Talk:Gotham Knights (TV series)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 May 2022 by reviewer TipsyElephant (talk · contribs).

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: DC Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Gotham Knights

Since User:IJBall, who assumed bad faith on me simply requesting to not revert while himself making demands based on something that isn't even a policy [1], and has reverted the same times (two) as me but ironically refused to acknowledge he is an edit war (WP:3RRNO doesn't provide exceptions for cases of content dispute), has asked me to take this issue to the talk page, I did.

Apparently he thinks my recent edit about the show are not relevant as the show is not cancelled [2]. Even though as I told him I made the edit to show how The CW fares with the production of the show. This is visible from how I avoided mentioning about any potential cancellation talk.

How exactly is talking about the show being expensive and not profitable for the channel, while it doesn't have the right to previous seasons not relevant? Linkin Prankster (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually discussing (which is the actual point of WP:BRD, and also WP:STATUSQUO).

I don't think this comment is relevant outside of the renewal/cancellation decision. I'm not even sure it is directly "production", as it is about the broadcast network rather than the series itself. But I could see how it becomes relevant in regards to the renewal/cancellation decision. So my preference would be to keep this out until renewal/cancellation is decided, and then it can be added back if it is shown to be relevant in that decision.

But other editors may feel differently, so I would like to see some other opinions on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know well neither BRD and STATUSQUO are policies. And you're not going to own this article. What's ironic is you could discuss yourself but chose not to. This isn't an article about your preferences, please don't mention that here. The comment is about the series since it addresses the price tag and the production part. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, so? – They're "best practices" regardless. Second, I actually don't care what you and I think – I care what other editors of this article think: if they think this addition is good, it will stay. If they agree with me, it may stay out, but maybe for just 1–2 weeks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not perfect. You tried to use these "best practices" as method to WP:OWN this article. That isn't going to work. You don't get to decide what stays or doesn't. Consensus does. Since others reverted me, I won't edit war. But you can't be allowed to assume bad faith and wanting this site to operate per your wishes. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "WP:OWN", but I don't think it means what you think it means. I'm the one asking for more opinions on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You only started asking for opinions when you were reverted the first time and realized you can't do what you want. And asking for consensus is a common way to impose one's preferred edits on low-intensity articles which don't have many eyeballs. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what is called "revisionist history" (with a side of WP:ASPERSIONS and bad faith, which you accused me of, but which only you have been demonstrating) – But I am going to drop this with you, because it is clear you are one of those editors who isn't interested in a reasonable discussion.

We'll just have to see if any one else comments on the merits of the question. But you and I are done here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic given you cast aspersion on me and accused me of demands very quickly, all over me saying "please don't revert". [3] Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:BRD clearly states: BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory. It says it's optional, but links to policies. Just because it's "optional" does not give you the right to revert ad infinitum because you claim you are right. Amaury • 21:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with IJBall on his talk page. He reverted the same times as me, so you should also criticize him. Anyway I already stopped reverting and have started a discussion on the article talk page. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As per WP:BLANKING, he is allowed to do this. Your edit warring is strictly in regards to this page. Amaury • 21:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant he reverted on this article itself, not his talk page. Per WP:3RRNO his behaviour doesn't fall under an exception for reverting repeatedly. It's still edit warring. He has reverted twice. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I talked with IJBall on his talk page. He reverted the same times as me, so you should also criticize him. Emphasis mine. If you were talking about the article. then make that clear. You don't have to break WP:3RR to be edit warring, and that applies to everyone. If you had both continued, you both could have been warned. And I'm not saying by me. Another user or an administrator could have seen this and decided to issue warnings. Anyway, the difference for you is that you went against established WP:CONSENSUS, which currently does not support what you want added to the article. Amaury • 21:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would think I don't know simple policies about talk pages, when I know about BRD, 3RRNO and STATUSQUO. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to include on the Production section right now because it is not canceled nor renew yet. The article is not even explicitly talking about this TV series in particular. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include it because of any potential cancellation, it was to show how expensive the show is and how CW fares with its production. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that the series has been cancelled, I have restored Linkin Prankster's info, though I have edited some, as the comments about "not owning prior seasons" doesn't apply to Gotham Knights, but to other series. But the general thrust of the comments have be restored, using THR piece as the source, as they are now directly relevant to the show's cancellation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection since The CW officially canceled Gotham Knights, it is relevant now. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The critical section is out of date

The show dropped points on both RT and MC.