Talk:List of Arrow episodes

Ratings for every episode (Again)
Recently, a ratings table(s) was added that had every episode's individual rating listed, along with shares, and the like. The problem here, is that we already have that on this page, minus shares and other information that is (largely) irrelevant to the average reader. Regardless of the relevance, the bigger issue is that we're basically duplicating the entire page just to include those items. This is both unnecessary, but doesn't look very professional. It was stated that this is acceptable per WP:TVRECEPTION, except that it isn't. Here is the only statement of the sort in that section: "The reception information should include broadcast ratings (though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes).". The LoE page would be considered "main", as we have some season pages and episode pages where applicable. Thus, we shouldn't have tables for every season on this page in addition to what's already here.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "main" is referring to the main article for the series (which has the season averages table) not the LoE. Yes, we have season articles (which is where these belong) but only for the first two seasons, so until the others are created the tables belong on the LoE. This is exactly how it is done on List of Gotham episodes where there are not season articles for every season. Also, both The Flash (where you also tried to have them removed) and Legends of Tomorrow have these tables on their LoE (not to mention practically every other series as well) so I don't see how it would be a problem to add it to this page as well. In fact since we have the information on the season 1 and 2 articles, it is quite weird that we would not have the information as well for season 3-5. - Brojam (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Gotham and Legends is not as long as Arrow, which has been on the air for several more years. Secondly, they don't belong on the Flash LoE page either. It's unnecessary duplication. TVRECEPTION doesn't say list LoE as a place for these tables, and the LoE is still a main page from the season articles. The fact that the other season pages haven't been created yet is irrelevant. You don't justify having 6 seasons of duplicated information just because the last 3 or so seasons don't have separate pages. Also, the discussion on FLash was to move it to the Project page for discussion with the MOS updates, which we haven't even gotten to.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there are approximately 240+ separate articles that use the ratings table template, I would say that there is a precedent for including them. The local consensus is to include them in season articles when they exist, as each individual table is season-specific, or on the episodes article where a season article does not exist. Only the total viewers values are duplicated information; you may believe that the shares and other information are irrelevant to the regular reader, but given that they are included through a great deal of the Television WikiProject, I'd say that there does not seem to be an issue with including them and that the majority of editors support it. We do not cater specifically to only the regular reader; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes the information relevant to the series. It also seems that you are the only person who is opposed to including this content, so while opposed to the greater portion of the editors of the WikiProject, I would suggest that you start a wider discussion with the community on not to include them and gain consensus for that first. This appears to be something that you yourself seem to have suggested. Until then... --  Alex TW 01:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the tables are largely redundant. Four of the columns in each table duplicate content already in the episode table. The remaining columns contain information that really doesn't mean much to most readers. There has to be a better way to be a better way to present the data if it needs to be included at all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you recommend we cease using the template over all articles? If that's the case, then I refer to the last part of my previous response, in that this is the incorrect place to discuss that, and it needs a wider community discussion and consensus at either the Method of Style or WikiProject Television talk page. If it is just this article, then there needs to be a more specific reason as to why it is included without any issues on hundreds of other articles, but not allowed for this specific one. As I also stated, [w]e do not cater specifically to only the regular reader; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes the information relevant to the series. --  Alex TW 03:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We're talking about this article and I stand by what I said as it applies to this article. The table is largely redundant.
 * [w]e do not cater specifically to only the regular reader; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes the information relevant to the series. - I completely agree. However, not everything has to be included. An encyclopaedia is not all knowledge about everything that ever was. Just because it's published somewhere else doesn't mean it has to be included here. Often a link is all that is needed. That's one purpose that citations and external links serve. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex, look at what you said versus what I said. Regardless of whether I think the information is irrelevant, the point is that it's duplication on the LoE page. I didn't say anything about season page. You literally just said there is consensus to use them on season and episode pages....but that isn't what I was arguing. I'm saying that 75% of this table is duplication from the tables above it on the LOE page.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to state that we cannot use the templates on this article, and ignore the current and accepted usage of the template on hundreds of other articles at the same time, without a reason that cannot be specified to just this article. If we cannot include it here because it's unnecessary information, then why is it acceptable elsewhere?
 * I know what I said. And I think you mean 50%, or even less - only the title, date and initial viewers are duplicated. Episode number as well, if you want to get very finicky over it. That still leaves rating/share, DVR, DVR viewers, total share and total viewers. Which means that more non-included information is presented in the tables than information that has not been. Is there a policy, or at least a guideline, that dictates that information cannot be listed twice? And why the focus on only the LoE article, instead of the season articles as well? --  Alex TW 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The focus on the LoE page it is you are unnecessarily clogging one page with the same table twice more than just once. I still don't think they are good for season page, but that's a separate argument based on the data present and how difficult it is for the average reader to understand shares. The point here is that you're not talking about 1 season, you're talking about 6 (and more if the show continues). You ever notice how you don't see this at List of The Simpsons episodes? Just because there is an explosion to put these tables into every page doesn't mean that they should be on every page. Especially not longer series. it's one thing when a show first starts out, it's another when it's a veteran show. Again, just because other people have done it doesn't mean it should be done. I don't know why it always comes down to, "Well, if you don't write a policy forbidding this exact thing, then I'm going to continue to do it.". There aren't guidelines on redundancy of information on the same page, because common sense should have stepped in before that point. There is only talk about redundancy across pages, which isn't what we're talking about here. Nor are we talking about redundancy from a lead section, which is a necessity. We're talking about duplicating the same information from previous tables just to include a few more columns of information that are questionable when it comes to necessity themselves that aren't present on those other tables.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about six seasons here, we're talking about four tables for six seasons (or technically three-and-a-bit tables for five-and-a-bit seasons). The Simpsons has their own season articles, so I'm not sure what the point of that was. Common sense is different to everyone. For example, my common sense states that if the information is available, regardless of how much information there is in regards to the length of the season, and has a precedence of being included, then it should be included. And again, there is barely any duplication here. Even if the duplicated columns were removed, which consists of the title, date and one viewers column, we would still be presented with sufficient information to back the inclusion of these tables. We wouldn't be left with a single column, or something similar. However, my biggest point that I just realized only today... You state that this sort of information does not appeal to the regular editor, and yet we include information such as the episode's credits and production codes in the table. Can you explain to me how production codes are relevant to the everyday reader, or why they care who directed and wrote an episode? Put simply, they aren't and don't. However, removing all of this information would be more detrimental to articles than anything else. --  Alex TW 00:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just adding my thoughts here. I do not have strong feelings on this, but my first thought would be to keep this sort of thing just for season articles, so if there is enough information to support a dedicated article for the season with additional discussion, then that justifies having this information there, otherwise the ratings information already in the episode table is probably fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Improving the season colours
I know season colours are sometimes touchy things, but the primary purpose of having season colours is to quickly visually distinguish the seasons, and that's not at all being met with three seasons' worth of very similar colours, specifically s1, s3, and s6, which at first glance are nearly identical. Can someone good at this type of thing (maybe ?) pick a secondary colour from the marketing materials for those seasons that is (relatively) acceptable and doesn't give us black, kinda lighter black, and grey-so-dark-it-might-as-well-be-black? (seasons 2 and 5 are also pretty similar)

Oh... found the site I was looking for: so I'm thinking
 * #1b6738 for s1
 * #71946f (appropriately named "Laurel") for s3
 * #6a6c61 for s6

That would give us:

Any thoughts? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm good with changing the colors for S1 and S3. Adjusting the color contrasts via script, would result in S1 and S3 . I don't think we need to change the color for S6 since we are changing 1 & 3. So the result would be:


 * - Brojam (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --  Alex TW 22:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅: Thanks for the helpful feedback! —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)