Talk:Arrowverse/Archive 4

Episode pages
Ok, I'm trying to figure out why we are getting an influx of episode pages for Arrow and The Flash that basically consist of 1000 word plot summaries and 6 reviews (usually 3 of which are fansites and/or non-professional in nature).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Users see other series have episode articles, realize these series don't and say, "Hey! These need articles! I'll make them." and then proceed to do a "copy/paste" formula for creating them., care to comment? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was searching to a list in wich order episodes are best watched and was surprised not finding it here. So I am asking what others think before (somehow) adding this form other sources on the net. STrek77 (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we're not a forum to discuss such content. And start to end. No sources are required for such trivial, watcher-based original-research content. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

2016-17 crossover does not include Supergirl
Based on this interview with Guggenheim, and some other discussions he's previously had, it seems like Supergirl (the series) will not have an "official" episode as part of the crossover. Rather, just Supergirl (the character) will be journeying to the Arrowverse to appear on Arrow, Flash and Legends. Guggenheim says (with my bolding), "It’s basically a huge three-part story that also brings in Supergirl, so it’s crossing over all four shows." I've suspected this for a bit now, but this interview seems to confirm it. I'll wait a bit to see if others have opinions on the matter, but I'm planning to revert the table in the "Crossover" section to a version that resembles this (without the Supergirl column), and will move The Flash/Supergirl musical info to the prose of the "Supergirl" subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just change the Supergirl cell to a note, like what we have for Legends from last year, since it is still a crossover with Supergirl, just without a specific Supergirl episode involved. The musical episodes should stay, since they are a crossover event like these others. If it was just a single episode in either one of the shows (like last season's Flash/Supergirl crossover and the Constantine episode) then it should be removed from the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Guggenheim has given some more info and it appears while the whole episode of Supergirl is not considered part of the crossover, the ending is with Barry and Cisco coming to her Earth to recruit Supergirl. I've created a note regarding this, similar to Legends from last season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The official trailer says that it is a 4 night event and that it starts with super girl. I've made an edit stating this information but people seem to want to ignore it. Also, given that Barry and Cisco appear in the super girl episode, that means it is considered the first part if there are other characters making crossover appearances. Look at the "Chicago" franchises 3 part crossovers if you want an example.-RaySwifty16
 * That's because context matters. As stated above, official sources say that it's just the end of the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this promotional image, Supergirl is part of the crossover. Jmj713 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, context matters. Straight from Guggenheim's mouth, only the end of the Supergirl episode is what "kicks off" the crossover and it officially starts on The Flash episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That contradicts official material which bills the event as a four-night event, and Supergirl is listed first in a row of four posters. It's clearly and objectively a four-part crossover, regardless of what anyone said previously. Jmj713 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. Try to take your mind off of the series themselves, and think of it like this: it is the events that take part over four nights. However, only three series are officially part of the crossover. So, the ending events of the Supergirl start the crossover, but the series isn't part of the crossover, and then continue on. Make sense? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it does not make sense. The event is being advertised as a four-night event, as in the linked official posters. Four nights or four parts means four episodes. It starts with Supergirl and moves on to the other three shows, with Supergirl appearing in all subsequent three episodes. Thus, all four series are involved and all four episodes are part of the four-night event. I don't see how you can factually call it anything else. Jmj713 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus between editors state otherwise. You have provided no further proof to contradict this. The most obvious evidence is the titles. The crossover is titled "Invasion!". The episode titles of the three series are all "Invasion!". Is Supergirl's? No. Big indicator. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The end of the Supergirl episode kicks off the event, which then takes place over the other three shows. That makes it four nights, as it is advertised, but the actual "Invasion!" storyline does not include the Supergirl episode. Like Alex pointed out, this is supported by what we have been told. The titles of the three episodes are all "Invasion!", so they are the crossover proper. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems there was consensus built but I want to point out that the cw marketing (the company who finances/distributes/makes) all these series has put out official promotional commericials calling it a four part crossover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfvEscEGWfI. Furthermore, the simple fact that Flash appears at the end of the show to kick off the official sightings is irrelevant. Cisco's wormholes were all through the show starting in the first ten minutes. Furthermore, the length of the appearance does not preclude it from being a part of the crossover, which again, officaial material states it is offically part of. Evilcharles (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)evilcharles
 * How it's marketed doesn't change the fact that the crossover is only in three of the series, and not Supergirl. This is supported by reliable sources before the episode aired, the episode itself as it had nothing to do with the crossover, and reliable sources from after the episode aired on why "Medusa" was not part of the crossover. As has been stated what seems like a million times: Supergirl the character is part of the crossover, Supergirl the series is not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still fail to comprehend how an episode can begin the event, have characters that are major parts of that event, yet not be part of the event. Seems like you may be trying to disregard facts to push your POV here. The titles of the episodes are irrelevant. They could all have been different. The CW calls this a "four-part" event officially. That's all we need. Nothing else. Jmj713 (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only person pushing their POV is you against a wide consensus; you need to present new and convincing arguments if you wish to change it. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's say that there's a four-day touring event. The first night is for signing into the event. The tour itself only covers days two to four, making it a three-day tour. Similarly, it's a four-day crossover event, but Supergirl only teased the crossover. The crossover itself (the plot) only covers days two to four, making it a three-episode crossover. DonQuixote (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's an outside (non-CW) reliable source stating it's a four-part event which began with Supergirl. Here's another. Both clearly say the Supergirl episode is the first part of a four-part event. Jmj713 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Context matters. With due weight, “Some people call it a four-way crossover because it involves four shows; my ulcer requires me to call it a three-part crossover,” Guggenheim explains. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, due weigh. You're using one quote in one article by Guggenheim against numerous CW ads and third-party articles calling this a FOUR-PART event. Jmj713 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Guggenheim is the guy who created the crossover--which means we have a secondary source directly quoting a primary source, the auteur, without original research/synthesis. The articles you provided give their opinion of the works of fiction. Unless a large body of such secondary sources hold that same opinion, right now it's fringe and thus Guggenheim holds more weight. DonQuixote (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Because someone wants it there
Let's talk about the section on potential spin-offs. We basically have a statement about how David Ramsey rumored some talk about a Suicide Squad show, which never came to fruition. There is no evidence that it was a legitimate consideration, only someone saying it definitely isn't going to happen because of the film (which isn't confirmation that it was actually likely to happen in the first place). This just seems like needless trivia that is given undue weight. The same for Vixen, where they vaguely discuss the notion of a show for her because going "she could end up in something like Legends". Well, she did. Seems better off to discuss that somewhere else, IF it's that important. Not as a potential spin-off, but as a character development piece. The section really just seems to house rumors and wishful thoughts, which is not encyclopedic.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the two sentence on the Suicide Squad can move to Suicide Squad and the two after that from Pedowitz can go in the development section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And the reverting editor (pinging ) really ought to have created a discussion on this themselves if they disagreed, instead of just captioning their revert as "it's there because I want it there". Very WP:OWN behaviour. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would have been. Good thing I said nothing of a sort. Fly away. LLArrow (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You reverted because, in your words, "I want this section in the article." As the reverting editor has no sustainable argument, then there seems to be no disagreements against removing the content. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was bold and made the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you taking my words and twisting them into something you want them to mean. You know, just as well as I, that I was referring to my stance on the issue, not a proclamation that the section will stay by order of king LLArrow. I see you. LLArrow (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know LL, I read that too as a very WP:OWN statement. I would not have assumed what you claim is what you meant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what LL meant (they have an opposing view, so a discussion should be had), but I was also thrown off by the wording at first, so I think this is just a warning to LL about the way things are worded, as there is always a chance of misunderstanding, and that can easily get way out of hand. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly why I detest Wikipedia sometimes. Why the hell are we still harping on semantics?. It's over. Move on. LLArrow (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do try to remain civil and on the topic of the original thread. Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the important part of Alex's statement (as I see it) is being lost. It isn't so much the "i want it here" part, but the part that says go to the talk page, yet he doesn't show up to actually discuss it. This I find happens too often that someone says "go to the talk page first", and whether they start the discussion or someone else does, don't show up because they have the page the way they want it (which is not a trait exclusive to LLArrow, or one I'm saying they do all the time).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly; the leading sentence to my original post. If you revert an edit and state that it should go to the talk page, you take part in it yourself. When the initial editor posts on the talk page, the reverter has two options: Either they find valid points and agree with the edit, in which case they should revert and post on the talk page of their agreeance, or continue the discussion with their own points. I saw none of this. A lack of a reply post would indicate that silence is consensus. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Episode Articles
We seem to be getting in influx of episode articles, all of which contain about the same information: some casting info and about 5 or 6 reviews. Upon looking at the reviews, most of them come from fansites, which is not permitted. Once you remove them, the idea that the episode still meets the GNG becomes very questionable, as casting information isn't noteworthy enough to establish notability by itself. To be clear, ScreenerTV is a fansite, and the "reviewers" are not professional reviewers with editorial oversight. The AV Club is usually ok, but it depends on if it's one of their writers or a free lance review (Some indication is whether or not they are part of their listed "contributing writers" or not), still a little questionable. EW and IGN are obviously good to use and have a long history of editorial oversight, which is one of the requirements for reliability. Whatever it is, I think we need to get a handle on it (be clearer with expectations), because we're getting more and more episode articles that are borderline at best when it comes to notability.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Hence my continue attempts to redirect Killer Frost (The Flash) which have been met to reverts by an IP, now saying its "under construction". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, ScreenerTV isn't a fansite. It is the new name of Zap2It, which was always reliable. Which articles used might be questionable, similar to what you said for AV Club, but generally, it should be okay to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it shouldn't have been, even as "Zap2It". My initial tests usually cause me to go to the "About me" page of websites, and when you cannot tell where editorial oversight is coming from, it already throws up red flags. In this, the about me tells very little about that. It's owned by a major company, but that doesn't make it reliable, just owned. Traffic websites are traffic websites, regardless of who owns them. My main issue is when I cannot tell if a writer is part of the staff, or just someone that regularly submits to them. That said, EW's About Me is blank, which seems more like an error on the page than anything, but they at least have a well known history through printed media. We need more clear guidelines on this stuff, because I'm fearful that we're going to end up with dozens or hundreds of episodes among 4 shows with 3 to 4 reviews, regurgitated ratings information, and a plot summary 500+ words long.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Special appearance by
I've been thinking about how we have been dealing with actors who are credited with "special appearance by", and I think we may be approaching it wrong. We have been interpreting this as indicating a guest star, but I'm not so sure. The term "special appearance by" doesn't actually say anything about guest starring, and it actually separates the actor from the guest stars and special guest stars. I think that this may indicate an actor particularly special to the studio (more expensive?), but doesn't indicate whether they are a regular or guest. We would then have to use some other means to determine their actual status.

As an outside example, Edward Herrmann on Gilmore Girls also received special appearance credit, and he is clearly a series regular (appears in a 'regular amount' of episodes, and listed with the other series regulars in the opening credits). So with that in mind, I think we should look to other reliable sources for these actors. We were told that Neal McDonough would be a regular on Arrow, but a recurring guest on Legends. For both he is listed as making special appearances, but that could mean a special appearance as a regular on Arrow, and a special appearance as a guest star on Legends. Likewise, Tom Felton was announced as a series regular for Flash, and it certainly seems like he is, so I'd say Felton makes special appearances as a series regular there.

If others agree, then I think we should use the casting announcements from reliable sources to move anybody from recurring guest to main cast that needs to be moved. Also, just a note that the universe regulars seem to be credited as special guests in any episode they appear in across the three shows, even those that they originated from. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've approached it wrong. None of these actors are credited with in the main actors in the openings, and they are only credited when they appear, where main actors "generally" are credited even if they don't make an appearance. So I think they should stay as recurring or guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But they're not credited as guests either, we just decided that they were. And whether someone is credited when they are absent or not depends on their contract. I think it is easy enough to believe that McDonough agreed to join the main cast of Arrow as long as he just got a "special appearance by" credit whenever he appears, and that lines up with what a lot of reliable sources independently said he would be doing. And like I said, it is not unprecedented for a series (on The CW, no less) to credit a series regular with "special appearance by" due to contractual reasons. What I'm really trying to get at is that we decided that "special appearance by" always means a guest star, but we do not have proof of that, it goes against the other things we know from very reliable sources, and it doesn't line up with past examples. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)