Talk:Arrow season 3

Requested move 15 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It would be normal to handle this request at WP:AFC, but even if we accept this as a proper move discussion, consensus is against moving the article in its current state (One editor was in favor and three were opposed). EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Arrow (season 3) → Arrow (season 3) – The draft misses other sections, but still meets the notability criteria. WP:TVSERIES says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations". It meets all the criteria in WP:GNG. it doesn't include only the plot summaries of the episodes; so it aligns with WP:PLOT. HamedH94 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold off for now Minus a cast section and the obvious lead, yes, it is all plot. It's not that hard to leave it in the draft namespace until it has a Production and Reception section. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 15:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * well, your link says: "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." since it DOES contain the characters section, the directors, writers, viewerships and other stuff of each episode in the table, it's obviously not "a mere plot summary". so your "Minus" doesn't mean anything. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, if you want to get extremely technical. The characters section and lead do not provide anything new that the main article does not, so realistically, the only new information in the article is the plot and details of the episode. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * if by "the main article" you mean Arrow (TV series), it only includes the main cast, not the recurring cast of each season, let alone the guest characters. so, realistically, it does have new information and can be improved after it's turned into an article. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hold off for now This draft should have more info, such as a production and a reception section to start, as well as references for the cast members. This draft isn't ready yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * all of them can be added when it's become an article. there are many similar articles that miss those sections, like Prison Break: The Final Break; but they're still considered notable enough. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And all of them can be added before its an article. There is no rush. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * this isn't about "rush". the page meets all the notability criteria i mentioned at first. so you got nothing that opposes the move. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except the lack of any real information that isn't already in another article. You forced the move, now you're requesting a rename - that's forcing, and so far, you have only yourself backing this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * it's a tv season. it's obvious that the information will be in other articles like the main article of the series, the characters articles and the list of episodes article. and by the way, you should comment on content, not the contributor. we're talking about the notability of the page here, not my alleged personality disorder. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Excuse me? What? I brought up nothing about personality disorders. After saying I've said something that I didn't, it is obvious that you don't plan to discuss this with me properly. And yes, it's a season page, so you would expect content relative to the season on the page - besides the episode table, there is nothing. Hence: Production and Reception info. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * now it's "besides" instead of "minus". i'm not in the mood to go in circles again. i've answered all of your arguments. now it's up to the closer to decide who's right. however, if you come up with a new argument, i'm happy to discuss. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, you enjoy doing the same... It's not "who's right" here. It's whether the article is valid enough or not. And obviously more views are needed before a decision can be made. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Requested moves is not the proper way to request drafts be moved to article space. Use AFC instead. P p p er y 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accolades
Wasn't Katie Cassidy's Prism award for the season two addiction storyline? I am aware she was awarded it in 2015, but thought it should go with the season two article instead if that was the season it was awarded for. Am struggling to find any sources that discuss it online, so didn't want to move without checking here first. AutumnKing (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It does seem that it was awarded for the season 2 storyline (judging by context). --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As there appears to be no objection, I will move the award to season 2. AutumnKing (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)