Talk:List of The Flash episodes/Archive 1

Column width
I recently adjusted the column widths so that the title for 2x01 would not be on two lines (I'm on a 15" Macbook Pro, Chrome). That edit looked fine to me, with the table heading staying the same, and it fixing the issue I had. However it didn't do wonders for apparently, instead (guessing by their edit summaries), made the table headings go to three lines. Could any one else advise on what looks good for them, or new widths to get rid of the line wrap for 2x01? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking it here Favre1. It did double the width of the table header on my 17" Dell, Chrome. I also have the issue with Explorer. We just need to find a median that everyone can agree on. LLArrow (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted a new one just now. Let me know how that works for you. The writers column seemed to have some to give, and I really only needed one additional number added to the title to get it to fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what. Once the ref is removed it won't be an issue (just tested it). So for now, let's leave it be. But I guess just something to consider for the future, yeah? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm on my work laptop, in IE, and the only difference that I see is some extra space in the column. It didn't actually make it one line for me (still 2). :(.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Future consideration indeed. LLArrow (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable episodes
They're all independently notable.

But these two in particular could use their own articles:


 * 1) Pilot (The Flash (2014 TV series)
 * 2) Fast Enough

Thank you to all the editors writing and maintaining this page,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay that was some seriously awesome writing and acting right there. Let's see: = looks notable to me. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We'd have to go through the sources and see what they are actually writing, because having a bunch of articles doesn't make something notable. If you have 30 sources and they all say the same thing then it's not really notable. Not saying these aren't, just saying the eyeball test isn't really sufficient, especially if all we have are reviews and a plot summary. Not really a reason to have a page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Crossover links?
I added links in the descriptions between season two episode eight of The Flash and episode eight of season four of Arrow, because they effectively form a two-parter with major plot that either disappears or comes from nowhere if you don't watch the other half. The links were immediately reverted without comment (my mistake) though. In the absence of individual article pages, if this isn't the right place to note such a major crossover, where is? I don't think all the crossovers need such links, but I think Heroes of Today/Heroes of Yesterday definitely does. Grateful for advice! -- Guybrush (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not spread false information, they were reverted with comment. The crossovers have already been mentioned in subsections on the respective main articles. These are for episode summaries, not out-of-universe information. (BTW, it's Legends, not Heroes.) Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to "spread false information"; it was an honest mistake. I didn't see any comment, I'm a bit rusty and looked at the diff, where I didn't see it. I apologise. I looked and the crossovers are only mentioned in the main articles very vaguely (the one I annotated just lists the episode numbers, nothing about plot). I think it would be better to include them here where they are important to the ongoing plot. But I understand how Wikipedia works and I accept that's not going to happen. All the best. -- Guybrush (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your "These are for episode summaries" statement is misguided and may even come across as arrogant. Speaking as an exemplar, I can inform you that crossover links are exactly and specifically what some readers will come to this article to find. Guybrush thoughtfully provided the information that I and others seek. I do not appreciate it being removed. I do not appreciate having to hunt around for the connection merely because of some purist "principle" about what I should be allowed to find in an article. I would have thought that the priority of Wikipedia is the benefit of the readers rather than the satisfaction of the editors. It's disappointing to discover that one of them deliberately degraded that benefit by making the article less useful. Please put crossover links back; they are valuable information and do not detract from the article. 92.13.50.149 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The episode titles already contain notes as to the crossovers - you're beating a dead horse here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ratings tables
I'm curious as to why we really have these. We've basically created 2 sets of episode tables, where have the ratings information is already stated above it. I get that there is an argument for showing live viewers with DVR viewers, but we're getting to a point where we're being both redundant and indiscriminate in the information we're collecting for it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this reopening the same discussion you've had about ratings tables elsewhere to have the same replies given again? Ratings tables have been discussed multiple times already and the consensus is that they are supported. I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't remember if I participated in previous discussions elsewhere (I may have) but I don't think they are a redundancy to the info in the episode table. I certainly don't feel that adding relevant DVR numbers to the episode table is the way to go, as that will clog up that table. But I don't think not having the DVR info is correct either. It definitely shows noteworthy information, especially in the age of television we live in now, where broadcasters are looking less to initial viewing numbers (for those all important ad dollars) and more to the live+3 and +7 data (and presumably online views if they have them) for weighing a shows worth to them. I'm not suggesting we go to articles like Bonanza of The Andy Griffith Show and create these table. They are mostly relevant for "current" (ie 2006ish - present) network shows, possibly for some cable ones too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem becomes that we are just duplicating the episode tables. We not have 4 seasons worth of tables for a show in its second season. Alex, again the only real information for readers would be the DVR info, because regular users don't understand "shares". That again, is beside the point that we basically have 2 sets of episode tables being created. Given that following the basic MOS we won't likely have a need for season articles till about season 5 (like with Arrow), this page is going to look like it's 8 seasons long before then if we keep it up. Not to mention the confusion with the table of content headers.


 * I'm not sure why we don't merge some of it anyway, because the end of season rankings use the DVR figures, not the LIVE figures. That's why you cannot simply do math to determine a series' average viewership. Favre, you're right in that networks don't really use that live data anymore because they are looking at +3 and +7 ratings, so why aren't we using those ratings as the primary ones ourselves? Seems like overkill to go "Live, +3, +7", then to tack on shares that people don't naturally get without have to re-read ratings definitions every time. There needs to be a better way of displaying the actually relevant information without just duplicating tables.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should move this over to the project talk for more input. Additionally, I've been thinking for a while now, that we should all take the time (maybe after current seasons end in May) to do a thorough update and rework to the MOS. That way, we can hit areas and topics like this, that either need the oversight in the MOS, or an update to better reflect today's TV landscape. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation in title
Is the disambiguation of "(2014 TV series)" in "List of The Flash (2014 TV series) episodes" actually necessary? List of The Flash (1990 TV series) episodes is a redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series), and (as an example) there's Teen Wolf (1986 TV series)/Teen Wolf (2011 TV series), the latter of which has its episode article at List of Teen Wolf episodes. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting comments on this, especially when articles such as List of The Flash characters do not seem to require the disambiguation. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as the 1990 redirect exists, then you need the 2014 in the name here to disambiguate the two. If there's consensus to drop the 1990 redirect, I don't see any reason for retaining the 2014-based name for this article. Pinging Favre1fan93, who created the 1990 redirect in May 2014, to see whether the original reason for creating the redirect is still germane. Would a hatnote do as well? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a hatnote at List of The Flash episodes couldn't work. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I still feel users may type in "List of The Flash episodes" looking for both the 2014 series and 1990 series episodes. I think the dab should stay, but this article has become more of the primary topic, so I'll cautiously lean slightly to support of a move and hatnote add, but that isn't my first choice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A hatnote should actually make things easier for most readers. At the moment, if someone is looking for either series and end up at List of The Flash episodes they have to click a link to get to the actual list. This will still be the case with a hatnote for people looking for the 1990 series, but people looking for this series won't have to do anything Translating that into page views, for 120 people per day, nothing will change, but for the 49,511 that come here every day, life will be one click easier. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aussie's logic seems pretty on point to me. If one of these links is clearly the primary topic, then we should focus on that, even if the adjacent series article's disambiguation isn't exactly the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did the suggestion of a hatnote mean we add "List of The Flash episodes" redirects here. to the page, as it is currently? The original suggestion was that this page be listed at List of The Flash episodes... redirected that page to here.  Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all seemed to agree to move this article to "List of The Flash episodes", with the hat note here saying, "For the episodes for the 1990 series, see The Flash (1990 series)#Episodes". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted DragonZero's change, since it was premature and not what we were discussing. As Favre1fan93 has indicated the idea is that this page would be moved to List of The Flash episodes and a hatnote would be added to the top of the moved page. I agree that there seems to be tentative consensus for a move. Do we need to go through a formal move discussion? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems so. We're not getting anywhere with this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need anything formal. I think we have the consensus to make the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016
In season 2, episode 29 change '...Zoom is much faster and easily bests Barry...' to '...Zoom is much faster and easily beats Barry...'

Tanmay (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ The former version is correct. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 colour scheme
, compared to red, I'm seeing barely any yellow on the DVD release. The colour used in episode tables is, and always has been (per the MOS), initially based on initial promotion/marketing material for the series/season, and then converted to the main colour of the DVD release (if such a release exists). The use of yellow/orange at this point is an outdated decision based purely on preference. If you want to talk about requiring contrast, I recommend you take a look at the Fifty Shades of Green used for Arrow. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The yellow-orange colour has been an overall theme for several posters being issued during the airing of the season. Of course the red fits the theme of the show too, but I say we take contrast when we can get it; and not compare it to others' unique situation. LLArrow (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And as I stated in the initial post, DVD cover art always takes preference over the initial marketing material. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well if we want to talk about precedence, the DVD cover art is not blatantly red, its hues are all dark with greys, blacks, and bright blue far more evident than the red colour you selected. I'm going to take it upon myself to find a more reflective colour for the season. LLArrow (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is red the central colour? Yes. Is red the first colour picked by a Image Color Extracter as the most common colour that's not a shade of black? Yes. Changing the colours while this discussion is still going on, and going against the consensus at Talk:List of Arrow episodes/Archive 2 (which you yourself partook in), both of these are assumed as bad faith edits (made worse by your return to edit warring after you were blocked multiple times for it). Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding episodes to the Ratings table before they air
AlexTheWhovian claims that there is a local consensus that adding lines to the ratings table prior the episode airing is a good thing. I don't understand why this is the practice.

All the information about the episode is already in the episode table: the only thing new here is the final ratings information beyond the number of viewers, and it's only available late on the day after the episode airs. Until that ratings information is available, the entire ratings line for an unaired episode is sheer duplication. I don't understand why it needs to be seen by readers before then, rather than sitting around without any data for weeks or over a month. However, since I have been reverted for hiding the unaired episodes, I'd like to check on that consensus; the same thing happened at Legends of Tomorrow, so presumably the same principles would apply there as here. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any local consensus on this talk page for including episodes that have not yet aired, and I really don't see the point in including empty table rows. There is no reason why they have to be added, and the general principle across Wikipedia is that we add content only when we have it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding in terms of the general principle, AussieLegend, which is why I was puzzled by the edit summary claiming local consensus. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only editor that has had an issue with this, hence my comment. I see no reason why it needs to be hidden. No need to fix what isn't broken. The viewer figures are duplicated in the episode table, and the episode titles are duplicated when they are realistically unnecessary when describing viewer figures, but there's no comment on those? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's just you, then; no real local consensus at all. I'm not going to argue with you about the makeup of the episode table, which goes across hundreds if not thousands of television shows, a significant percentage of which do not have ratings tables at all; it's not truly germane. The point that you have not answered is the one made by AussieLegend, and you have not explained why completely duplicate information should be added before the unique information anchoring it is available, against general Wikipedia prinicple, aside from you not seeing any reason not to duplicate it. On Wikipedia, general principles/consensus typically take precedence over one person's feelings. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is incorrect - dozens of editors have added the content, and dozens more have viewed these edits from their watchlists and visited the page, and had no issues with it being displayed as such. You are the editor who disagrees with it, and as such, you should leave the status quo in place while this discussion is also in place. You argue against local consensus, but then put forward "general Wikipedia principle" - contradicting. If you want to argue general Wikipedia principle, then the general principle for adding a row to the episode table is to have two pieces of information - not only is this criteria met for the episode table, this criteria is also met for the ratings table. There is, quite simply, no need to remove the "duplicate" information when you do not argue against the other already-existing duplicate information in this article, and many others. Indeed: general principles/consensus do typically take precedence over one person's feelings. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Alex, I would have to agree with BlueMoonset here. It doesn't bug me hugely to have the one row in the ratings table with only the episode title and date so I haven't attempted to change that but given an entry in that table doesn't really become relevant (in a way separate from the corresponding entry in the episode table) until ratings are available, I can see their point for wanting it to stay hidden until then and, if I were going to make an edit, I'd make the same decision as BlueMoonset and keep that row hidden until ratings became available. Also, they're not contradicting themselves by arguing against your claim of local consensus and then pointing to global practice/wider consensus... if there are wider guidelines, we should use those—that's consistent with BlueMoonset being skeptical of hewing to a purported local consensus. And silence is not assent—considering how hard you come down on people who take opposing views to you, I wouldn't be surprised if many simply stay out of your way until they come across an edit they feel really strongly about. That's not the same thing as everyone being okay with a particular practice; it could easily be described as choosing which hill they want to die on. Actually, you agreed with me pretty strongly in the episode summary length restrictions discussion when I argued against local consensus and for sticking to a more general guideline for all TV episodes, so I'm not sure it's very consistent to claim "local consensus" here to justify the row's continued visibility. Just because the criteria for adding a row to the episode table is two pieces of info, that doesn't mean that's the same criteria that is being (or should be being) used for the ratings table. I don't know—is there any actual guideline for when rows to ratings tables get added? Because if there were, that would likely give us a clear path forward. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was for local consensus' per article, but these edits span multiple and many articles, and haven't seem to have had any issues by now. There also isn't any guideline pertaining to the ratings table, but if you believe that there should be, perhaps that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates. Also, your accusations are unfounded - there's a difference between "coming down hard" on people that oppose me, to arguing my point to the best of my ability. Now, back to content, not contributors. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus here seems to be, barring a single dissenting voice, that the ratings entries are not appropriate prior to actual ratings becoming available—all of the information is already present in the episodes table—I'm going to comment out the late January entry. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017
I wish to add some new information that has been released. Kedhar.p (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DonQuixote (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017
g 122.166.141.182 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017
I know a lot about the upcoming season 4 of the flash and i want to edit the page so it is updated for others Nish6735 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edit requests are to be used when you have a specific change in mind; they cannot grant you permission to edit the page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017
I want to propose a split for this article into season pages, as the article size is over 200,000 bytes. What I want to add is that it has been suggested to split the article into its respective season pages. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:2DC9:63F9:6391:2DD (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Article size for splitting is based on readable prose, not HTML code. See WP:SPLIT and hit the "page size" button on the left.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove production codes
I would like to propose that we eliminate production codes from all lists of episodes and season articles of Arrowverse series, as they add little information and are arguably fancruft. For the three series (Flash, Arrow, and LoT), none of their episodes have production codes that vary from the standard XXXXXEp# pattern for each season. Even in the case when episodes are shot out of order, say "Freakshow" (LoT S3E2) being shot before "Aruba-Con" (LoT S3E1), their production codes do not reflect this. So what is the point in having this additional trivial information in these already crowded tables? This parameter is only really useful for sitcoms or series that are know for airing episodes in a different order than was intended by the writers, which is not the case for these shows. If any non-trivial instances were to occur in the future, it could easily be mentioned and sourced as a footnote. - Brojam (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Arrow 404 and 405 are relevant to include production codes, because those were shot out of order based on how they aired. I don't feel these need to be removed, here or for any of the other Arrowverse series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Favre. They are episode-specific production information, just as the credits are, and so shouldn't be removed. Productions codes as used in hundreds, if not thousands, of episode tables, sitcom or not. There is no basis to remove them. --  Alex TW 08:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't see 404 and 405, and it kinda makes me rethink removing it on Arrow and LoT, especially considering we are lucky enough to always get this information from Guggenheim so if there ever is a case where it varies we can easily source it like done with 404 and 405. But for The Flash prod codes, we don't have any sources for them except the episodes themselves so if there ever are discrepancies we cannot properly source them like done above. I'm not saying that they are not useful for the other series that use it, but with The Flash I don't see a good enough reason for their inclusion. In addition, more and more series are opting not to display this information since they serve no purpose.
 * Side question : Any reason why "Prod. code" is on two lines in Episode table when it could easily fit on one line and if not would go automatically to two lines? - Brojam (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The width of the resulting column would be expanded to more than is necessary. Typically (this article seems to be out of the norm; see the Arrow episodes, for example), the production code column is made narrow enough to fit the production codes and that's all. Having "Prod." and "code" underneath each other makes this possible, making the column narrow due to the words being small, instead of "Prod. code", which would be wider than the production codes themselves and hence stretching the column wider than is necessary. And the sources for the production codes are indeed the episodes, yes - that's why we remove any sources after the episode has aired, because the episode acts as a primary sources for the production code, just as it does for the writing and directing credits. There's articles that aren't displaying the information? What articles are they? If it is available, it should be included. --  Alex TW 21:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When I tried it using the preview tool by replacing the break line with a space, on The Flash list it appeared on one line and on Arrow list it appeared on two lines. I'm not a pro at Wiki tables so it might be only my computer that displays it correctly with the change, but I found that strange. For series that do not display prod. codes, all of ABC's current dramas (apart one) and a large number of cable shows. - Brojam (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)