Talk:Arrowverse/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Flash Episode Title

A script isn't a reliable source for an unbroadcast episode, especially since it's been known that titles can change. Besides, we can wait two whole months for more solid sources to appear. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Also, the other so-called titles are pure conjecture and violates original research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Scripts have been used for episode titles for years without issue; just see every non-TFC entry at Arrow (season 8) and Legends of Tomorrow (season 5). You also haven't quoted the part of CRYSTAL that this apparently violations; please don't cite policies if you cannot cite any part of it, they're not there to just dash around. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable,...It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims.... DonQuixote (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, see working title. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Flash title from the script page isn't a working title. What's on the script is the title as we know it today. You claiming it to be one is false. Yes, I can admit the other titles for the other series were not sourced, but a little bit of WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied since we have the Flash one and know how past crossovers have been individually titled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "false" title--it's literally called a working title, or more precisely a production title. It's an industry standard. Whether or not it's the final title is original research. The only thing we can say is that it's the title during production. Also, using "common sense" in this case is original research as well. DonQuixote (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

But you don't have a source stating this is the "production title". As Alex noted, per the script pages that have been used previously to source the other Arrowverse shows, and The Flash, there has never been an indication that the title that appears on released script pages, is not what the episode title will be. It is your opinion that it is not the actual title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's literally the production title because it's the title of the script. You have to cite a reliable source that this is the episode title--especially since a script is not considered reliable. It's well documented that the script of a film/show and the final product can have many differences--including the title. DonQuixote (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The title of the script does not indicate that it is only a working title. Please gain a source to back that up. See every episode entry at Arrow (season 8) and Legends of Tomorrow (season 5); all are script entries, same as has been used for all the previous seasons of the same series, and all of which have been the official episode title. I think it's clear that your understanding of the script and title is not exactly up-to-date.

Can you provide an example of any of the series related to this shared universe in which the official title of the episode has not been that displayed on its respective script? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing the point. A working title can be the final title. Also, a working title does not have to be the final title. We don't know which is true. A script cannot be a secondary source for an episode--it can only act as a primary source for itself. That's the point. The bottom line is that the burden of proof of a source's reliability is on the person trying to use it. DonQuixote (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It can. And it is. The script is the primary source for the episode title. There's nothing to back up that it is only a working title. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I can literally point to deleted scenes and extended scenes to show that scripts aren't reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The title and credits of an episode aren't a deleted or extended scene. Please try to remain on topic. I'll ask again: can you provide an example of any of the series related to this shared universe in which the official title of the episode has not been that displayed on its respective script? That is, can you cite an episode where the official title was not the same as the script title? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, if one part of a source is unreliable then the entire source is unreliable. That's the bottom line. Scripts aren't reliable secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. No-one is saying they're a secondary source. Please cite an example relating to the title or credits, as requested. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If they're not secondary sources, then they can't be used as secondary source for a primary source such as an episode. It's that simple. DonQuixote (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying they're a secondary source. They are being used as a primary source for the episode, as the title concerns the episode. See the respective current-season Arrow and Legends of Tomorrow season articles. Please cite an example relating to the title or credits, as requested. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude, they're physically separate things. Two separate things cannot be the same primary source--that's physically impossible. And again, if one part of a single source is unreliable (such as a scene not being filmed or a scene being cut) then the entire thing is an unreliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Yes, there can be multiple primary sources. The script is an original material directly related to the episode, and is "written by people who are directly involved" with the episode. The primary source for an episode is not solely the episode. And per WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." So, again, no-one is saying it's a secondary source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A song is a primary source. A poem is also a primary source. A song can be based on a poem. They're not the same primary source. A script is a primary source. An episode is a primary source. An episode can be based on a script. They're not the same primary source. I don't know how else to explain that two different types of things, although related, are not the same things. DonQuixote (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A script is a primary source. An episode is a primary source. Correct. They're primary sources for and concerning the same topic: the episode. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Concerning the same topic" doesn't mean that they're they same single thing. To Kill a Mockingbird and To Kill A Mockingbird (film) are both primary sources concerning the same topic. They're not the same primary source--they're literally two separate primary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The example provided doesn't relate to the same concept. One is a book. One is a film. In this case, the script is a primary source to the episode. It is directly related to the episode. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it does relate. They're two separate things. I can literally point to a script without pointing to an episode. I can literally point to an episode without pointing to a script. Yes, they're directly related, but that's all they are--they're literally not the same things. DonQuixote (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

An episode and a script, they're not the same thing, no. But they're primary sources to the same thing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay...you're confusing "primary sources to events" with "primary sources as works". Yes, two separate primary sources can be sources for the same thing, but the primary sources themselves are two separate things. Each primary source can refer to an event but neither primary source can act as a secondary source for each other nor are they the same primary source. If one primary source title "My Summer Day" describes an event in written form and another primary source titled "His Summer Day" shows an event on film, then those two primary sources are primary sources for that event and they're two separate primary sources. Similarly, although now we're talking about fictional events, a script can be a primary source for those fictional events and an episode can be a primary source for the same events--they're not the same primary source (let alone acceptable secondary sources for each other). DonQuixote (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, by default script titles are production titles because they're the titles used during production and thus can be described that way (or the more generally "working title"). There is no guarantee that this will be the actual title of the episode proper--you would actually need to cite a proper source for that, such as an actual secondary source or the episode proper. DonQuixote (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Or put more simply, "working title" is the widely-used term for "script title". DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And that is your opinion, and we thank you for that. Please gain a consensus for it. Please also cite an example relating to the title or credits, as requested. (If you can't remember: can you provide an example of any of the series related to this shared universe in which the official title of the episode has not been that displayed on its respective script? That is, can you cite an episode where the official title was not the same as the script title?) -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source period. A script is not a reliable source. Saying that the episode will have the same title (crystal ball) or referring back to previously scripts as a comparison (analysis) is original research. If you can't give a direct quote from a reliable source, then it's most likely original research. Anything and everything can be challenged. The burden of proof is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion on the reliability of a script as a source. Scripts have been used for years as a reliable source without dispute. Now, gain a consensus for your view instead of edit-warring. I've already proved it with a reliable source. All you have cited is "by default" and your personal definition of the title. No policies. The burden is now on you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

From WP:SOURCES Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The script page was published to the public (i.e. "made available to the public in some form), that's how we've seen it. Solved, it's now reliable. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You now have three editors reverting you. Quit while you're ahead, and gain that consensus for your personal opinion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Er...a photo of the front cover isn't what "published" means. DonQuixote (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

From WP:SOURCES published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form" Was it "made available to the public in some form"? Yes? Easy. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Made available to the public in some form" means that the entire script is made public. That's what published means. DonQuixote (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The front page of the script was made available to the public in some form. That is all we are using as a reliable source, not the entire script, and thus, the front page remains a reliable source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No. That's not what published means. Published means released to the public--it does not mean a publicity photo. DonQuixote (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. So, again: published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form" Was the front page of the script "made available to the public in some form"? Yes? Then front page of the script is a reliable source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, as I have pointed out before--a script is a primary source which can only be used as a source for its contents. DonQuixote (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, where, in the script, does it say anything like "The title of the episode will be..."? Direct quote, please. DonQuixote (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Did I say that the script page states "The title of the episode will be..."? No? I'll kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I said the script page states the title. But all I'm going is going back and forth with you, and it's clear that I'm beating a dead horse.

Your personal view has clearly been disputed. Gain a consensus for it now. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that that's what you said--I meant that a secondary source being used should say something like that. Yeah, dead horse. DonQuixote (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Crossover infoboxes

Would there be any opposition if I converted the infoboxes at the crossover articles to {{Infobox television crossover episode}} as opposed to {{Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode}}? I've already done so at two articles, and personally, I think they look a lot neater. They group each series together and lists the details for each part in the grouped episodes, rather than grouping the episode details in each section. Makes it a lot more fluid. Thoughts? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Alex. I saw this after I started my other discussion. As I said there, I actually feel the opposite. I think it's better seeing all the info together for each series (the Arrowverse crossover template way) over having it broken up by each series (television crossover template way). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an enwiki editor. But if I would, it will be strong support. Much better to categorize by episodes than return on series names again and again. IKhitron (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That's the one downside to the existing templates, is the need to repeat each series name. But I still think it is more beneficial having all directors, writers, etc. listed together, than separated by the series section. The benefit to the existing, is there have (and maybe will be) instances where one or two people where the writers and directors for the whole thing. For the Arrowverse, that's already happened with Crisis on Earth-X, with two people writing the whole story. If the other infobox is used, then we're spreading that info out across four sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So, you may have an optional editor field in common part, which can be used instead. IKhitron (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What does the Arrowverse template do that the generic template does not do? All the same information is displayed, and given that crossovers are defined by the very fact that they are made up of separate episodes, it makes sense to split them by those separate episodes. That way, I can read all the information about Part 1 in one group, instead of having to traverse the entire infobox for possible information. One credit maybe being the same isn't a reason for having what is essentially a redundant, duplicate template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You do not need to convince me. IKhitron (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant to be a response to Favre; I've adjusted the indentation appropriately. In any case, I've nominated the template under TFD, so we can gain a wider consensus at a more wider-community venue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and would support the switch, but think the crossover infobox should include "overall" fields if, as I noted, there are the same people for the whole thing. See my edits to Template:Infobox television crossover episode/sandbox and what that looks like at Template:Infobox television crossover episode/testcases. The thought would be, if there is say someone who is the director of the whole thing, you use the parameter |director_overall= and then not use |director#=. I've made these in the sandbox for director, writer, story, teleplay, and airdate. I'm going to respond in the deletion discussion about this as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with this (and was also my concern with deleting the Arrowverse version). - Brojam (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Other series

So, there’s the part in the lead section mentioning John Wesley Shipp reprising as 1990 series Flash/Barry. So when do we add Welling, Durance and Scott? Do we do it now or wait the 6 weeks until Crisis starts airing?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

#Crossovers sections. Per reverts of the same kind and a general local consensus, other series and related content should only be listed if they've crossed over multiple times. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for the Arrowverse title?

Who coined the term, the "Arrowverse"? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The best thing I can find in the article is under Development, where it states In August 2015, in a video about the production of Vixen's first season, Guggenheim referred to the series' shared universe as the "Arrowverse". (video is currently set to private, though...)

References

-- /Alex/₂₁ 21:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So, we have no actual reliable source that provides us with the name for this article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We do. The multitude of sources in the article that state the term "Arrowverse". The prose/source that I pointed to/linked was for who coined the term "Arrowverse"; it wasn't me saying that it's the only source in the whole article that uses it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see what you meant now. I think it would be a good idea to source the use of the term to a RS. If Google search teaches us nothing else, it is that there is no new question under the sun. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer

There seems to be a lot of rumors originating from a Twitter account called "Canadagraphs" who have apparently been reliable with their behind the scenes photos & spoilers in the past that Tom Ellis was filming as Lucifer Morningstar in the crisis crossover event. How would this be handled when more notable websites pick up on the news? Can a non superhero series even be recognized as part of the Arrowverse? Esuka (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Arrowverse is whatever the producers wish it to be--which includes "non-superhero" series. Having said that, a crossover between two series doesn't make the two series part of the same franchise (see The Simpsons and Family Guy crossover). Either the primary source (the producers) have to straight-out say that Lucifer is part of the Arrowverse or (as was the case with Supergirl) reliable secondary sources have to commonly and consistently say that it's part of the Arrowverse. DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We would treat it just like all the other guest-appearances/single-crossover happening in "Crisis on Infinite Earths". - Brojam (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed with both of the above. We just list it as another once-off crossover, if it is indeed the case. However, could it be just as likely that the two series are filming in the same place and Ellis decided to visit the Crisis set? That's just my possible interpretation of the case... But we'll wait to see what the sources see.

(That's my professional response. My fanboy response to this would be over the moon!) -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the rumors were true. It made sense as he was actively filming the final season of Lucifer in Los Angeles at the time and was given a few days to fly to Vancouver. Esuka (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

He’s just gonna be in the Crisis crossovers listing of the strands of DC media involved with it--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Guest cast for crossovers at season articles

When it comes to season articles for the Arrowverse shows (or currently only the series article, in the case of Batwoman), I don't think we should include guest cast that appear in the season(/series)'s respective crossover episodes; for example, see all the crossover-only guest cast at Batwoman (TV series)#Guest and Supergirl (season 5)#Guest. These guest cast aren't related to the season in question, only the crossover, which typically isn't a direct installment of each season, and only serve to clog up the guest list. I suggest that the guest cast should only include those that appear in relation to the season in question, not the crossovers, and keep guest cast to the crossover articles. Thoughts? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. IKhitron (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Any further comments? If not, I'll go through and remove crossover-only guest cast from the season articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Would these guest appearances also be removed from the List of characters pages as well? Seems wrong to me to remove cast members that have had recurring roles or multiple guest appearances on other shows. I honestly don't really have a problem with keeping them on the season articles (on the main series article sure that's excessive but that's only Batwoman). I don't see why we'd keep a villain-of-the-week appearance (which often serve no real purpose to the seasons) over a crossover appearance. - Brojam (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought. Because this villain is a part of series plot, and here we have something that is a part of whole Arrowverse, not a single show? Anyway, do not take me as a real participant of this or any discussion - I came to enwiki to a very little time, and will leave as expected at January 21. IKhitron (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As above. Villain-of-the-week appearances relate to the season in question. Crossover cast really don't, as crossovers aren't exactly part of their respective seasons. Crossovers are their own separate entities, and their cast should be noted primarily in their respective articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of the crossovers (obviously not all) for sure relate to the season in question, with "Crisis on Infinite Earths" the best example of that. - Brojam (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. But I never understood why does enwiki get a crossover episode as a part of particular series, and not all the crossover as a whole entity. For example, our wiki Crisis article has 25 screens of information, this is a lot, but it does not include, of course, even a word about in which episode of five some character or some actor participate. So I can't see why Kevin Conroy, for example, is a part of Batwoman when he's not a part of Legends of Tomorrow. IKhitron (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-defining Arrowverse

At first it only referred to Earth-1, the universe where Arrow, Flash, Legends and Vixen take place. After Supergirl, which was set in a different universe, there was an extended discussion on the now infamous "Is Supergirl part of the Arrowverse" debate, and that resulted in Supergirl forcibly being declared an Arrowverse show as it shares continuity with the Earth-1 shows. Though the multiverse is not infinite, it has too many shows which were not originally part of the Arrowverse (the term here meaning series, franchise or whatever term connects multiple shows or films) and can still not be deemed so. So I guess "Arrowverse" no longer means the entire multiverse of interconnected works as we had been treating it all these years, how do we re-define it in the lead now? Simply state that Arrowverse is a collection of interconnected shows? That other shows, despite sharing continuity, are not part of it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The simplest, real world definition is that it's a media franchise. DonQuixote (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Nick Mitchell 98, Brojam, Favre1fan93 and anyone who actually follows the franchise, please share your views. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is and not sure I understand why the change was made from and shared fictional multiverse that is centered on various television series to interconnected television series. Nothing has changed, it's still a shared fictional multiverse. --Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The change was made because saying "Arrowverse refers to the entire multiverse" means that shows like Lucifer, Smallville, Birds of Prey, 60's Batman, etc. are part of it. But when "Arrowverse" means only a collection of shows, these shows are not part of that collection, right? So now is it better for the lead to describe "Arrowverse" as simply a franchise or collection, not a multiverse? Rewrite as you please, I won't oppose. But I believe that describing "Arrowverse" as a multiverse will warrant having to include all these other shows with the main shows. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Apologies in advance for the essay response!) At present, in it’s simplest definition, the "Arrowverse" is the franchise formed of The CW’s live action DC series based in Vancouver (Arrow, Flash, Legends, Supergirl, Batwoman) in addition to related expanded media (animated series, shorts, official comics, etc.). The name is used interchangeably with the multiverse that is the setting for the franchise.

Over the years the multiverse has been expanded, incorporating several ongoing and inactive continuities from film and television. But, crossovers alone do not make something an Arrowverse product. My personal views are:

1. Is it made by/for The CW?
2. Does it involve the creators/producers of Arrowverse shows (Berlanti, Guggenheim, Kreisberg, etc.)
3. Is it based in Vancouver?
4. Is production integrated with the other Vancouver shows?
5. Is the narrative of the show affected by/involved in continuity of the Arrowverse shows? Or is it narratively separate?
6. Most important: Is it intended by the creators to be part of the Arrowverse? Or is it just a simple crossover?

Using Supergirl as an example, it was developed by creators/producers involved with Arrow, Flash and Legends, and it crossed over with Flash in its first season; it was unquestionably part of the Arrowverse multiverse. However, it was not based in Vancouver with the other three series and it didn’t air on The CW. When the series moved to The CW, production moved to Vancouver and it was incorporated more into Arrowverse continuity; it became an Arrowverse show.

Inactive continuities can’t meet these criteria because they’re inactive; The only still-running shows inside the Arrowverse multiverse are Titans, Black Lightning, Lucifer and Stargirl. Titans and Stargirl, although they involve Greg Berlanti, fail the rest of the above criteria. Lucifer fails all of the above criteria (even when based in Vancouver it was not integrated). Black Lightning does air on The CW, but does not involve any of the Arrowverse show creators, is not based in Vancouver or involved in production with those shows, it has been narratively separate up until it’s last episode before Crisis though we don’t know what will happen post-Crisis, and before Crisis it was always intended to be separate from the Arrowverse shows and we can’t yet judge if that’s changed.

We need to form a list of criteria for inclusion. A show doesn’t necessarily have to fill all of them, but most of them. I think my list above is a good starting point. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

All that is needed it the last dotpoint; "Is it intended by the creators to be part of the Arrowverse?". If the answer's yes, it's part of the Arrowverse. If the answer's no, it's not. There doesn't need to be any further questions to complicate the matter; the rest are trivial and OR if we use them to determine their status. Only reliable sources should confirm the status of a series within the Arrowverse. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your points except the last two. Producers and creators can change and so can the network. Stargirl (TV series) might be part of the franchise yet even though it's airing on The CW, it's a DC Universe show. The animations as well were not aired on The CW, but on CW Seed (same owners, but still different network). Vancouver is also not something which is necessary. See CSI shows an example of a shows sharing a "universe" but not filmed in the same location. Also, if Black Lightning does officially join next year, then that completely makes that point moot.

Now regarding your point of "inactive continuities", I'm on the fence here, but after this last crossover, I'm leaning to the mindset of the 1990 Flash series being part of the universe. Not only has the character with the same actor and costume appeared in two separate crossovers, but in the last crossover we not only see flashback scenes from the show, but also learn of the continued narrative (he got married, etc). So to me, I see the Arrowverse having two layers of shows. The "core shows", active shows which have substantive crossovers of characters and themes between them, and "adjacent shows", which have a small contribution to the narrative.

As I had an edit conflict with Alex, I agree with his point.--Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter what wikipedians think about this, only a source can say if some series is a part of Arrowverse. IKhitron (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's gonna be hard to find, IKhitron. Alright, all the above points make sense. So it's fine for the lead to simply describe "Arrowverse" as a media franchise, not a multiverse? And this "franchise" includes only the Earth-1 shows plus Supergirl and Freedom Fighters. The other shows, even if set on Earth-1 like NBC's Constantine, are not part of this "franchise"? Let it be. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting post-Crisis

Now that Crisis is over, what shows do we include in the table? As an Earth-Prime series, do we now include Black Lightning? On the topic of post-Crisis, I believe the table at List of DC Multiverse worlds#Arrowverse should be split into two tables/subsections, one pre- and one post-Crisis. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Lightning will definitely being playing a major part in the Arrowverse now. The EPs have stated they made a conscious decision to combine all the CW DC shows into one universe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.183.174 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21:, already took care of the table at the multiverse list :). I think BL can be added here. Don't have time right this minute to talk more on it, but for now, I would support the inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Same. I'm good with adding BL as an official Arrowverse series. - Brojam (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and readd Black Lightning. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Green Lantern reference

Pretty sure the Green Lantern film reference is a mistake. While the article is using a source, I argue that the source is mistakenly misinterpreting the scene and it can just as much be a set up for the upcoming TV series [1]. I'd even say it's much more probable than the 26%-rating on rotten tomatoes film, seeing as how all HBO Max-DC Universe shows got mentioned. While my interpretation is obviously WP:OR, just because an entertainment editor says so, does not mean we need to follow and put it here. --Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The guideline you're looking for is WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. IOW, just because a secondary source says something does not mean it needs to be included in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I thought that it was for the HBO Max series as well, but then in addition to the EW reference used in the article, I've found this and this both saying it's recycled material from the 2011 film. Now was that just done because they don't have anything yet for the HBO Max series, as the Inverse article says? Maybe. But it does at the moment seem it is footage from the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know the footage is from the film, but that's where the primary source information ends. Saying the film is cannon now because of some scenic shots is not supported by the show or by the the producers, and compared to the other Earths which had actual character appearances, this did not use Ryan Reynolds or any other character. Take Pagey for example, while not working for a website, he is probably the most known YouTube reviewer for Arrowverse shows. Around the 10 minute mark he acknowledges that the footage is from the film, but he also believes it's a stand-in for the TV series which hasn't begin shooting. I think the sentence should be modified to something like "Footage from the 2011 Green Lantern film is used to designate Earth-12.[source 1] There are conflicting sources if the footage means the film is part of the multiverse[source 2] or if it's meant to represent the upcoming Green Lantern TV series, which hasn't started shooting yet.[source 3] --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we can go even simpler. I'd say we take Earth-12 out of the list and below it say: "A Green Lantern inhabited world was revealed as Earth-12. Footage from the 2011 film Green Lantern was used to represent it.[EW source][Inverse source]" That isn't incorrect and we then don't put speculation as to if it is meant to be the film, or the upcoming series. And once further clarification is made, it could be adjusted. If we like this, I'll also make a similar change at the List of DC Multiverse worlds page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Says what was shown without any speculation. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just make sure that the source in question explicitly notes that footage from the 2011 GL film was used in the show; it would by SYN to do otherwise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Article titles and redirects

Starting this discussion, though I'd say any result should wait til the end of the seasons just so we have a better understanding on how this goes. We used redirect titles for locations like Earth-2 (Arrowverse), and used it for characters like Laurel Lance (Arrowverse Earth-2). Since "Earth-#" is now ambiguous, the new titles should probably be something like Earth-2 (Arrowverse Pre-Crisis) and Earth-2 (Arrowverse Post-Crisis). Any thoughts/comments? --Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Pre/Post Crisis seems good. At the Multiverse list, I started using "post-Crisis" in the anchors (not the lowercase 'p') but can easily change that to uppercase. And for the time being, this would be only needed for anything Earth-2 related, and Earth-12, Earth-19 and Earth-21, because those are different from the pre-Crisis earths. As for Earth-2 Laurel, we're apparently getting clarification in the last 2 Arrow episode to just exactly who she is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find even one reliable source saying that any pre-Crisis Earth was destoyed, except 1, 38 and 73. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. If you have such a source that is not a guess, please share. Until then, it's possible that all the old Earths were destroyed, same as possible that thay all exist with the very same numbers. Even Jesse Quick can leave on the same Earth as the Stargirl. IKhitron (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, now I do find, the bottle episode. IKhitron (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Naming inconsistencies

I've seen some inconsistencies in the way we write some character names. I've noticed this with "The Flash" and with "The Canary" (might be others I've missed). How should these be written? With or without the article? So "The Flash" or "Flash", "The Canary" or "Canary"? --Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it depends. For Barry Allen, I would write something like "The STAR Labs team and the Flash..." while Sara Lance, I'd probably do "White Canary" or just "Canary". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

And in the Cast and character section? How would you write it there? --Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

For cast and characters I'd do: Barry Allen / Flash, Sara Lance / (White) Canary. No articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a day and see if anyone else comments, if not, I'll make a pass on the articles and fix the names. I've noticed also the Monitor, so I'll do that also unless someone comments on that. --Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Monitor would be "Mar Novu / Monitor" in cast/character section, and something like "Oliver works with the Monitor..." in plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Batwoman

There's an RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about whether or not to consider LaMonica Garrett a guest or main character for Batwoman and Legends of Tomorrow. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)