Talk:Titans (2018 TV series)/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018
Greg Walker is an executive producer on TITANS and should be included under the PRODUCTION section. https://deadline.com/2018/10/titans-renewed-season-2-dc-universe-new-york-comic-con-brenton-thwaites-1202475584/ 199.48.122.132 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode 3 title
According to the DCUniverse web site, the third episode of the first season of Titans is titled "Origins," not "Starfire." 69.180.215.24 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Air Date Source
Where are the air dates and episode names sourced from? Neither of the references (currently 21 & 22) list the air dates or episode names. Why are TV shows on Wikipedia always so poorly sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffetower (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See the sources in the header, they're right there. #20 is for the titles. #21 is for the premiere date, and #22 states that the first season will be releasing new episodes every Friday - calculating dates is an acceptable form of WP:CALC. This article is thus not poorly sources; I also recommend that you learn how to sign your posts. --  Alex TW 13:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I don't really care to sign my posts though. The link you provided shows the first episode should be titled "Titans (Pilot)" by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffetower (talk • contribs)
 * You are required to sign your posts. And that is incorrect - the episode is titled "Titans", the (Pilot) part is just a note indicating the pilot/premiere status of the episode. --  Alex TW 13:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why is the (Pilot) part inside the quotation marks along with Titans? If that were just information as you claim, wouldn't it be outside of the quotation marks? "Titans" (Pilot) instead of "Titans (Pilot)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.79.138 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking further into it, it appears this is just rumored or leaked info. I think it should be indicated that it's not official information.
 * You are very unlikely to gain further responses if you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia properly by deliberately not signing your posts when requested. Thank you for your discussion, best of luck. --  Alex TW 13:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's about what I expect from this website. Thanks for proving my point. 74.196.79.138 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There, I signed it. Happy now? 74.196.79.138 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problems, glad to have helped out. --  Alex TW 13:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But you didn't help, you were just being a jerk and drove a potential contributor away. You should really stop with this passive aggressive crap. And I was correct that the listing was just rumors and has turned out to be pretty incorrect. And you're still relying on the source that was so wrong in the first place. 74.196.79.138 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. --  Alex TW 15:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Episodes 10-13
I reverted, saying that TitansTV cannot be used, as fansites cannot be used as they don't comply with WP:RS, so you cite a tweet that links to the very same site? That's citing TitansTV again. Furthermore, as I've stated, the Twitter account is not verified and cannot be used as a source either. Both links are unreliable. --  Alex TW 03:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * adventuresinpoortaste.com has been very unreliable as well, yet it keeps being used as a source. The episodes currently don't match what is shown on dcuniverse.com 74.196.79.138 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, provide an alternate reliable source. --  Alex TW 15:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing tense
It's really bugging me that it says "The first episode will be screened on October 3, 2018", as opposed to "The first episode was screened on October 3, 2018". Minor error, but it bugs me and my account can't edit semi-protected articles.

Donebeingdown (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Alex TW 01:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Project Cadmus link
I'm yet to see a good reason to explain why Project Cadmus cannot be linked in the brief for Episode 11. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Litch (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:EGG. And start discussions at the bottom of an article, not in the dead-middle of a discussion. -- / Alex /21  10:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe that Superboy and Krypto should be linked in this plot summary until they are identified as such in an episode, Project Cadmus is tricky because Cadmus can clearly be seen on the wall of the lab. It is technically unclear if this is the same as the topic Project Cadmus, but reliable sources have made the connection.— TAnthonyTalk 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "Cadmus can clearly be seen" (maybe if you pause or watch in slow motion, or you simply know that name). I've tried to figure out the name while watching and I couldn't do it. (I didn't used the pause and I'm not familiar with Titans [except the cartoon]/Superboy/Krypto or Project Cadmus lore). --88.156.130.225 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Off topic (mistake in filming): when Gar looks in the mirror, the door behind him are open. After he sees blood, the door were magically closed. That jump-scared me a little :) --88.156.130.225 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Anna Diop racism
The attacks on Anna Diop's portrayal of Starfire was unambiguously racist according to multiple sources (and my personal experience) but there is an Editor who seems to be intent on supressing that fact. Do we need to bring this to the arbitration committee? Litch (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As for "and my personal experience", that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Hold an RFC if you want; threats of the arbitration committee are definitely not in good faith. --  Alex TW 02:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple cited sources ARE what wikipedia is supposed to be about. I was not threatening, I was asking if you will be reasonable and discuss the matter or if you will need to be forced. It seems like you are trying to deny the fundamentally racist nature of the attacks on Ms. Diop despite the multiple sources acknowledging it. I can produce a dozen different articles from widely respected sources noting the attacks are explicitly racists, can you provide even one casting that conclusion into doubt?

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/27/17618954/teen-titans-starfire-racism-anna-diop https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44966851 https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/racist-trolls-pushed-titans-star-anna-diop-off-instagram/ https://www.nme.com/news/titans-anna-diop-racist-backlash-from-comic-book-fans-2360388 https://www.teenvogue.com/story/anna-diop-racist-instagram-comments-titans-character https://thegrio.com/2018/07/26/racist-comic-book-trolls-drive-black-actress-to-disable-instagram-comments/ https://uproxx.com/viral/titans-anna-diop-instagram-racism/ https://www.theroot.com/racist-comic-fans-run-titans-star-off-instagram-for-not-1827809010 https://www.ebony.com/entertainment/titans-star-anna-diop-disables-instagram-comments-after-racist-fan-reaction/ https://io9.gizmodo.com/sorry-racist-nerds-but-starfire-is-a-black-woman-1827865298 https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/titans-anna-diop-disables-instagram-comments-as-racist-reactions-continue https://www.themarysue.com/racist-comic-book-fans-anna-diop/ https://www.pride.com/geek/2018/4/13/starfire-actress-anna-diop-had-best-response-racist-hate https://www.etonline.com/minka-kelly-defends-titans-co-star-anna-diop-after-racist-casting-backlash-106835 I really can keep going


 * Don't mind me dropping in on this conversation, but... There definitely was more controversy with Diop's casting compared to other Titans members and a lot of people did feel like much of the criticism was based on race/color, myself included and as Litch cited, Minka Kelly publicly came to her defense calling it "racist" and Ryan Potter alluded to it as well . Not everyone has to agree that it was "racist" and not all the backlash was racist but there's nothing wrong with mentioning that there was controversy surrounding her casting and that some people felt it was racist and citing sources. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ  15:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor that initially added the word "racist" to the paragraph, based on the sources. I'd like a better explanation from Alex why the should not be included, because the sources do support the claim that the backlash was predominately motivated by race. However, I can think of at least one example from a reliable source in which someone seemed to be criticizing her costume/ appearance vs the comic's bikini version, with no reference to Diop's race. Perhaps "predominantly racist" or some other wording could be a compromise.— TAnthonyTalk 17:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm white and a huge Titans from the 80s, and I love the fact that they cast a black woman as Starfire in this series, it fits perfectly and Diop is great.— TAnthonyTalk 17:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Predominantly" still underplays the overwhelming amount of racist vitriol directed at Ms. Diop. The attacks were not directed at Joyce Schure or Laura Jean Shannon (the costumers) they were explicitly at Ms. Diop and it was the racism which forced her to drop off social media.Litch (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's my two cents in the discussion. It's extremely extremely important to note that the backlash was inherently racist because it saying it was just "backlash" severely downplays what went down. Backlash can imply two things: it's the actor's fault, e.g. Scarlett Johansson's casting in Ghost in the Shell, or in Anna's case, it was the fans' fault because they simply didn't like that she was black. It was specifically the racist comments that drove Anna Diop away from social media. And failing to note that leaves it ambiguous and if you're gonna leave it up to the user to click on the source link, I mean what's the point of this site anyway if it can give you a summarized version of what happened? I don't think it will cause bias or seem editorial. There's nothing biased about stating a fact and the fact is, Anna Diop lessened her social media presence because of racist backlash. 2605:6000:6406:5A00:3538:ED8A:2F95:72E4 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is really simple: we follow the sources. The sources describe it as racist. Done. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

From what I see the talk responses overwhelmingly agree that it was "racists attacks" rather than a "backlash" that drove Anna Diop off social media but it is possible I am biased because that is how I see it. I therefore and requesting an RFC to get a third party review of the issue.Litch (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RFCs should be started by the un-biased, and if you wanted a third opinion, see WP:3O or dispute resolution. This is an incorrectly generated RFC that has no clear setting, separate discussion or specific question for the RFC itself. -- / Alex /21  06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * / Alex /21 , you seem to be the only one who keeps removing the word "racist" from the article even after multiple users have said that it's appropriate with citations. What is the problem? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ  14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If multiple reliable sources cover it, I don't see any reason to omit it. It might also be worth adding to Anna Diop. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first statement--the racist backlash against Anna was something terrible. It was pretty bad. I actually came to Wikipedia hoping there would be information on the situation because I know Wikipedia for not withholding any controversies. I'm aware her co-stars were outspoken about it, I know she deactivated comments on her social media accounts because the attacks were becoming too frequent, and I'm almost certain it was trending on Twitter at one point. Even now, you can't search the internet about the show or character where her race just isn't an issue or called something derogatory. There are many other articles I've come across on Wikipedia with controversial topics pertaining to "whitewashing" and "allegations of racism", so I feel this article should be treated in the same manner. Just my two cents.--JuniperAlien (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The problem with this is it's a Ghostbusters2016 style situation; something comes out that makes the media look like it's going to be truly awful, there's a lot of criticism, the shows PR says "we won't give into sexists/racists", this triggers sexists&racists (and, perhaps mostly, trolls...who'll behave in that manner although they aren't actually supremacists), and then RSs report on the 'ist' comments. It's infuriating if you were amongst those who noticed the original thing (in this case leaked pics of the actors in costume) and saw the (very very justified) original non-ist criticism. RSs are all about the, real, trollstorm targeting diop, so I can't see a way around it, but for the benefit of this discussion it should be noted as an example of spinDrs successfully 'shaping the narrative', and defacto slandering anyone who originally saw those pics and thought "that looks like shit". 92.3.149.86 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Why Doom Patrol is not a spinoff of Titans
I'm getting really tired of people making edits to both this article and the Doom Patrol article to refer to Doom Patrol as being a spinoff of Titans when the two series are not connected despite sharing actors and characters, but since it's not likely to stop, I'm going to spell out exactly why Doom Patrol is not a spinoff of Titans and why referring to it as such is peddling false information.

The definition of the term spinoff, as per this very site, is "a radio program, television program, video game, film, or any narrative work, derived from already existing works that focus on more details and different aspects from the original work (e.g. particular topics, characters or events)."

The Doom Patrol series does not fit this definition because the characters in it do not share the same narrative histories and experiences as the Doom Patrol characters who appeared in the "Doom Patrol" episode of Titans, as per the producers of the Doom Patrol series and actress April Bowlby.

It does not matter that Bowlby plays Rita in both the Doom Patrol series and the "Doom Patrol" episode of Titans. The events of the "Doom Patrol" episode of Titans have absolutely no bearing on or connection to the events of the Doom Patrol series.

If one plays out the logic of the argument that Doom Patrol is a spinoff of Titans because it features the same characters and some of the same actors and because it was originally announced as being connected to the Titans series to its ultimate conclusion, it, for example, opens up the door for the false claim of a film like Spider-Man: Far From Home being a spinoff of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films due to J.K. Simmons appearing in both that trilogy and Far From Home as J. Jonah Jameson despite the fact that the Raimi films have zero narrative connections to Far From Home.DigificWriter (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One source does not negate all previous sources that came before it. You are removing a year's worth of sources and sourced content. The series was initially ordered as a spin-off, and must be listed as such. Any developments or changes to this should be added to the content, not blanking the content. It was initially ordered as such and thus remains so. The text stating that the series is now considered separate is also included as an update. 210.185.124.100 (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this "it's not connected" stuff? They have never said that.. just cause the current Doom Patrol season doesnt reference Titans doesnt mean they arent in the same universe.. it was a spin-off and the characters first appeared in Titans. Spanneraol (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These two sources (included in the current version of the article) seem to have spurred this debate:
 * Jeremy Carver and April Bowlby both comment that this show has a separate continuity from Titans. But that doesn't mean it's not a spin-off. Even Bowlby's interviewer describes the Titans episode as "like a backdoor pilot in a way, where things change".— TAnthonyTalk 20:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bowlby wouldn't really know what the producers have planned and just cause they arent currently referencing each other doesnt mean they arent in the same universe. The Carver interview doesn't really say they aren't either... just that they dont want to be tied to the pilot cause DP has it's own weird thing.. but it is clearly a spin-off and none of these statements are as definitive as the statement in this article and particularly in the DP article.Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Carver and April Bowlby both comment that this show has a separate continuity from Titans. But that doesn't mean it's not a spin-off. Even Bowlby's interviewer describes the Titans episode as "like a backdoor pilot in a way, where things change".— TAnthonyTalk 20:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bowlby wouldn't really know what the producers have planned and just cause they arent currently referencing each other doesnt mean they arent in the same universe. The Carver interview doesn't really say they aren't either... just that they dont want to be tied to the pilot cause DP has it's own weird thing.. but it is clearly a spin-off and none of these statements are as definitive as the statement in this article and particularly in the DP article.Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

First episode
Should it say Gar rather than human boy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:D8DC:CABC:7B67:6046 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as his name is never given in the episode. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, he has a name in the episode so it should have said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should have. But didn't. -- / Alex /21  01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But this should have that change for the first episode, so can you do it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Episode title revealed, but no outside sources
The DC Universe website has revealed that the season 2 premiere will be entitled "Trigon", but no outside sources appear to have picked up on this. Is it acceptable to use the primary DC Universe source as a citation for the title of this episode? Or should we wait until this information is reported by a secondary source or when the episode airs to provide the title? Bluerules (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be sufficient from the DC Universe website as we were using that for the first season for each episodes when a new episode title has been listed. —  Young Forever (talk)   17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and included the primary DC Universe source. — Young Forever (talk)   17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you! Bluerules (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Esai Morales part of the main cast?
Like Timothy Dalton in Doom Patrol, Esai Morales receives a "special appearance" credit and appears before those who are specifically identified as being part of the "guest" cast. My assumption is this establishes him as a main cast member - the "special appearance" is to give him additional prominence, like the "with" and "and" credits that Minka Kelly and Alan Ritchson receive - but I wanted to make certain he belongs in this section before moving him. Bluerules (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure "special appearance" is more in the vein of "special guest star". Otherwise they would use the "with" and the "and". Or even the "Person A as Character B" if there were a need to particularly distinguish someone from the regular "with" and "and" people. Given Dalton's more limited appearances in Doom Patrol... not sure if he counts as main, although I see from IMDb he got the credit even when he did not appear apparently, which I guess does imply main rather than guest. I guess we need to see more of Morales' credit and appearance history to make a proper determination, but in general "special appearance" seems used more like "extra super-special guest star" in general. We should ask Heather Locklear what it all means. LOL —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The main thing to note, however, there already is a "special guest star" credit, which was seen with Iain Glen. If there wasn't, a case could be made for "special appearance" being the same as "special guest star", but when both are used (like here) there's a clear distinction between the two. In other words, the guest stars are specifically identified as such - a guest star making a "special" appearance would receive the "special guest star" credit that Glen did. Morales does not receive that specific identification and instead appears before those designated as guest stars. As I said, the reason why the "with" and the "and" weren't used with Morales is because they're already taken by Kelly and Ritchson, so another credit identifier had to be given to give Morales additional prominence. He could simply have his character identified, but that doesn't carry the same weight; there's more weight given to his name when it's the last thing you read, not when there's another name immediately following his credit. Note that Alan Tudyk, who receives that credit in Doom Patrol, is billed before the "with", "and", and "special appearance" actors.
 * It's the same reason why Dalton receives "special appearance" credit in Doom Patrol; the "with" and the "and" were taken by Matt Bomer and Brendan Fraser. Now a stronger case can be made for Dalton being a regular because his name appears in an opening title sequence that is exclusive to the main cast (hence why he's deemed as such, regardless of his limited appearances), which Titans does not have, but again, the main thing here is that the "special guest star" credit exists separately from the "special appearance" credit. "Special appearance" cannot be the same as "extra super-special guest star" when "special" guest stars are specifically stated to be "special guest star"s. Seeing more of Morales' credit and appearance history aren't going to determine if he's main - especially when in Titans, the regulars usually don't receive credit when they don't appear in an episode - what will properly determine his cast status is how he's identified. The fact that he is not specifically identified as a "guest" and even "special" guest stars are specifically identified as such, is why he's currently in the main cast section. Bluerules (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be used in many ways... are there any press releases mentioning him as a series regular? Spanneraol (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's listed as a lead in the about section of the official website. Bluerules (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He wasn't credited at all in episode 2.. so he seems to be more recurring than main cast. Spanneraol (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because he didn't appear in the episode. With the exception of Anna Diop in "Hawk and Dove", the main cast members don't receive credit for the episodes they don't appear in. Ryan Potter wasn't credited for "Hawk and Dove", Chelsea Zhang didn't receive credit for "Trigon", and Teagan Croft was the only member of the main cast to be credited in "Hank and Dawn". Other shows are different, but not being credited here does not determine whether an actor is main cast or recurring when even Brenton Thwaites hasn't been credited in every episode. If not being omitted was used as the basis for who belongs in the main cast, only Croft would be there. Bluerules (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Light or Dr. Light?
I thought it would be helpful to point out a few things that are likely to come up in these sorts of comicbook-to-screen articles. Firstly, its probably going to be important to cite when a new character comes up to a source. We as editors cannot be the ones to connect the dots and make observational connections; it must be the sources that do so, explicitly. For instance, take the recent back and forth regarding how to name the introduced character of Doctor Light to the article, and specifically to the ep summaries. As in other articles of these types, we source any information that links from one media to another (like comics to tv). An editor noted that 'subtitles abbreviated the character's name to Dr. Light' as a reason to remove the fuller name. This is where sources come in handy. I've re-added Doctor Light to the episode summary, and sourced it. This sidesteps any real discussion as to which to use. The source used it, and we use only sources. So, done and done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Dr. abbreviation was based on a source - specifically the primary source of the subtitles from episode. Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, a work of fiction is an acceptable primary source for the names of the characters and that's what the primary source of the episode's subtitles were used for. Now a case could be made that Dr. was abbreviated in the subtitles to fit better, but secondary sources aren't in agreement on whether he should be referred to as Doctor or Dr. While the secondary source used to confirm his casting refers to him as Doctor Light, others refer to him as Dr. Light:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * My objective here is to make certain the character is being referred to by the correct name, which is what the main back-and-forth has been over - some editors have been adding the given name "Arthur", which others including myself have been removing because the sources (and the show) do not provide a first name, at least not yet. If his proper title is Doctor Light, then that, of course, should be used for the article. If it is Dr. Light, which is supported by a primary source, then that should be used. I'd like to hear how other editors view this matter before further changes are made, but an official episode description or similar material will likely be the final confirmation to his correct name; for the secondary sources, Dr. or Doctor may just be preference on the part of the writer. Bluerules (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay; I totally see your point. How odd is it that the first source I Google refers to Mosely's character as 'Doctor Light,' eh? ::Further, your claim that the character hasn't been identified by name as of yet, but all but the first of the sources you added here does in fact identify the character as Arthur Light. While the primary source hasn't identified the character by their given name as of yet, several secondary sources have. Those sources - imo - suggest the non-abbreviated and wiki-linkable name and villain name.
 * How do you wish to proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. What is the relevance of the first source found through Google referring to Mosely's character as "Doctor Light"? It doesn't hold more weight over other secondary sources simply because it appears first and I never said there weren't secondary sources that refer to him as "Doctor" instead of "Dr." My point is that there isn't a consensus in the secondary sources over whether he is "Doctor" Light or "Dr." Light because both have been used. As a result, secondary sources using "Doctor" isn't enough to support referring to the character as "Doctor" in the article because again, secondary sources also use "Dr." So we need more than secondary sources to determine the proper name.
 * 2. It is not a claim; it is a fact that the character has not been officially identified by his first name. The secondary source currently present in the article does not identify him as "Arthur Light"; there is no first name present. More importantly, while there are other secondary sources that identify him as "Arthur Light", the primary source does not. That is why other editors have concurred with not including a first name for the character until the primary source provides one. Which leads me to my next point...
 * 3. Secondary sources have also identified Teagan Croft's character as "Raven", Ryan Potter's character as "Beast Boy", and Chelsea Zhang's character as "Ravager". None of this is present in the article for the same reason "Arthur Light" has been continually removed: these characters have not been identified as such in the primary source. Again, per WP:PRIMARYCARE, a work of fiction is an acceptable primary source for the names of the characters and are where these names are directly coming from. The secondary sources run the risk of making assumptions and being influenced by information from the story of the comics, which the show is separate from. It's different in the comics, but Croft's character is not known as "Raven", Potter's character is not known as "Beast Boy", Zhang's character is not known as "Ravager", and Mosely's character is not known as "Arthur Light" in the subject of this article. The secondary sources do not provide definitive evidence to refer to any of these characters as such, especially when none of them have truly been referred to by these names in the show.
 * 4. Ultimately, while secondary sources have identified the character as "Doctor" Light, there also remain secondary sources that identify him as "Dr." Light, which prevents the secondary sources from making a suggestion either way. However, the primary source identifies him as "Dr." Light, which - especially with the secondary sources conflicting with each other - gives further support to "Dr." being the correct name. In other words, only secondary sources suggest "Doctor" is correct, whereas both secondary sources and the primary source suggest "Dr." is correct. And while several secondary sources have identified him as "Arthur Light", secondary sources do not hold priority over the primary source when it comes to character names - note again how the characters of Croft, Potter, and Zhang are referred to in the article. We use the primary source for names because that is where they are actually being used and directly coming from. The main purpose of the secondary sources in this area is to confirm cast announcements before the series airs, not the specific fictional names, as evidenced by the fact that these sources originated from the casting section. Therefore, unless we receive new information from the primary source, the correct name for Mosley's character is "Dr. Light". Bluerules (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is silly.. you people do know that "Dr. Light" and "Doctor Light" are the same thing don't you? Dr is an abbreviation of Doctor.Spanneraol (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, which why I wouldn't object to keeping his name as "Doctor Light" in the article. I maintain that "Dr. Light" is more accurate because that's how he's referred to in the subtitles, but I won't fight a consensus to use "Doctor" instead. Bluerules (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am okay with holding off on identifying Doctor Light by his given name for now, as per the reasons you have offered. However, I think you are imparting far too much importance on captioning. Captions are made well after the fact, and rarely by the production company making the series. I suggest that it is not actually part of the primary source, unless we are going to also proposing that station logo identification is also going to be considered as part of the primary source. Both were added well after the fact.
 * Additionally, those doing the captioning have a limited amount of space and time to fit the dialogue being said into the word box. That the captioners to save space, abbreviated the term from 'Doctor' to 'Dr.' is far more likely than the showrunners directly intending to abbreviate their work product. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I recognize that there are issues with the captioning, which is why I have left "Doctor" unchanged; the bigger problem has been the re-insertions of "Arthur" into his name and I'm glad we're all in agreement over that. For the matter of his title, my point is that we have both secondary sources and the primary source using "Dr.", while only secondary sources use "Doctor". But I'm also aware and previously acknowledged that "Dr." may have been abbreviated to save space in the captioning. And yes, although this an original series from a web streaming service that lacks a station logo identification, there is ambiguity over their creation. I do not see the captioning, while coming from the primary source, as definitive; I believe it can support information, but there are indeed better sources. I believe we can receive better information from the primary source, which we may receive from the next episode and confirm the correct title. For example, if the official episode description calls him "Doctor" Light or if his name is displayed as such in the actual episode (like how Shimmer's real name was displayed), then that confirms "Doctor" is correct. Bluerules (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the captioning should definitely not be considered a definitive part of the source, for the reasons given above. I know from my own career that productions rarely check or even see the captioning, which is done by an outside company.— TAnthonyTalk 14:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hence why I do not oppose a decision to keep the title as "Doctor" unless further information indicates that "Dr." is correct. While we may not know for certain if the production checked or saw the captioning (as well as having any involvement in its creation), there is ambiguity present that prevents it from being definitive and the space saving measure is more than a fair point. As noted above, we may receive better information when the next episode, which the character is scheduled to appear in, airs. Bluerules (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinking within episode summaries
I think we should plan, now instead of letter, how we should address wiki-linkable characters and places within episode summaries. Other series (esp those involving characters from different media formats, like comics) utilize wiki-linking within episode summaries, such as:
 * List of Gotham episodes
 * List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes
 * List of Arrow episodes
 * List of Supergirl episodes
 * List of The Flash episodes
 * Swamp Thing (2019 TV series)
 * List of The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series) episodes
 * Daredevil (season 1)
 * Jessica Jones (season 2)
 * Luke Cage (season 2)
 * Iron Fist (season 1)
 * Doctor Who (series 2)|

I could go on, but I think its evident that wikilinking that which we can source either within the summary or on the talk page seems a lot more efficient, esp. when I recall the whole back-and-forth about who the Joker was in the Gotham series). The key to the wikilinkage is (as always) reliable and verifiable sourcing. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the wikilinking within the episode summaries. Of the series cited, the most comparable is The Incredible Hulk because like Titans, it has episode summaries for multiple seasons on the same page. As The Incredible Hulk only includes wikilinking for characters in the season they first appear in, I suggest that's the format we follow here. If the seasons receive their own articles, which is present in the other series except Swamp Thing, then the characters will receive wikilinking for each season. Bluerules (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I look forward to the improvements. Bluerules (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)