User talk:Bignole/Archive/2014/November

Concise, but inaccurate
The edit you saw fit to revert on the summaries for "The Flash" was a statement which is misleading and lacking in the key aspect that the threat was against Iris. Since my version did not increase the number of lines in the final layout at all, I'm perplexed as to why you felt the urge to correct me. Jiskran (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Universe connection
, Ignoring the idea that someone saying something "might" happen is worth any amount of time in an article, let's just point out that the section in question is about established connections. It's not about the possibility of connections. Again, this isn't a current events website. But you are treating it like a current events website. You're attributing a certain level of significance to the statement of possibility. Not a statement of fact, but possibility. If said possibility never happens, then the statement is irrelevant. We're an encyclopedia at the end of the day, and we don't chronicle every minor event that may happen. You don't write pages with a "On this date, this was announced," and "On this date, this was denied." That makes us nothing more than an entertain news ticker, which is not professional, nor is it an encyclopedia in any shape or form. Saying "it could be connected" is minor right now. If they said it will be connected, then I'd be right there with you. He didn't say it will. He said "it's possible". The fact that it isn't a definite event makes it a minor detail, that has more to do with the Supergirl show than to Arrow. What you're arguing for would be the same as someone being coy about the direction of a show and answering a question with a vague response. We don't write up people's vague, coy answers here.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand where this train of thought is coming from, because that is exactly what is done on Wikipedia. "On this date, this was revealed / announced / stated" is hw most paragraphs on Wikipedia, at least for films and TV series, are begun. That doesn't make the site a current eents website at all. Even if this is false and the show is never connected to the others, the fact that there was a chance or that it was considered is still significant enough to warrant inclusion. Just because you feel it would be irrelevant does not mean it actually would be for the majority of peaople trying to learn about the subject. And though you say the section is only about established connections, if it was announced that in an upcoming episode a certain character would crossover from one series to the other, that info would be added when it was revealed, not after the event actually took place. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's is what happens here, that is not what is supposed to be done. It's not professional writing, and when you do that you end up with every tidbit of information about a subject, which goes against the policies of what Wikipedia is not. Well written articles are not written like that. I am not saying that they don't contain statements like that, because you do need to identify dates of events for key pieces of information about a show, only that every bit of news is not written that way (and should not be). If an article looks like nothing more than ticker of news events, then it ceases to be an encyclopedia, and becomes SuperHeroHype.com. Again, you're attributing a significance to the idea that it "may" be connected. That is your opinion as much as it is mine that it isn't. You're taking a vague statement and attributing an idea that there is a real chance. He did not say that there was a real chance. You don't know the context in which he was stating that, which is why it still amounts to a conjecture, and why it is best to wait for such things. Berlanti is contracted for a service, and typically those contracts state that they cannot reveal certain information about a show without prior consent, or until certain points (it's a basic non-disclosure clause built into all media contracts). If someone asks, "Will Supergirl be connected to Arrow," and Berlanti knows he cannot say one way or the other (because the decision is not his, and obviously a decision has not been made), then he must provide a vague "it's possible" answer. If he says, "Yes" and it was never going to be allowed then he runs the risk of pissing studio execs off. If he says "No", and they were planning on it, then he looks like an idiot, pisses people off, and impacts the show in a potential negative way. His posted response does not mean that it really is possible (it doesn't mean that it isn't, it's just that, a vague response). Hence why I am saying that there is no context for this statement, and we don't know the actual seriousness of it happening. If there was never a chance in Hell, and Berlanti was merely speaking out of his ass to just give the interviewer/reader a little tease, then it has no business being on Wikipedia. See the linked section above as to why.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I really do see where you are coming from, but I still disagree. For one, your opinion on what Wikipedia should be, whether it is correct or not, does not really matter when it goes against the very apparent consensus around the site. Secondly, though I admit it is my opinion that the Supergirl show potentially connecting to the others is significant, I think it is pretty clear from the current state of the entertainment industry, as well as the vast majority of internet comments and the like, that I am not alone in this opinion. And the fact that several other editors over at the page support my position (and I myself have had nothing to do with the actual debate over there, I only got involved when I saw your comment on Favre's talk page) indicates to me that it is not just in my opinion that this info is significant. I am well aware of what Wikipedia is not, but I think that even just the potential of this happening means a lot more to many people than it does to you. Also, I do agree with your assessment of Berlanti's situation, but it is original research, and we can only go with what is in the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You said the apparent consensus around the site, but consensus is not a matter of how many people are doing something different than a policy or guideline, it's about the strength of an argument for or against something. If everyone started adding trivia sections to articles, we'd still want them removed even if we don't have enough people to go around to every article and start cleaning them up. So, widespread action is not a sign of consensus, but a sign that there are fewer people editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. Yes, it is original research, just like it is original research to attribute significance to the statement. There is nothing in the source that indicates significance. That is something others here have attributed to it. As for "comments on the internet", there aren't a lot of people reporting on it, and when they do they typically have the safeguard of "take this with a grain of salt" type of comment. No one is hanging on this as nothing more than a vague statement. If Berlanti said it was definite, it would be included. If he said it was definite, and it ultimately did not happen, then I would say it should be included. The fact is, he did not say anything of the sort. He said there was a possibility, and if that possibility does not happen then the statement needs to be removed. Otherwise, you're attributing an idea that it was a real possibility, when there is nothing to support the idea that it is a real chance of happening.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we leave it out, and it is announced that it will be connected, then we would add in that info as well as this info, saying "... Berlanti stated that it could be connected ... and it was confirmed to be connected on ...". If we leave it out, and it is announced that it will not be connected, then we would add in that info as well as this info, saying "... Berlanti stated that it could be connected ... however, it was revealed to not be connected on ...". This tells me that the information should just be added in now, and the page can be updated as soon as we get confirmation of either way. Whether you like it or not, this is how Wikipedia works - not everything can be perfectly composed with the knowledge of hindsight because information gets revealed over time. My primary concern here is pages dealing with films and television, and everyday at least one page is updated with some new information that has just been revealed. It surprises and somewhat confuses me that you think the reality is or should be any different. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you're attributing a significance to the statement that is not there. If the show is connected, we'll just say that. We don't need Berlanti's comment. It would no longer add anything to the article, and any decent copyeditor would remove it in favor of the more terse statement of it simply being connected. If it ultimately is not connected, then Berlanti's statement becomes even less relevant to the article, because again, there is nothing that says it was a serious statement. If he took every vague statement made by someone, articles would be flooded with irrelevant content. So, if it turns out that it isn't connected, and there wasn't a chance of it, then the statement should be removed. It's pretty simple. There would be nothing proving that that statement should be there. It becomes trivial in the grand scheme of the Arrow article and the shared universe with The Flash. If Berlanti says, "I'd love for Constantine to be connected to Arrrow", we wouldn't include it because his desires are not relevant. We're not a entertainment magazine, we're an encyclopedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'd love for Constantine to be connected to Arrrow" and "Berlanti says it's possible this Supergirl could enter the worlds of Arrow and The Flash" are two very different statements. Again, I don't think you are really grasping what the situation is about. Perhaps you should discuss this with some other editors over at the Flash article and see how they feel about this and if their perception of the situation helps clear up the actual issue at hand. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is you that is missing the point. Berlanti made a vague statement about the possibility. He did not say that it would happen, or that they were actively trying to make it happen. He made a basic statement, nothing more. There is no significance to it, and attributing significance to it is both wrong and original research. I'm fine with leaving it in there for now. But, if nothing happens (and we have a ways to go), then it needs to be removed. I'll be happy to bring it up at Arrow (or The Flash) at that time. Right now, I'm not going to edit war over it because fan-editors cannot think objectively.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think leaving it for now, and bringing it up for discussion over there at some point down the line, is probably best. Also, I wouldn't really call myself a "fan-editor" in this circumstance, I'm more of a Marvel guy. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)