Talk:Legends of Tomorrow/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Or simply

Ok, we seem to be going back and forth on this. The part in the lead that says, "or simply Legends of Tomorrow is completely unnecessary. The only thing missing is "DC's". This removal doesn't really simplify the name to a point that we need to actually address this to readers like they come to the wrong page (especially when the title of the article doesn't have "DC's" in it). Yes, I'm aware that AoS does that and other pages, but they probably should not. We're not talking about Dr. Strangelove or Borat, where we have significant name reduction. We're talking about a small removal. Per WP:LEAD, only "significant alternative titles" are placed in the lead. I don't think that the removal of "DC's" makes the change significant enough to mention.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been discussions regarding situations like this, where a brand is in the title (see the Marvel TV series and The Avengers, and The Butler). They really aren't part of the title. The common name for this series is Legends of Tomorrow. Yet, the official and full name is DC's Legends of Tomorrow. So this should be mentioned in some form. Because just leaving the full title in the lead that doesn't match up with the article title can be confusing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree Bignole, I believe that keeping the two alternative titles in the lead is absolutely necessary. I have only seen DC's Legends of Tomorrow as the official title on any reputable websites. I believe by removing it here, we diminish the overall credibility of the article. LLArrow (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This is in direct violation of WP:LEAD, and removing it does not hurt the article's legitimacy in any bit. If it did, then it should be mentioned in the body of the article not in the lead. The lead is for summarizing the important parts of the subject. The fact that the brand is not part of the article title is not important in the grand scheme. Additionally, there is no context for why it isn't in the article title but is in the lead. Saying "also known as" doesn't change that fact. Given that this violates LEAD, it should be removed (as well as from those other articles). The only reason that we do this is because fanboys have pitched a fit about the inclusion of "Marvel", and it was a compromise for removing it from the article title. That was an inappropriate compromise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where it is in violation. Per MOS:LEADALT, it gives us examples of when to use it, but it is by no means restrictive of these uses. It even says "inclusion should reflect consensus". So I think we should do that: form a consensus for if we want to include it or not, but it is not a violation of WP:LEAD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It kind of is, when it's not a significant change to the title for size purposes, nor is it a respelling. I'm not talking about a violation in the sense of not citing a quoted document. I'm talking about violating the spirit of what LEAD is going for. Right now the argument to include seems to be "because other pages are doing it", not because it enhances the article in some way. To me, it makes us look like we think the average reader is an idiot who cannot figure out that people simply say "Legends of Tomorrow", instead of "DC's Legends of Tomorrow". That seems like a "duh" thing. For me, it would have more weight if people were saying simply "Legends" (and Shipp's comments don't really count because we don't know if he was shortening it, or didn't quite know the full name yet). "Legends" would be a reason to include, because that's a significant change to the name that should be pointed out to readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, we have the official title, and the common title. We are obviously going to use the common title for the article and within the article, but if we start a proper encyclopaedic article stating that a series is called something, when it isn't, then we are lying and severely compromising our integrity. I don't understand why giving the actual title, then explaining that there is a more common title, and then using said common title for the rest of the article, including in its title, is an issue for you. And your little "fanboys" jab is not only inappropriate, but also completely incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Dropping "DC" is hardly making it a "common" title anymore than the AoS page does. It's an issue for me because this is about common sense and not needed to hold the hands of readers. Exaggerating the idea that we're "lying" by not pointing it out is utterly ridiculous. If you think that the average reader could not figure out that it's simply called "Legends of Tomorrow" would be like believing that they couldn't figure out that 2+2=4. There isn't a significant change in the name that they would be confused, nor would we be lying. Given that the name of the article is simply "Legends of Tomorrow", we couldn't be accused of lying. Again, this is like comparing the article to Borat or Dr. Strangelove that had to significantly shorten their names for the sake of reading. The comment about fanboys is accurate. I've been part and witnessed other similar discussions when it comes to naming pages, characters, etc. and it's typically the non-objective fanboys that need things a certain way. Just to point out, I'm probably one of the biggest DC fans, but it's the non-objective ones that I'm specifically referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The constant name change

HOW MANY TIMES IS THIS PAGE GONNA BE RENAMED BEFORE WE AGREE ON A NAME?!?!?!?!?!?!The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea but edit wars are not permitted by Wikipedia policy.DarienLeonhart (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Robbie Amell

Even when talking about unfilmed roles, "expected" means fan speculation, not that the studio "expects" him to be on there. The studio knows whether or not he will be on there, so for now he's unconfirmed and I believe Wikipedia policy would say that makes it not worthy of being on here as though it's fact. Go ahead and add "expected" Amell appearance to the production section or somewhere else, but until he is confirmed to appear, let's leave him out of the casting section.NTC TNT (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Amell on Legends of Tomorrow

If and when you find a news source that says "Stephen Amell to appear on Legends of Tomorrow", please let me know and I'll add it on the page. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding Constantine to related shows

In an interview with IGN (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back?%20hub%20page%20%28front%20page%29 Arrow producer Wendy Mericle has said that the version of Constantine appearing on Arrow is the same version and character from the Constantine show, thus making the events of Constantine canon to this universe, and should therefore be on the list of related shows. Ttll213 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem is if things keep on as they are we could end up with every article having fifty shows to link off. Ridiculous number which it probably won't reach but we have no idea how things will end up. A while ago the matter came up and some of us decided it was for the best to keep these sections limited to shows that have direct influence on the show, unless things have changed since then that's how it remains. All the connections Constantine has to this show are being done via his appearance on Arrow, so referencing Arrow is sufficient, going to the Arrow page then tells you how Constantine links to Arrow. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandal Savage: Main or recurring

I'm just wanting to check this. He's under the recurring cast section but I'm just wanting to check this is accurate. I came across this article:

http://www.franchiseherald.com/articles/36765/20150827/legends-of-tomorrow-cast-characters.htm

in this it mentions Vandal Savage as a main character. It's sourcing it to a press event. I'm wondering if anyone has any more information on it. Their quote only mentions these characters appearing in every episode which isn't quite the same as "main cast" but I'm wanting to make sure what is being stated is accurate. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We only have 9 listed on the page, but I think we should wait and see if there are anyother sources that state this as I haven't seen any others--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@LLArrow, Favre1fan93, and AlexTheWhovian: Just pinging some of the regular editors to this page to get their opinions on whether we should move him to the series regular section.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe he should remain under recurring until the series premieres, or a more official source states otherwise (e.g. Futon, EW, etc). Alex|The|Whovian 14:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought his original casting source said it was a recurring role? So it should stay as that until something else comes up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Favre1 and Whovian; unless another reliable source can be found reporting Crump's promotion, he should remain recurring. LLArrow (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This is why I am asking if anyone is able to track down this source. They say it comes from a press event, if one of the executive producers did indeed confirm it as suggested then its pretty much as good a source as we can get (short of seeing the actor's contract). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fansites

Can someone please enlighten me on what qualifies as a fansite and what doesn't. I keep getting reverted when adding from DC'sLegendsTV, which is a offshoot of KSITE (which is reliable). I know that even fansites are acceptable when reporting exclusives, and the director information I keep adding is an exclusive, because it is the only site reporting the info. Insight greatly appreciated. LLArrow (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

KSite is a fansite. It's run by Craig Byrne. We use him when he has interviews, because he can get access to more interviews than most when it comes to The CW because of his work on the Smallville companions. His general reporting from "sources" are not allowed. That extends to all of his sister sites.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty then. Thanks for the explain Bignole. LLArrow (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Airdate revealed?

Does the wording of the Australian release shed light to this, here: "The series[...] will screen Express from the US on FOX8, which is a nice change from new titles that are often later in their first season." @Whats new?:, since you added this to the article, are you able to shed more light on this wording. Does "screen Express" mean it airs on the same day as the US premiere? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "Express from the US" does mean on the same date as the US premiere. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: No, the "express from the US" term doesn't mean same day or date (it sometimes can but not exclusively). It is typically used to describe a show that airs within weeks of a US premiere. It is not an official term and there is no fixed rule about its use, it is simply a marketing term. The overwhelming majority of US shows air in Australia months after they've finished screening in America, so the term is used when a network decides to play shows out relevtively close to the US screening. For example, an Austrailan network is promoting Blindspot as airing express from the US (or fasttracked from the US), however it premiered in Australia on October 28, while it premiered on NBC in America on September 21 (see here). Put simply, it is a very loosely used term down under. -- User:Whats new?(talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the clarification. I had a feeling it was what you said, but being in the US, I wasn't exactly sure how the term applied. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: No problem. Aussie television is very, very different to American TV! Happy to help, -- User:Whats new?(talk) 03:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is now stating that the premiere is on January 21, 2016, but the source is based on an article with the headline "Legends of Tomorrow Premiere Date Possibly Revealed". How can a statement that so qualifies its information be considered sufficiently reliable to turn it into a definitive statement in the article? I'm going to remove both source and all exact date claims; if you have anything better to reference, I'd be happy to see it. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

New poster

Will this poster fit in the infobox? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should stick with the main logo, as that is generally what is used on the "main" article for a series. (And much like Arrow, Flash and Vixen.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2015

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


Legends of Tomorrow → DC's Legends of Tomorrow – The initial title is not entirely a match to the network's. Need to add "DC's". NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (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.

Useful info

There is some useful production info in this ref. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting facts

Info on the 15th episode of the season has just been posted, including the director. We also have a piece of information placed below the episode table, stating that Rachel Talalay will be directing the penultimate episode of the season. So, as this is a 16-episode season, you'd expect the penultimate episode (one before the last) to be directed by Talalay, but it isn't; it's directed by someone else.

At this point, Guggenheim has given two conflicting statements: one, from back in January, and the other, an official document from the title page of the episode script that started production today. I think we have to go with the latest information—things do change—and drop the older (and clearly out of date) information. Talalay did direct episode 12; perhaps Guggenheim was forgetting that this was a 16-episde season, not a 13-episode season, when he said that. But whatever the explanation, it's time to remove that earlier statement. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons for the change.. perhaps Talalay was only available that week? Maybe they were originally only going to do 13 episodes? Who knows.. but definitely go with the newer info. Spanneraol (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. New info should be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed split

I see that a season article and episode list have been proposed, and I don't think either should happen, at least not yet. There isn't enough season 1 specific production information to make a season article. If season 2 ends up being completely separate, like in an anthological way, then it may become appropriate then. But for now it seems way too early. As for a list of episodes, we generally don't create those until we have a separate table for season 2, and even then we may not need one straight away since this season is shorter than usual. So, that's a no to either of those splits at the moment, though if people think the article is getting a bit long and want to split off the cast list, then we could discuss that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I was just about to say that. If the show continues with shorter seasons, then I'm thinking it wouldn't need an LoE page until maybe season 3 or 4, that being contingent upon the way they do the show. If it's a different series of characters every season, then in the least we're going to be swamped with character information and we may need to split off characters just for this show, and leave just the barebones for series regulars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This probably won't happen, but what would we do if they completely switched the majority of the main cast? Surely that would lead to an issue where the cast section is too big even just for series regulars?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
That is why I said we would end up just splitting the characters off. If all they do is change the people, then that's what we do. If they change the entire thing, and make it like an anthology, like AHS, then we would need new pages, because they would technically be separate shows. Let's just wait to see what they do anyway. What I assume will likely happen, is that Rip will just recruit a few new members for a new mission, but there will be some overlap with older members of this team. If you change too much, you'll lose the people that like the characters that are there now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Premise

I'm puzzled by the idea that we should favor an old promotional blurb from when the program was in its early development, over the actual content of the series. That old "premise" is what DC said they were planning, a year ago. The monologue presented at the beginning of every episode is what DC finally decided to produce, what the series actually is about. Evidently they dropped Savage's plan to "destroy the world" (he just conquered it) and to destroy "time itself". We don't document intentions or plans, we document verifiable facts, and primary sources are the best source for facts about the content of a TV program itself. As WP:USEPRIMARY says: "The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." (Arguing that this doesn't apply because this isn't a "film" is nonsense; the same guidance is given for a novel or painting, as other examples.) Especially compared to a press release, which is inherently unreliable. (If DC had described it as "the most thrilling adventure of all time" would we parrot that as part of the premise?) If you think that the original premise is noteworthy enough to put into the Production section, to describe how it changed between greenlight and debut, fine. But it's historical, not actual. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to the site, so I hope I'm doing this right. The Premise as it now stands gives too much away. I've watched about half the episodes which have aired so far, and everything after the first two sentences of the Premise is a spoiler for me. Events that happen later on in the series aren't part of the show's premise, surely. I prefer the idea of using the monologue as suggested above, or something like it. 165.120.129.38 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. You shouldn't be reading an encyclopaedia if you don't want the plot spoiled. DonQuixote (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Airdates TBA

An editor recently went through the Arrowverse articles removing all the airdates that were released by The CW today for upcoming episodes. I'm assuming they did so, because they believe there is no conclusive evidence that the episode will air on said date, I disagree. Episodes that will be repeats are listed as so, episodes that will not be are listed as, "TBA", I believe this is probable cause to place the next chronological episode as that given airdate. Obviously other editors do too, because I've seen it done here before. If you agree, I'd like to reach a consensus to place the dates. LLArrow (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The dates can change anytime between now and then, episodes can be cancelled, rescheduled, and whatnot. We have always listed the air dates of episodes only once the episode itself is listed as the episode, and now simply as just "TBA". TBA could mean anything. Two episodes end up getting switched. One gets cancelled. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no rush to add unconfirmed air dates. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
And now that both sides have been submitted, please submit your view. LLArrow (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What is this, a court hearing? I've already "submitted my view", whatever that means. Other editors will and can contribute when they please. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, other editors please speak up. LLArrow (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, the only definitive "TBA" date for an intended episode is for 208 on December 8. After that, nothing is definitive because the "TBA"s starting on January 24 going to the season finale does not make up the number of remaining episodes-there is one extra date. So it is not known what those episodes will be, though January 24 is very likely to be 209, but not as definitive at this time as 208. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
But how do we know that the TBA for December 8 is the incorrect one, and the rest starting from January 24 are correct and would therefore add up correctly? That's why dates are typically never added until Futon explicitly adds the episode to the date; anything else would be original research. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The December 8th date was there before the new dates were added, and did not change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I completely disagree too (i.e. we shouldn't be adding episode dates based on TBA). TBA is not certain... even when they've nailed down the episode title, those dates can shift, so TBA info is one step more uncertain. With respect to previous versions of Futon's data... uh yeah, no, you go with what is published, not how it has changed over some unspecified arbitrary period. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
And now it's confirmed via press release. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonlinear

While the main characters travel through time, all the events are shown as linear from their perspective. Therefore, I'm removing it from the nonlinear category. JDDJS (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cold joining Legion of Doom in 2nd season

I know it was reported back in the summer that Snart was joining the Legion of Doom in the second season, but we're more than halfway through the season, and there has been no hint whatsoever that it is going to happen. The reports could have been wrong, or that story line could have been dropped. It might still happen on the show, but until it does, or recent reliable sources confirm that this is still the plot that they are going with, it should not be included in the article. JDDJS (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's still happening, and there is more than a month of the season to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Episodes page

I created a draft for the list of episodes since the main article is getting long with the episodes summaries and ratings. Draft:List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes — Brojam 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft is probably where it needs to be for awhile. The seasons are shorter and the page only feels long because the ratings table duplicates half of the episode table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Since a second season table has been able to be created, it can be moved to the mainspace. Episodes are always split off after the second season. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian:... but that's generally when we're dealing with 20+ episodes for a first season. We have yet to hit that number yet. After the second season or during the winter hiatus, the move can probably be made, since I'm assuming season 2 will have a full 22 episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And if it doesn't? If Season 2 has 16 episodes again? And if all future seasons do? What defines a short season, though? Agent Carter has 8-10 episodes, and both tables been kept on the main article page. Then you've got True Detective, which has 8-8 episodes, and that has a separate LoE page. Legends of Tomorrow isn't by many standards a "short season" show, and with two tables on this page, all of which have expanded summaries, it's sure to get extremely cluttered. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because other pages were doing it doesn't mean that it should. You know very well that people do not typically following the MOS or any guideline until someone starts to police it. The real issue here is size. Being a "long" article does not make it a "large" article. When you have a ratings table that basically duplicates the episode table, you're going to be longer. We currently have an article that is 260kb large, but only 10 kb of readable prose. Given that the episode tables aren't being calculated in that, you could generously give another 10kb of readable prose to the article and we're still not even half the size it would need to be to appropriately start splitting off content (which is above 50 to 60kb per WP:SIZE). We shouldn't be sending people to different articles if the parent ones can comfortably house all of the content. So, pages like Agent Carter or Mr. Robot don't really seem appropriate to have LoE pages when you're talking about 20 episodes in total (less for Mr. Robot, which hasn't even started a second season).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As Bignole said, it is more about the size of the article to indicate splitting, which one can the equate to the number if episodes in a season/in total. And for clarifying, Agent Carter does not have an LoE for the size reason. Both season tables are on the main article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
At what point did we go from "this isn't large enough to split" to arbitrarily just moving it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The content size of the article barely applies here, if even at all; it's the readability of the article. Attempting to squeeze two episode tables with full summaries on the one page is, quite frankly, ridiculous and ludicrous. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That's not true at all. How is 2 seasons of episodes on here any different than 2 seasons on another page. It takes up the same amount of space on the screen. The only difference is that on an LoE page you don't have any other information to read through on the page. Given that we have a Table of Contents where you can skip right to the table, viola, it now looks just like the LoE. Readability doesn't play in because we're not talking about wading through 80kb of readable prose for one section, or a page that cannot load quickly because it is so large. We're not even half of what we should be at to split the page. Splitting it simply to split it is not appropriate. If anything, I would argue that you're damaging readability by forcing readers to go to another page to read plot summaries when they can comfortably sit on this page without making it too large.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Vilnisr in this discussion, given their recent move to the separate episodes article again; not sure if this discussion is now outdated or still relevant. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is indeed outdated as second season is out and article is getting only longer. Two seasons are enough to separate episode list from main article. – Vilnisr T | C 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Except separation is based on article size, from readable prose, not literal length of article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
agree with you with one exception: episode summaries are additional information, that's why episode list always is separated from main article when time comes, exception is made only for very short seasons (~10 episodes) or shows with one season. – Vilnisr T | C 12:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There's not exception to that. You cannot make up your own exception. And "exceptions" are not made because of that, people just tend to do what they want. Otherwise, I could point to a hundred "exceptions" that people make that violate some policy or guideline, that aren't really "exceptions", just articles that no one has ever bothered to police or clean up. That's like trying to argue that 3 reviews makes an episode notable, when it doesn't, because that wouldn't really be "significant coverage" as defined by the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
So you think that article with more than 30 episode summaries is "readable"? – Vilnisr T | C 12:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It still isn't justifiable to split at this time. We are only at a "normal" season's worth of episodes for the series, with a couple more to round out season 2. If the series is renewed for season 3, then a split would be acceptable then. WP:NORUSH and there is no need to split out content if it doesn't need to be. This doesn't need to be, again, at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Vilnisr, 30 episodes here or 30 episodes on a separate page has nothing to do with what makes it "readable". You're taking personal preference into it. "Readable prose" size is about rendering of the page, just as much as it is about making sure that a reader isn't swamped full of text for "visual" readability. Given that it's an "episode list" that can easily be skipped over for the rest of the article, it wouldn't matter if it was 75 episodes, because it's about the size, not the number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I really don't care where this content will be, but like this it makes only mess! If you want to keep episode list in the main article, then make summaries collapsed! – Vilnisr T | C 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a mess, and we shouldn't be collapsing content that readers would want to read. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, how is this a mess? It literally doesn't look any different on this page than it does on a separate LoE page. I'm confused by this idea that visually it is going to look so much better in one location than another, when nothing has changed but said location. The table is the same. The content is the same. We're not talking about 10 years of a show crammed on this page. If anything looks "a mess", it would be a ratings table that duplicates that episode tables, but I don't see you clamoring to separate that table out to its own page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have split the article already if I did not believe it would be reverted right away. Over the years, articles have been getting longer and longer before we decide that they are "too long" and even then we sometimes do nothing about it because we do not know where an appropriate split could be made. But that is not the case here. The article contains enough varied information to stand on its own without the episodes and summaries regardless of its size, and the episode list is long enough while also containing the rating/reception info to make for a standard, sufficient episode list article. We could even add back the season sublists that do not include episode summaries if that feels necessary to enough people. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I say split it. It has plenty enough content outside the episode lists and ratings tables to be a substantial article on its own. It does seem like the convention to split after the second season; the only case that that would seem excessive for would be if the remaining show article was very stubby. Which this one would not be (there's perhaps a separate debate to be had if the "cast & characters" sections really needs to be that detailed, but given that it is already...) Joeyconnick (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
With the show being officially renewed for a third season of a minimum 13 episodes (CW minimum), that will make it at least 46 episodes, which is more than enough to have a separate LoE page. I say it's time to split. Brojam (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would be okay now with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't we wait until we have actual season three information? The confirmation of a season three doesn't change the amount of information on this page at all. It's going to be months before we ever get any season three information that would require another section be created (we aren't going to create a season for season 3 just say it was renewed).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with waiting until we actually have new info to justify it beyond just saying there will be a third season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
My point about the renewal was more in the case that it was cancelled, then maybe a LoE page would not have been appropriate and something like what was done with Agent Carter would have been better, however that is not the case and a LoE is needed. Not much content will be added between now and the start of season three, apart more summaries and ratings, so I do not see why the article is not ready to be split now but will be when season three starts, given that we already have info for 30 episodes (much more than one regular full season, after which the episodes info is typically split into a LoE page). Brojam (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is ridiculously long—please let's just split it off. If it were a one-season show or the seasons were particular short, I could see waiting. But it's long now and we know it will be getting more episodes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Length of a page is not determined by your eye, it's determined by WP:SIZE (this page isn't anywhere near as long as Arrow (TV series) or Smallville and they don't even have episode tables on their pages). No one is saying that we won't split it, just that nothing has actually changed for this show other than knowing a 3rd season will happen. There isn't actually new information to put anywhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Joeyconnick – the 'Episodes' section of this page is long past long enough where it should now be split off. I suggest the spinoff be done now, post haste. There's no reason to put it off any longer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on what? And please don't tell me "based on other pages" please.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The only arguments against splitting are, 1) WP:SIZE which is a guideline not a "law", and following something like that to the "letter" strikes me as pure-WP:BURO thinking, and 2) the "consensus is against" splitting, except as this discussion demonstrates that "consensus" has now broken down. The best you can say is that there is now "no consensus" to split, but by the same token that means there's now "no consensus" against splitting! And, yes, like it or not – the standard practice at WP:TV articles is to split off episode lists into their own articles when shows get to second seasons, especially second season shows that have been renewed for a third season – guidelines are supposed to reflect common practice, and this has been the common practice among most WP:TV editors for a long time. Bottom line: there is no compelling reason now not to split off the episodes list into a separate article. It should be done. And this time, if somebody does do it, I suspect any reversion of the attempt will itself be reverted this time. Better that the people that know how to do splits properly just do it themselves... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the consensus was that we would split when we actually got season three information, because 30+ episodes is not a justifiable reason to split to another page when this page isn't overly large as it is. You saying there is no compelling reason to not split it works in the opposite, because there are plenty of reasons to keep it here for the time being. *It* being a large list (and 30 episodes isn't really large) is not compelling when the rest of the page isn't so damn large that it's hard to read. We have several other pages that are split that are larger than this and there isn't a movement to split anymore information on those pages. The argue that people have to split comes down to one simple fact, "other pages are split". Nothing else. Aesthetics are not on your side. Size clearly isn't on your side because there is a guideline that dictates size and we are NO WHERE near the limit to even suggest splitting, let alone mandate splitting. Ease of read isn't an argument, because again nothing would actually change. It's in a table. The table would just be relocated and if a reader just wanted to read the episodes we have a Table of Contents for a reason. You can skip to it. As for "common practice", again I go back to the fact that people ignore any guideline that isn't what they want it to be. Should the other articles have been split? Maybe not. But that is neither here nor there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's quote WP:SIZESPLIT here: < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division (emphasis mine). The key words are "size alone" – the fact that splitting at this point is common practice around this Project would actually qualify as a justification for splitting. Oh, and back to WP:SIZESPLIT: > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided – guess what? This article is now 121 kB! Guess it's time for a split after all!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Bignole, you seem to be caught up in the idea that we "must follow guidelines". In fact, we don't – guidelines are simply suggested practices, which tend to be commonly followed. They're "good ideas", but won't cover ever eventuality. This seems to be continually lost in discussions like this... Now, all that said, the guideline WP:SIZESPLIT in this case would actually seem to support splitting at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
First off, when it says "not justify alone", it means that SIZE ALONE should be the only factor, not "ignore size when an article isn't that large". it is referencing the idea that an article that is "large" does not necessarily need to be split simply because of SIZE, not the reverse. Secondly, if you read carefully it says "readable prose". This page is over 100kb because of HTML coding, not because of readable prose. You can check the readable prose of the page and you'll see that it isn't 100kb. Guidelines are not "suggested practices". You're right in that they are not policy, but they also are not essays which are suggestions but not actual guidance. Guidelines are there for a reason and should not be ignored simply because you don't like them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just so it's easier for you, I've removed all the HTML code. You can find it here User:Bignole/sandtemp. You'll see that it is about 45kb, which puts it between the "length does not justify" and "start considering" category. Meaning, by the time we end season 2 and start getting information for season three we'll most likely be past the 50kb mark and approaching the 60kb mark (the "probably should be divided"). Hence why we said wait till we have season three information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
All noted. But, FTR, put me down as supporting a split as of now, if anyone does some "vote counting" to try to determine consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dually noted, but consensus is not based on "vote counting", FTR.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that there is actually only 11kB of readable prose in this article. Listified content, as in the "Cast and characters" section and table content is not counted when determining prose size. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't show up, but if you organize it differently (basically just remove the asterick) it would. That's why I did the other way, just to say with everything it is not quite there. Again, I just go back to the idea that there isn't a rush to split it, as the page is not harmed by it being here. And we seemingly all agreed (meaning the people that are saying not to split right this second) that once the season ends and we get season three info to go ahead and split it. I don't know why waiting a few more months is somehow going to damage this page or make it hard on readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I was involved in the discussion, but I would agree that there is no need to split at this time. The redirect List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes exists, so there should be no confusion there. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I just want to confirm - so, there is consensus to split once an episode table for the third season is created? -- AlexTW 03:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting interpretation, but certainly not consensus. I don't really see a firm consensus, but our guidelines would suggest that, with 30kB of readable prose (using a loose definition of readable prose), the article should not be split NOW. That said, once a table for season 3 can be created, I wouldn't have a problem if the article was split, as long as proper attribution was provided per WP:CWW. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't really an interpretation, given Bignole's comment of Actually, I think that the consensus was that we would split when we actually got season three information. I just wanted to confirm this. I wouldn't have an issue with splitting it either. (I mean, I'd prefer to split now as well, given that pushing content to its limit as much as possible before taking action is probably more counter-productive, but that's just my opinion; won't be pushing this discussion to its limit either). -- AlexTW 08:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
THe idea was that when we have season 3 info (not confirmation, but when we can actually start populating a table---which I would assume wouldn't be a single episode announcement) then we would split. If we did it just by SIZE, we wouldn't split even then. If you remove all the HTML code from the page and just leave the prose, we still aren't even at the "suggest splitting" size from that guideline. So, we haven't really "pushed content to it's limit", simply because we have a lot of episode summaries. Visual length of a page is not the same as actual size of the page. ANyway, that was why we had agreed to split when season three info starts coming in, which will likely be around June...that's when a lot of it usually comes in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel like people who are opposing the split are stalling the inevitable, and they seem to know it. Right now, seems just an argument for argument's sake and to prove they're right. A point which is important though, which seems to have been ignored here (full disclosure: I only skimmed through the previous parts of the discussion) is where an average reader would expect the episode list to be. Seeing as most of the more famous series, which would have more readers, have 2 seasons or more and have a separate page for their list of episodes, most readers imo would expect to see the episode list at a separate page "List of X episodes". --SuperJew (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legends_of_Tomorrow/Archive_1&oldid=1205059997"