading the page, and you are only saying what you want to get what you want. Have you broken the WP:3RR.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 21:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We are reading the page: it's about 8 kB of readable prose, or 21 kB of prose (with HTML coding) included. No where near enough to split off the table, as it would leave this page with virtually nothing. And Bignole is not "saying what [they] want to get what [they] want". They are using applicable guidelines to back up their claims. The sake of splitting just because or because the wikitables are making the page too large are not valid reasons. Size is determined by prose (again), and there is not enough readable prose on this page to warrant a split of the tables. Also, Bignole has not broken 3RR. Don't know where you are getting that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clearer, if you go down the left column of the article page and click "Page size", you'll get a readout of the actual size of the page. It includes, "Readable prose", which is about 8.5kb. Now, granted that does not include the "paragraphs" in the episode tables, and that's generally because they are impacted by the HTML code that surrounds them. Even if you disregard the HTML code entirely and just keep the paragraphs, you're still looking at 40kb of actual text, and that is still not a reason to split (per the SIZE rule of thumb). If you'd like to split, a suggestion would be to use the sources below (and any other reliable sources) to flesh out the main article so that it doesn't become bare bones when the episodes are split (also, so you can split the episodes more quickly).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor addition: that "Page size" tool has to be added. Instructions are on the WP:SIZE page I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SIZE, 40kb of actual text does not on it's own justify a division, which implies that other factors should be taken into consideration. Given the lack of consensus in this area (and the frequent page splits) perhaps it's time that this discussion moved away from size as the one and only criteria, and look at other indicators?
 * Also Favre1fan93, you say that "splitting just because or because the wikitables are making the page too large are not valid reasons"? Surely wikitables making the page too large is exactly a reason to split the page.  It seems to me that this might be a case of following the letter of the law, and not the intent. - Liambarrett1986 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, size is not a reason alone to split. In addition, removing the episode guts the page and leaves basically nothing, as everything on this page (at the moment) is directly tied to individual seasons (primarily the first), and does not represent the show as a whole. Thus, separating the episodes right now would remove context from the page. People do not want to split for any other reason than other pages have split their episode tables. Whenever a show is airing, there appears to be a mad rush to split into LoE pages and then season pages, based on no other reason but, "Other pages do it sooner". If people were rushing to add a trivia page, we wouldn't entertain the idea of creating one, even if we had to revert it multiple times. You should have a parent article that cannot stand on its own while you develop a sister article in an LoE page. That's backwards of how page development is supposed to work. The only thing this page really has is a casting section, which is filled with special guest stars, which is not really appropriate for a main article. It needs to be developed more on its own, independent of the episodes. That will not happen once the episodes are moved, as people will spend their time adding episode titles and special guest stars.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What really should happen is that the episode list should be moved and it should be REPLACED on this page with a overall summary section that summaries the major plot points and story arcs of the show. That would be more appropriate to a main page than individual episode lists... it would also look better and solve all the issues mentioned above. I don't have time right now to write such a section but if someone wants to do it I think that is the way to go. Spanneraol (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It actually doesn't solve the problem, because we already have that in the series overview section. The page itself has not developed, so having a section that summarizes the story arcs (of one season, since we just started this one) doesn't solve the problem of this page not being developed.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems that developing the page and splitting the episodes list are really two different issues independent of each other. The episode list is really too big for this page.. its not all in terms of the size issues but in terms of readability and common sense. Yes the page needs more development in terms of fleshing out the behind the scenes stuff or more production info... and no reason you or others can't start adding more information on that and it certainly should be added... removing the episode list might actually spur people towards that goal by creating "space" to put that stuff in.Spanneraol (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ on readability. It lies in a table format, which would look identical on any other page, whether this one or a separate one. The only difference is that the table would be closer to the top on an independent page and that does not impact readability (as we are not here to provide a substitute for watching the show, thus the plots are not the most important pieces on this page). I don't agree with the idea of, "if we separate it, then people will want to edit this page". This page is underdeveloped as it is, and I've never seen a page get developed solely because someone separated content out prematurely.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be in agreement with Spanneraol, the episode list table on this page does affect the general readability of the page, and perhaps hides the fact that the rest of the page is quite sparse. Moving the list to it's own page might highlight that fact and encourage people to expand other areas (just look at the size of the conversation around moving the list and imagine all that time and effort being put to other use :P) - Liambarrett1986 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It always amazes me when people say, "you could be spending this time expanding the page".....yet they don't actually assist in expanding the page. Yes, if everyone on this discussion actually bothered to work on the page, then I imagine it would expand to the point that we could move the episodes out. That said, there is no evidence to suggest that moving the table will encourage people to expand this page, nor the idea that having the table here effects the readability of the page. If you want the table to move, then HELP expand the page. See the sources below (or use Google to find more).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is where your wrong it does affect the readability of the page to have the table there. I mentioned before on smaller devices this page is blown away with the table and cripples readability. I personally do not come to TV articles to view the lists of all the episodes ever done in the series.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 00:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot format pages to fit every single device. Pages are formatted to fit computer screens. Even if you're looking at this page on a mobile device the page looks fine, as Wikipedia's "mobile" setting makes every section hidden. You have to click them to read them. As such, the table format doesn't work on a mobile device, no matter if it's on its own page or not. Other than that, mobile devices do not suffer. If by "smaller" devices, you mean the resolution on your monitor, than Wikipedia is set for a standard resolution setting, and we cannot appease everyone you decides to set their resolution to a smaller or larger setting. Your argument regarding such has not direct impact, because there will always be an issue for someone, no matter what, because we cannot accommodate for every setup.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "it is way too large compared to the rest of the article unless you are on a desktop with 1080p not even 1360x768 is a good view" —Cky2250, I am assuming you are using 1080, about half of the people use less than or equal to 1360x768 of gamers, how large of none gamers with a laptop screen size of 768 are there.... way more. If that is standard and they are suffering because they must suffer since they are the minority 50% then whatever you win.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, my home desktop is not a gaming computer and it looks fine. My work laptop (that's barebones essentials, as I only need it for paperwork) is nowhere near a gaming computer, and it looks fine. It looks fine on my phone as well (again, the mobile site adjusts itself). I'm not sure what you're looking at, but maybe it's a browser issue for you and not a Wikipedia issue. If the table was causing that much problem for you, then it will cause the same problem on a page by itself, as it's a table with HTML code. It's going to be the same code on another page. Again, how about you spend some time helping to find reliable sources to expand the article, instead of complaining about resolution size.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You must not be tech savvy to know your resolution. It has nothing to do with gaming. I was just mentioning gaming, since the stats are from gaming. And writing articles is not my department, fixing bad grammar and template editing is.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You mentioned gamers, I told you that I don't have gaming hardware. You mentioned that my screen must be 1080p, I told you that I have a work laptop that is barebones and is certainly not pushing 1080p. I have used resolution from 1366x768, to 1024x768. It still looks fine on my screen. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but you haven't told us your resolution size that you're running and why it looks so distorted to you. Again, I point out that it's going to look that way on a separate page as well, because it isn't about it being on this page with the other information. There are no other objects on the page that could bleed into the section and cause a disruption. As for the other issue, I didn't ask you to edit the page. I said there shouldn't be anything stopping you from finding reliable sources of information to help expand the page. That requires research, not actual editing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You do know that barebones does not dictate the screen resolution, you could have 4k on a laptop and it could still be barebones.


 * The article look perfectly fine on my screen, since I am using 1080p, I am arguing for the fact that others it will not. I believe I have mentioned it like this; my screen resolution in negligible, since you could even assume I was at 1366x768 -- neglecting the fact that above I mentioned "it is way too large compared to the rest of the article unless you are on a desktop with 1080p", which I have quoted once already -- and I would be arguing for readability for the mass. Even as low as 20% is too high of a percentage to have bad viewing of an article when it could be easily fixed. So please stop beating around the facts to get what you want: between lack of reading, using wikipedia rules to your advantage, when they could be taken either way-- BTW there is a rule for doing that, and suggesting that I am not contributing to help expand the article -- that is off topic of what is being discussed.


 * How about this compromise, since you are not giving any and there needs to be one, since there have been many list splits that have been reverted. If I get a reply of write more to help expand I will get an admin to help decide this for us. So lets try to be civil here and come up with are own compromise. How about having it collapsed by default and if the user wants to read about the individual episode they can expand the table for that season, this information is not needed anyhow.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 19:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm all for collapsing it. I thought that was done automatically when the first person put the table in.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll post the code and if you don't like it revert it and explain what should be changed. Thanks —CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since there is a cascade protection needing to be resolved for the template I will be using. I will show an example of what is intended instead. As you will see if you use collapsible for the wiki template it does not correctly show, so I suggest using the other template.


 * I actually prefer the second template. I think it looks pretty cool and keeps it tighter. I'm trying to work on expanding the page, but I work full time and I'm doing it on minor breaks that I have.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That second one looks good to me too, it will definitely tidy up the page a bit and make it more readable/easier to traverse. And for what it's worth, I'm in the same boat time-wise - I'd love to be able to spend a good chunk of time to expand the page, but sadly I really only have the time to pop by every so often and make small updates.  Hopefully over the weekend I might be able to put aside some time to do a bit more - Liambarrett1986 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well then the good news then, is that only size -- when it gets there -- will be the only factor. —CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would love to help expand this page with the sources below, but as well, I have full time commitments, that prevent me from many, large scale projects at a time. Additionally, I don't think we should go the route of collapsing the episodes table. Instead, if we use the sources below to expand, as we've been saying, even if it isn't "one full swoop", but little chunks, like BIgnole as started to do, then the size will get there and we can just split the tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the second option aswell. Its interesting how different alot of fandoms are, since I'm surprised so many here are so keen to keep everything on one page and not do the list of episodes page, whereas any other show/fans would of already created a list of episodes page already regardless how many seasons or content.


 * I'd love to expand the pages, perhaps with a season 1 summary, or even doing a few behind the scenes facts and production stuff for each season, but that it alot of effort I reckon. Buffyfan123 (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And a lot of grammar and spelling fixes from me no offence.—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is going on with this article and the nerdlawyer debate about page size, but one way or another this show needs a list of episodes. --Tysto (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And that one way is filling this page with more information so that when the split happens, this page isn't left bare. It's not at a size yet to warrant the split (as has been stated numerous times above), and was (I believe) determined to just collapse the two season tables while the page is expanding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Tysto, you say "this show needs a list of episodes"....it has that. It's on the page. There shouldn't be a mad rush to create a separate page just for episode plots considering that they are not the most important thing in the article (as Wikipedia is not substitute for watching the show). The page will get expanded (we're working on it) and the episodes will be separated. God forbid that doesn't happen right away.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start
I think it might actually be time to split. I caught up on the histories of both the article and the discussion just now, and thought the article seems to be a good prose size. I wanted to be sure, so I "edited" it to remove the episode lists and hit "Show preview". What I saw was an article that was plenty big enough to withstand their removal (according to me, of course). I encourage everyone to take a look for themselves and hopefully this will finally be over.&mdash; Ɔ Ȿ ♭ இ  ☎ ℡ ☎  06:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The page still needs quite a bit of work, but I think it's far more expanded (content wise, as size wise when I removed the special guests we lost about 15kb of information...LOL) than it was. As such, I'm ok with the LoE page being created. We have a series summary, we have Nielsen rankings, and the production section is coming along nicely. I have more interviews to go through, so hopefully the cast section will expand a bit more as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Mini source break
Here are some sources that might help to accomplish what Bignole was talking about in the parent section above:
 * Screenrant 1, Screenrant 2, Screenrant 3
 * TV.com
 * NYTimes
 * Borg.com
 * TheMarySue
 * ComicBookResources
 * io9
 * ArrowSeries.com (not sure about this last one, since Domain registration is out of the UK, and doesn't appear to be connected to the series production itself)
 * IGN
 * IGN 2

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * -- Dumping here for the time being.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Logo
Shouldn't this File:Arrow_title_screenshot.jpg, which should come under Fair Use and is actually used in the show be used in the articles, rather than File:Arrow Logo.png, which has never been used in the show. I'd have thought the first was more appropriate JCRendle (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you put images on a talk page, please place a colon in front of "file" so that they do not show. Fair use would not cover them on a talk page. Per WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, if a free alternative exists then it should be used. Given that there is no commentary on the logo itself, a free alternative is much more appropriate. You can use "fair use" when there is commentary on said visual aid, or when there is no free alternative and a visual representation is needed. In the case of title cards, free alternatives are almost always available and more appropriate. The second version, the free one, is actually used in the promotional marketing of the show so it has a precedence as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning 96.49.72.50 edit warring
Per WP:AN3, we need to try to resolve this edit warring on the talk page before reporting. So 96.49.72.50, explain your rationale for repeated reverting of multiple attempts to keep the season end date as TBD. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 05:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We also have a WP:COI now. Also, I think this issue stems to the larger TV project as a whole, regarding if it is proper to add episode counts and a finale date, if properly sourced. I see no issue in this, because even though WP:CRYSTAL has been thrown around (by myself included, though I don't believe in this instance), I don't see why we can't add the info as it is sourced, and change it if another source or circumstance comes around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, numbers are always difficult to deal with all across Wikipedia, because most of it seems well intentioned. I've seen users who have gone through dozens of football players and updated the number of goals they've scored. But this user has gone against consensus in a manner that is above and beyond what is reasonable. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 07:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When you're just dealing with tables that are for summaries, to me, you should not be putting "finale" dates in. Anything can change a date, even if it's sourced (that just means that it is intended to end there, not that it will). In addition, although we typically write up about future episodes, the reality is that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on historical fact. We're not an entertainment house that provides "current events" on film, tv shows, books, etc. (although we often treat it like it is). If we're documenting in prose that there is a set date for a finale, I think that's fine. But for a table that is meant to be a historical look at the overall show, it should wait to be listed until it actually happens. Otherwise where do you stop. Do you change the "episode" and "season" counts to reflect what is "sourced" as being approved?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I always understood Wikipedia to be an 'after-the-fact' repository of information. As Bignole noted, it isn't always that, and the lines get blurry when dealing with unfolding events (like the landslides in Washington, the shootings in northern Europe of a few years ago or the recent loss of the Malaysian airliner). However, for an entertainment article, the matter is somewhat more simple. We don't air episode summaries before they air; for the same reason, we shouldn't announce a finale/season ender/cast addition/etc. until it actually transpires. Anything can happen between now and May. There could be another writer's strike. California could fall into the ocean. Civil war could break out. Sunspot activity could EM pulse us all back into the pre-industrial age.
 * The point is, we are in no hurry. Whatsoever. Anyone - I repeat, anyone - who thinks differently is not here for Wikipedia's benefit. The anon blurting out that they are a PA for the show is either a liar or one of the dumbest employees on the planet. If the former (which appears to be evident from their post-revert actions), we simply revert, report and ignore. If the latter, they need to come up with a source - hopefully before they lose their job for releasing closely-held information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have sources confirming that May 14, 2014 is the scheduled final episode air date, so those could easily be added in table or in prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is best for the List of Episodes table, that is cataloging all future episodes and their dates. Not so much for the overview table here. I think, as I stated before, it sends the message that we're listing all future, intended events and would open up everything for that (like the infobox figures that are updated each week).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why aren't we edit protecting this article? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is one person edit warring, not a rash of vandalism.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still wouldn't hurt. It cuts down the nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Easter egg
In the series Syn has called Roy Harper "Abercrombie" on a few occasions. Colton Haynes was actually an Abercrombie & Fitch model at different points in his career. thought this might be a fun bit of trivia to add to the page. 67.193.250.251 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though, if you have a reliable reference that explixitly states that bit of eggyness, you might have a better chance at inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's not relevant to this show. Even if it was reliably source, not all sourced information is relevant. Him being an Abercrombie model has no impact in this show. that's an IMDb thing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Hes called Abercrombie a number of times during the show, because he was an abercrombie model. it does therefore impact the show (by giving him a nickname born from his out of show activities) as for a good source, Colton Haynes Wiki page lists him as having modeled for Abercrombie. cant get a much better source than this site in its self... plus, that article also has Sources referenced. 67.193.250.251 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You cant use a wiki page as a source. You need to have a reliable source that specifically says that he was given that nickname because of his off-screen activities. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even still, it is irrelevant trivia to the scope of this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Suicide Squad "spin-off"?
has included a section in the "Spin-Off" about a potential Suicide Squad series. The source explicitely states: "The source of the rumors seems to be actor David Ramsey, who plays John Diggle on "Arrow." While speaking to reporters in San Diego, Ramsey spilled the beans that his show's producers might be looking to bring more Suicide Squad to the DC television universe. 'They're talking about spinning Suicide Squad off," Ramsey tells ComicBook.com. "I don't know if they're going to really do it, but they've been talking about it.'" - To me, this is all conjecture and has no place on the page. Even Ramsey says they are only discussing it and that it has nothing to do with anything actually happening. This would be like including a statement that Darkseid is going to appear in Batman v Superman because someone asks, "Do you think Darkseid will be in the movie," and the reply is "Maybe, they were discussing all possibilities". What do others think?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm. It can be cut down some from what is on the page, and definitely made known that it is just under consideration. I was going to do that now, so you could see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And if nothing happens do we just remove it? It makes it seem like we're becoming a current events house, instead of reporting historical perspectives.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If nothing happens, I think we can leave the Flash heading, and put this info above that. Or, we can just move it over to Suicide Squad and expand it there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that belongs at present... as the source has no info other than some third hand report from a cast member... It certainly doesn't need its own section header.Spanneraol (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So maybe just move it to the Suicide Squad page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea. Spanneraol (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Smallville page, there is a bit under spin-offs about a Green Arrow spinoff that is mostly the same as what Suicide Squad currently is, an actor (Justin Hartley) saying that there have been talks about a spinoff (Green Arrow). I believe thats all it was and its on the Smallville page, so why not put Suicide Squad on here?.  NTC TNT (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that it should probably be removed from Smallville?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed cast table
IP 96.55.148.130 tried to add a table to the Cast section of the article, duplicating the prose that was already there. A number of users (ultimately including myself) have reverted the user, maintaining that the prose was fine in and of itself, and I suggested that the discussion continue here—it's a time-honored way of exchanging views and determining consensus (per WP:BRD). I also pointed out that the IP had reached 3RR, meaning that another reversion would probably result in a block.

Instead, new IP 178.124.108.193 took over adding the table, and then another new IP, 78.110.64.193. If this multi-IP user (meets the duck test for sockpuppeting) ever wants to engage, we're ready here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The table he keeps adding is already on the cast list page.. Does not need to also be here.Spanneraol (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point, Spanneraol. Just a note that this article has been temporarily semi-protected, which doesn't allow IP edits for a while and will keep the table for reappearing. The cast list page, which I agree is the more appropriate location for the table, actually has a more accurate version of the table than the one that was being added here. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cast list
Just a question, the current cast list only includes characters introduced in Series 1, and whilst it explains their actions after the series, it does not include characters that were introduced after, like Black Canary. Should they be added? 86.169.135.65 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The cast is for people who are series regulars, not recurring guests (as Canary was). The entire list can be found at List of Arrow characters.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Placement of the Home Media Section
Recently, Adamstom moved the home media information up and relabeled it "Release" to coincide with the broadcast info (here). I rearranged it, removing the "Reception" section header and putting broadcast, critical reception, awards, and then home media under a single "Release" header (here). Adam reverted it, stating that release and reception are two different things. Personally, "Release" is an overarching idea and in order to have reception on a show it needs to be released. Additionally, Home Media is the least important aspect of a show, and to me moving it above reception and awards implies that it is a more important part for readers to learn about.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't really to do with importance, and it really isn't up to any one of us to decide what is the most important part for readers to learn about. When a reader comes to this article long after the series has finished airing, they more likely to be interested in the home media info then the broadcasting info. Whether a reader is interested in one or the other though, they are both different forms of releasing the series, which is why film articles have theatrical and home media release under a single release header, and why many tv articles have broadcast and home media info under a single release header as well. Your argument that "in order to have reception on a show it needs to be released" so the reception info comes under the release header doesn't really make sense to me. In order to have reception on a show it has to first be produced, but we don't put the reception info in the production section because the reception of a show does not contribute to the production of it. In order to have reception on a show it has to have a story and cast/characters, but we don't put the reception info in the series overview or cast sections because the reception of a show does not contribute to the story or cast or characters of it. In order to have reception on a show it needs to be released, but we shouldn't put the reception info in the release section because it doesn't contribute the release of the show. First the show is released (broadcast or on home media), then audiences watch it, critics respond to it, and it can get nominated for awards, etc. Also, even though there is currently no home media release reviews on the page, that doesn't mean that the home media release in no way is received by anybody, because it is, and in fact that sort of review is a great source of overall season thoughts from critics, if we are able to find any. Basically, I made these changes based on what I have seen at other pages, and what makes logical sense to me, so this isn't personal choice or anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point to the examples you are copying? I did a quick survey of other tv series and movie articles and almost all of them have the home video release info near the bottom of the article. Spanneraol (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For TV, a few examples include House of Cards (U.S. TV series), The Legend of Korra, Game of Thrones, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Walking Dead (TV series), Rome (TV series), and Star Wars Rebels. For film, a few examples include Star Wars (film), Life of Pi (film), Casino Royale (2006 film), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Avengers (2012 film), Sherlock Holmes (2009 film), The Terminator. There are obviously a lot of other tv and film articles out there that don't use that format, but I don't think that means we shouldn't either. In fact, I don't think we should use this format just because these examples here do, I have seen these examples, and the format they use seems much more logical to me than others do. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify the point of "Release", it is the release of the show that causes the reception. So, reception is directly tied to the release. They can produce a show, never release it and it won't get reception, but broadcasting it automatically opens it up to review. This is why they are connected. The DVD release dates and special features are the absolutely least encyclopedic information on the page. It may be "important" for some readers, but we're not here to sell a product (or tell them when they can buy a product), we're here to educate them on a show. There is a logical order to the page and that is why home-media should be last. As for examples: Smallville, Heroes (TV series), House (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), Grey's Anatomy, Parks and Recreation. It even comes after everything at WP:MOSTV.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the series can only be received if it is released, but the reception is not to the release of the series, or even a part of the release of the series, it is a response to the series as a whole, and by putting it under the release section falsely indicates that this is not so. If an article (film or tv series) has a section on its original score/soundtrack, and it includes the critical response to it in that section, then the reader knows that that critical response is solely for the score/soundtrack. When the article also has a reception section completely separate from any other section, then the reader knows that that critical response is for the film/series as a whole. At the moment, it seems that we are listing reception info for the release of the series, rather than for the series itself, which is why they shouldn't be joined by that. As sor having the home media last, perhaps by elaborating on your so-called "logical order" I may understand this better, but dividing up two different forms of releasing a film, which is what the broadcast and home media sections are, still doesn't make sense to me. And just because those pages you gave as examples do it, doesn't mean that we should. I definitely think you are wrong about the home media section being "the absolutely least encyclopedic information on the page" and a way to "sell a product". We have a broadcast section, per MOS:TV, to detail some of the main channels that the show airs on in English speaking countries, and to note anything else significant about the show's broadcast. We have a home media section, also per MOS:TV, to give a summary of how the series has been released on home media (Wikipedia is meant to be a complete encyclopaedia after all, and when the full scope of the series is considered, the home media releases of the series are actually more relevant than the original airing of the show, given that the home media allows people to watch the series for many years to come), as well as any other unique features that the home media has. Neither of these have to do with selling a product, if they are created the right way, and neither is more or less important than the other, even if we personally feel otherwise. It should also be noted that the MOS groups the broadcast history of the show and the home media release summaries together - " It typically consists of the broadcast history of a show (to keep neutrality and make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to the article to have any international broadcasters listed as well), a home video release summary (VHS, DVD, etc.; written as prose) and other general distribution, marketing and merchandising, adaptations, or spin-off series." Make of that what you will, but I still think that all forms of release should be grouped together, and that all overall series reception should be in an actual reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DC Comics Shared TV universe
OK we have Flash and Arrow. Supergirl was confirmed to be in the same universe and now we have Vixen, an animated show set in the same universe. Titans, developed by TNT is maybe in the same universe but that has yet to be confirmed. And now the writers and producers of flash and arrow hinted another spin off superhero series set in the same universe, possibly a Suicide Squad TV series which was said by Diggle actor David Ramsey to be in development. I think it is the right time to make a "DC Comics´ Shared TV universe" wikipedia page.Poroboros (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has "confirmed" Supergirl as being in the same universe... and neither it nor Titans has even started yet... Vixen is animated so its not like the characters can cross over. Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Vixen show is confirmed to be set in the same universe (and the poster I saw had Flash and Arrow on it as well). With three series, another potential spin-off coming up, and several other shows with the possitbility of tying in, not to mention other in-universe comics and such, I think some sort of shared universe page should definitely be put together. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no critical commentary discussing a shared universe, thus there is no reason to have such a page. If the page is going to be nothing more than a duplication of information on all 3 series pages (2 at the moment, since Vixen does not have a page) and/or just a but of plot info on how they cross over then it doesn't warrant such a page. Acknowledging the connection as we have suffices.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, all we have is little bits of information on different pages acknowledging connections. If we brought those together, expanded it a bit with such things as recurring cast members, critical reception to the arrow/flash crossover, potential future crossovers, etc. then we could have a pretty decent page, and the shared universe sections on the individual pages could be cut down, with a "main article" link to the new page. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only real "shared" universe is Flash and Arrow at this moment. There is no information on the other stuff. Until it exists, there is no real to create a page that will clearly fail the general notability guidelines. At the moment, most of the shared universe information is pretty identical across the different pages, so you're not really missing anything from one page to another. There isn't a lot of information about the shared universe and other than reception on the two crossover episodes, there isn't enough to justify a new page creation. Maybe down the line, but definitely not right now. The best thing to do would be to create some sandbox page where you can start developing such information in that time when enough has been provided that it warrant a separate page. Remember, if you're going to create a page about a share universe then there needs to be reliable commentary on that universe (not on the individual parts that make up the universe). The Flash being notable and Arrow being notable does not mean that the idea of a shared universe is notable.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess my main issue with what we have now is that the info here and on the flash page is almost identical, with the new info we have just learned being added to both. This seems to me to be an unnecessary duplication of the info, an issue that would be solved with a single info for the shared universe stuff, with main article links from each page. I understand not wanting to rush into anything though, so I would support a sandbox or draft article being set up for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I could agree with that concern if we were talking about a single series that was duplicating across multiple sister pages. Arrow and The Flash, although connected, are separate series in their own right. For example, and this is a horribly ugly example, when you look at Buffyverse, it doesn't contain individual information about each connected series, but speaks from the overall universe. Or, looking at something like Star Trek, which has numerous connected series. It should be looked at as more of a "franchise" type page, than just a page to house individual connections to each other. I think a sandbox is the best starting place, because it would never really hold up to the WP:GNG right now. All reliable sources are discussing each individual piece, and not the universe as a whole.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl removed
I just wanted to stop by here, cause I'm sure it will cause a bit of huff. I removed the bit about a possibility of a crossover with Supergirl, as the CBS pres has killed that idea. At the moment, it just appears to be Berlanti's wishful thinking, and nothing more. The exec doesn't even suggest that it was ever a possibility.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You took the correct course of action. For now anyway. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then again, I just came across |this article which states, "[CW Prez] Pedowitz added that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a crossover between his DC titles like Arrow and The Flash." So really its a network exec he-said-she-said. LLArrow (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, that is the CW pres, who doesn't have control over the property. The CBS pres seemed pretty adamant with the "it's a different network" comment. Plus, a crossover would benefit the CW more than CBS given the general number of viewers each network typically pulls in. Cross network continuity is extremely difficult to pull off, and I think it's only ever happened like once... I think that the CBS pres killing it should be enough. If they renew the interest then it wouldn't be hard to add something back in.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The CW president was discussing Titans, not Supergirl. I would also point out the CBS president don't actually rule out a crossover, they just say it isn't happening any time soon. It's probably for the best for now to leave it out, but it could very well change in future. Berlanti has never said it was definitely happening, and his recent comments certainly suggest they somehow need to prove that it can work first before getting any crossovers. There is certainly nothing saying it will absolutely not happen (as with Gotham or Constantine). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the complete removal of the information. Isn't it better to have "In November 2014, Berlanti stated that the Supergirl series he is developing for CBS could also exist in the same universe as Arrow and The Flash. However, CBS Entertainment chairman Nina Tassler later stated that "[The CW]'s a different network so I think we’re going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now.”" This way, we are acknowledging that Berlanti felt/wished for a possibility, we are acknowledging that CBS thinks not any time soon, and we are acknowledging that there is still potential for this to happen, because there is, given that she never denied that a crossover would ever happen. It clearly doesn't deserve its own subheading, like Vixen does, but it is still information worth having on the page. By removing it completely, a future reader will never know that this was even discussed, and given the online response to even the potential for it, it is a piece of this shared universe's history that shouldn't be left out. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ruffice, the CBS pres doesn't completely so "never", but the first comment of "it's a different network" pretty much sums up what he is thinking. Is there a possibility, sure, but the CBS pres makes it clear that it isn't a possibility anytime soon. Adams, I would disagree with this approach. This leads to a "he wishes" and "he doesn't" approach, which is neither encyclopedic, nor relevant. We don't deal in wishful thinking. By including this play by play, we're actually applying more importance to the crossover than is actually there. Berlanti would like a crossover, because it is in his best interest. It doesn't immediately benefit the CBS pres, especially when superhero shows on CBS have not had long shelf lives. We're not here to tell a reader about all of the "wishes". If they said it was actually being discussed, then I may agree with you, but this wasn't even in a discussion. This was Berlanti saying what he wanted, and the CBS pres saying no.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that is all just how you are interpreting this, and so is WP:OR on your part. Until someone comes out and says "It isn't going to happen, that was just wishfull thinking" or "We discussed it but it didn't work out" we can only provide the info that we have and allow the reader to make the decision for themselves. You may be right, but unless you have a reliable source, we can't make assumptions like that. And just because something is only what somebody wants, doesn't make it unencyclopaedic. I believe that Supergirl being connected to the other series or not, no matter whether it was actually ever going to happen or not, is important and relevant because of the response and coverage it got. And you shouldn't worry about giving it too much importance, as it is lumped in an Other section at the bottom, and only consists of a couple of statements made by Execs, rather than any official announcements or the like. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A few things here... CBS actually is part owner of the CW so they arent completely separate... but in any event, I agree with Bignole, there is no reason to add all this speculative stuff that has very little relevance to the show. Supergirl hasnt even started shooting yet and certainly hasnt landed a spot on the fall schedule.. speculating about a possible connection between shows just seems silly and doesnt belong here. Spanneraol (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't speculating anything, we are adding information that we know to an encyclopaedia. Perhaps another version would prefereable, as in one that notes to readers that the executive producer of all the series is interested in crossing over, but CBS isn't interested for now –


 * "In November 2014, Berlanti expressed interest in having the Supergirl series he is developing for CBS also exist in the same universe as Arrow and The Flash, though CBS Entertainment chairman Nina Tassler later stated that "[The CW]'s a different network so I think we’re going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now.”"


 * This wording in no way states that cross over was ever going to happen, or that it never will happen, which is all that we know really. And just because something was "never going to happen", doesn't make it irrelevant or unimportant. Throughout the development sections of films and television series are potential ideas, possible castings, and yes, even wishful thinking on the part of creators. But we include it because it is all a part of the process, and it often was significantly covered online at the time. This is the same case. We are documenting the creation and development of a shared universe, from the perspective of how other things connect to this series. This idea was brought up, and later apparently debunked, but it was still brought up, it still received significant coverage, and it is still a part of the process. We never delete information simply because it is contradicted, we just make note of the contradiction – at the Flash page, we explain the original plan to have Barry in 3 Arrow episodes before getting his own series, and then we explain how that was later changed to just 2 episodes. A non Arrow/Flash example can be found at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, "Avi Arad said that Sony Pictures and Disney discussed incorporating the OsCorp Tower from the The Amazing Spider-Man into the climax of The Avengers, but Feige said that "the deal was never close to happening."" This could be seen as irrelevant if it was never going to happen anyway, but it was still brought up in someway, it received significant coverage at the time, and it is all a part of the process. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is certainly enough there to make it noteworthy, we even have a quote stating that the potential for a Supergirl crossover with Arrow or the Flash is written into Greg Berlanti's contract. It doesn't mean it will happen, all it means is that there is a possibility, and that possibility certainly hasn't been extinguished yet. Assuming any different is original research (especially saying that it's definitely not true because saying one thing secretly means another when you cannot confirm it as being anything but the literal). I'm for leaving it out, but just have to point out there is a flaw in your own reasoning behind this. Ruffice98 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is it written into his contract? The CBS president clearly stated the shows were on different networks and they weren't looking at a crossover. This is putting the cart before the horse. There is nothing that says this will happen (definitely not anytime soon), and we don't deal with conjecture. Additionally, it's original research to imply the likelihood of it happening when all anyone has said was the vague, "it could happen". By that wording, they "could" have a crossover with Gotham.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep on making assumptions about this situation, rather than going on what we know ("clearly stated the shows were on different networks and they weren't looking at a crossover" when she only said "I think we’re going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now"). The wording I suggested in no way implies the likelihood of it happening, and in fact almost debunks the chances completely. And if Berlanti came out and said that he was interested in integrating Gotham into the universe, and the Fox came out and said that wouldn't happen, then that should be mentioned here as part of the development and potential for expansion of the shared universe. Again, just because something was never going to happen anyway, does not make it irrelevant or unimportant to readers of this encyclopaedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to mention every single thing that comes out of his mouth... "well maybe this... or maybe that...." it would lead to a huge article filled with things he thought of one day but never explored. Thats just silly. Possibly worth mentioning on the Supergirl page when its created, but not here. Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to pull her quote, then pull the whole thing: "“That’s a different network so I think we’re going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now.”" - She clearly said what I wrote she clearly said. You cannot misunderstand "we're going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now.". That means that there is no crossover. I did not say "never", and neither did she, but we shouldn't be posting the possibility of it simply because a producer on another show, on another network, said there could be. It we included every mention of every time someone said, "that would be cool" then we'd have a page full of conjecture and rumors. This is why we are an encyclopedia and not a current events source.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Producer of the same show, not a different one, that's why we're in this mess. As I said, it doesn't belong here, but not because it is never going to happen (which is exactly what you said in your first post of this discussion "The exec doesn't even suggest that it was ever a possibility") but rather because it isn't really relevant to the page. It belongs on an article related to the Supergirl show which doesn't exist. The same should apply to the Titans reference as both are in exactly the same situation. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, this belongs on an article about this shared universe, but since it has been decided that we won't be making one of those right now, all of the information is being kept here. And this isn't just a case of "I wish", this is a case of the person making the shows being interested in doing it, and saying so in a public many that garnered a large response and was significantly covered, and then the exec denying that it will definitely happen, but leaving the door open. This is more than just simple wishful thinking, and it is noteworthy when discussing the Arrow connections and future connections to other projects in this shared universe. And "That's a different netwrok so I think we're going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now" and "[The CW]'s a different network so I think we’re going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now.”" mean exactly the same thing, I have just given context with the latter version so that a reader not looking at the original interview can understand what she is talking about.


 * Now, looking at that quote, the exec is responding to the idea that these series could crossover, which Berlanti is clearly interested in. She doesn't deny that it will happen, she just says not for now, which is perfectly understandable. However, you are continuing to interpret this as it will never happen, and was never going to happen, which is original research, because nothing in the statement "That's a different netwrok so I think we're going to keep Supergirl to ourself right now" says that at all. Like I said before, you may be completely right, but unless you have a reliable source to back up your claim, we can only go on what we have infront of us. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a shared universe, and not an article about the Supergirl show.. this is an article about Arrow.. and the quote has nothing of value to add to that subject. Save it for the Supergirl article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again Adam, you're missing what I said. I specifically said that I was not saying "never", I explicitly stated that it just was clear from her wording that it wasn't happening anytime soon (if ever). It has no business on this page at this time when it is nothing more than Berlanti's wishful thinking to have a crossover.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but what about Titans? Either they both stay or both go. I'm in favour of both go, because they really belong in the articles directly connected to the shows or on a shared universe page, none of which exist at the moment. Blood Rush, The Flash and Vixen are all coming directly off of Arrow, as will The Atom if it ever gets made, these shows are produced separately then potentially tied in afterwards. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with removal unless an actual connection takes place given that separation of networks (i.e., Vixen will be on the CW web).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Titans mention should definitely be removed as well. Spanneraol (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, if we're going to just keep this section for actual confirmed connections with other projects, like the known crossovers with Flash, then that should be fine for this page, and we should make sure that the same is done at the Flash page for consistency/to avoid redundancy. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the best option. This page could easily get bogged down with everything in the "Arrowverse" potentially. The safest option going forward is that pages should only refer to crossovers involving the show the article is referring to, so I would not expect to see information on the Flash comic on the Arrow page, and don't expect to see information on The Atom on The Flash page (neither of these were on those pages, its just to give an example). This keeps things simpler. Titans and Supergirl may very well be set in the same universe as these shows, but because we will be looking at specific crossover events without confirming which show will "host" the crossover event we won't add a reference to it in the article. This has the indirect effect of eliminating the will they/won't they argument altogether, because it would be reliant entirely on the event itself, rather than the whole shared universe. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Product placement
A few editors disagreed with my edit removing reference to the name of a corporate sponsor, and I'd like to seek consensus. IMO the sponsor is not any more relevant to the show than, say, the regular appearance of certain cars and computer software during the course of the series, and that mentioning them constitutes spam. Pax 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is in this case. The sponsor was doing this for the sake of promoting their product. The entire webisodes are based on the Bose product. We're not talking about a regular episode that features a new Toyota, and us calling it out. We're talking about a product sponsored tie-in. It's no different than when Smallville did the same thing. They are promotional tie-ins. To intentionally remove the promotional piece makes it seem like it was some pure ancillary plot device. It was entirely fueled by Bose.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bignole is correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bignole's hit the nose on the head. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential spin-off unnamed characters
A small issue, but one nonetheless; I believe the text, "as well as three other DC Comics characters, who have never appeared in a TV series before", should be removed due to the fact that it has nothing to do with Arrow. However, I've been reverted twice now, so let us discuss. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is more appropriate to a potential article for this series. It has no importance in understanding the fact that this spin-off is being developed based around existing Arrow/Flash characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would concur with this.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft of Arrow universe
This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Arrow universe at Draft:Arrow universe until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. With all the info coming out now about this universe expanding, an article may be useful sooner than later. This is just for users to help create something, and have it ready should we ever want this article. I started it, and it's really rough, but give a general idea of what I'm thinking. And heck, the article title may not even be the best, but it's the most descriptive of what it is at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the main characters was forgoten
There are two sisters in the series: Laurel Lance and Sara Lance. Sara Lance was forgotten. I think that Black canary is Sara Lance, not Laurel Lance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeebrake60 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sara Lance is the Canary, Laurel Lance is the Black Canary. She's not included in the Main Cast list on this page because she is/was not in a starring role, but actually a recurring role. You can find her under recurring for Season Two here (fifth entry). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeebrake60 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Create spinoff article
I believe we have enough info to make an article for this or at least start a draft. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It still hasn't been confirmed, so perhaps not an article yet, but with these casting news and other info, I'd say draft deffinitely. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah a draft sounds better. Maybe treat it like the MCU drafts, where they are moved over when they start filming? Since when they start filming it would have been announced to be a thing anyway.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 10:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Has someone already started with the draft??The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has not been started. But with TV, it is a little more lenient as for when it can get into the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I created a draft page for the spin off series. here is the link: Draft:Untitled Arrow/Flash spin-off, feel free to change add and do whatever you want.The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it shouldn't have an article until it has a name, though a draft is perfect. The end of this week would probably be a good time to turn it into an article, since history says it'll be officially ordered to series, probably with a title, this week.  NTC TNT (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The show will most likely be announced at the upfronts, which for the CW is on May 14 this year. I wouldn't turn it into an article until that time. Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Spanneraol. Let's wait until after the upfront in 10 days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, networks usually do all renewals, cancellations, and pickups by the Friday before upfronts. I think it should be fine to publish the article this weekend, after the show is officially picked up. NTC TNT (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are leaks that occur beforehand sometimes but the networks dont release the schedule or the show titles themselves before the upfronts.. Thats when it will go up on the website with a teaser/image and an official title and timeslot. Why the hurry? Wait a few days till its official. Spanneraol (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, they pick them up, with titles the week before (like Supergirl today) and then the following week is when we get show times. NTC TNT (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * also, i was thinking about it, and there's a good chance the New show won't even be on the schedule next Thursday, since cw doesn't usually have midseason shows on their upfront schedule. NTC TNT (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They do actually announce mid-season shows also at the upfronts.. and this one has leaked.. apparently they are calling it "DC's Legends of Tomorrow"... kinda cheesy title . Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this counts as leaking, then everything leaks early. When's the last time a show was truely announced at upfronts?  Not recently. NTC TNT (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Order of spin-offs
An editor has recently demonstrated opinion and taken it upon themselves to reorder the spin-offs alphabetically and order of importance, according to them. I believe we should keep them in the order in which they were announced/picked up; and am seeking consensus. Let me know what you think, LLArrow (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree that chronological order is the appropriate order. The only reason I would think to change this is if Vixen doesn't actually end up getting made, because this was announced before Legends and the latter has moved faster into development than Vixen. If it doesn't, then it should be moved out completely and into a "potential" or "failed" spin off section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the importance issue is that you have two live action shows on the network and one animated series on the web that probably very few people will watch, its not like they are of equal standing.. it seems weird to have the web series in between. Perhaps put it in a separate sub heading... Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is why "importance" shouldn't be a factor because that's original research. Who are we to assign a level of importance to a particular spin off. We're not talking about something that is directly connected to any show, like a comic book or promo tie-in. They're all spin-offs, and whether they are live action or animated doesn't negate that they are connected. The best practice is to list in chronological release. Now, I will say that if Vixen doesn't come out till after Legends, then there would be an argument for swapping, but at this time we don't know that to be true. That is why order of announcement should take precedent, especially since it was announced way before the other.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of them actually have a release date yet though and it being a webseries is different from a network show and I still think they should be separated in that way. Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bignole, Marc Guggenheim has mentioned several times, recently, on his Tumblr that Vixen is quite far into production, with actors going in for voice work this month. He has also stated that the series will premiere in the summer. LLArrow (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Span, being a webseries is only different then a network when you're talking about how it is broadcast. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a series, just like The Flash and Legends. You're personally saying that webseries are not as important as live-action series, or series that appear on a particular network. If Supergirl ends up being connected, would you want it to be moved because it's not on the CW? What if Netflix picks up a series? Would you separate it again, because Netflix isn't a network.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Network is network, web is web.... I consider netflix to be on par with networks.. In any event, my preference is still alphabetical because if there are a lot of spin-offs (like supergirl as you suggest) its just more convenient to put everything in alphabetical order. Spanneraol (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The order should be chronological because, in theory, if you were to remove the subsection headings, the whole section should be able to read as one, which would in any other case be chronological. And I agree with Bignole's potential change of Legends and Vixen, dependent on when they both released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that in order of release is the best and most appropriate option, and that until we know the order of Legends' and Vixen's releases we should use order of announcement. And one user definitely does not get to decide what series are more important than others. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Arrow Cast Table
This is a topic that has been brought up before, at length on The Flash Talk Page, however i would like to raise the point again here. A cast table, something along these lines:

Given that the show is entering it's fourth season, and that the show has pretty significant cast changes over the years (losing at least one character per-season), i think that a cast table is a good idea that is now entirely justified. I'm not suggesting that we remove the written descriptions of the characters, just that we put the table above the written portion. I know that there are some of you who think that cast tables are lazy, and unnecessary, but i think that it is something that helps some people, and doesn't hurt those who want to read the text rather than see it visually. I would like to open this up for discussion, so let me know your thoughts on the matter. Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not really needed. We have an entire page devoted to this. The cast table is unnecessarily redundant and its entire purpose is just to color code out whether they were a series regular or not. People can just read. It isn't like we have 20 characters to go through. Not to mention that we have a lot of tables already, and ones that are getting pretty big. Adding a table when we don't absolutely need it seems like overkill.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I get that saying other pages have these isn't a great excuse for putting one here, but they make the page look more organized, and the separate cast page is made messier by all the text within each cell. I get that i don't have much sway here, and if you have absolutely no intention of making the change, that is fine, however at the very least you should consider putting a (Season One) label next to Colin Donnell, or something of the like for all the characters who are no longer main cast. It should be readily apparent who is current cast and who was former. Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The page itself doesn't look more organize because there is a table in it. That would be like saying that not having a table makes a page disorganized, which is completely false. This page is highly organized. We don't do "current" cast though, because we write historically. When the show is over, there won't be a "current" cast, just a cast.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense NOT to have a table. Like the user said, it just makes everything look more organised. And as a matter of fact, all the text isn't needed on the main Arrow page as that it what the actual character page is for.


 * The prose is sufficient enough for the time being (until season 7 at least) and your comment on the text not being there: Yes it should be there and prose is almost always preferred to a table, the only times it is not would be for awards or home media tables.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)