Talk:List of Arrow episodes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comicbook.com

Recently editors have been sourcing through Comicbook.com, which is a fansite, and therefore not a verifiable source. Grant it, fansites are allowed when they are reporting exclusives, but most citing through the site here is non-exclusives (like the current citation for episode #404). Am I missing something? Or are editors just neglecting/ignorant of the regulation. LLArrow (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comicbook.com is not an unreliable source or fansite, like CBM. It's perfectly acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well when I first started editing Wikipedia, I used it once to cite and I was quickly jumped on by three separate editors, informing me that it was not acceptable in any form. So It would be most appreciated if someone would provide official confirmation of some sort (if it exist). LLArrow (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know who would have said that. I've only ever come across very few instances where the article is questionable from them. Majority of the time, it is perfectly fine. And regardless, they are reporting on Guggenheim's announcement, but as I said in my edit summary, he didn't tweet the pic, rather a url to it, which is at a link shortener site, that can't be added to Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but still doesn't officially confirm anything. LLArrow (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Season article creation

The episode list for this show is getting way too extense, I propose the creation of Season articles to better organize the information. Thank you. — Artmanha (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting too intense how? It's just a page of plot summaries. It's three seasons. Per WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages, it is suggested that 80 episodes should be the point where you look to start splitting season pages off (especially when all you have are plot summaries, which are not notable by themselves). We're not there yet (and yes, I'm aware that other pages have split as soon as the first or second season).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While I too agree that that the article would be far more concise and easier to maneuver, by creating individual season articles, waiting the established period of time is favourable for a reason. That being said, I would fully support the creation of the pages. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to wait for there to be 80 episodes to create actual season pages, but there definitely has to be more info than just some plot summaries. There are many season pages on Wikipedia with good examples of the types of info that can be included, and if this is the way you guys wish to go, I suggest that someone starts up a sandbox or draft article modeled on said other pages, to see what we can do. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would and will support a split, but only once I see examples of such pages created in the sandbox of a user, with valid and sourced production, casting, broadcast and reception information, not three pages that are plot only. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is generally why there is a wait for at least 80 episodes, because most shows do not actually have the third-party sources to justify season splits at such a young age. The fact that some individuals choose to follow what part of the MOS they want does not somehow make these pages more notable than they actually are. Most, if not all, of the reviews on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are from the pilot episode. I know, because I've already started going through them for an article on the pilot that I started working on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that this article has become way too long, I have already started working on drafts for the season articles (Draft:Arrow (season 1) and Draft:Arrow (season 2). Since, the general consensus is to wait until 80 episodes have aired, I will refrain from moving them to the mainspace until such time. However, in the meantime these drafts can be expanded upon and drafts for season 3 and 4 could be started. The drafts already started contain (mainly) information taken from other articles, but the season 1 draft contains a lot of new material. Any and all contributions are appreciated, since it is a lot of work for a single person!Oraklebat (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Oraklebat: Those are some great drafts! As Adam said in February, and from what I've seen, there's no policy which demands that we wait until 80 episodes, as many of the articles listed on my user page are series with only several seasons of ~13 episode, and they've been split with the relevant information. Great work, and we hope to see your drafts in the mainspace soon! Alex|The|Whovian 02:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Thank you! I appreciate it Oraklebat (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oraklebat, please be mindful when you say there is a lot of new material. What is "new" is a big plot section, which isn't necessary since we have the episode summaries, and a tracking list of music that is original research. I went over everything with you before, and those things still remain. As I've said before, although you've done a good job organizing the page, it's just stuff taken from the main page and the character page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just went through the drafts and removed the images because they aren't allowed outside the mainspace, plus removed the things Bignole mentioned. And I agree with him about being mindful of what you are doing in "creating" them. "Creating" them is not just copy-pasting the info you need from other existing articles. If you want to see how to make worthwhile season articles, look at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) compared to the main and character pages. But as of now, they are not ready for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I never said it was ready. Quite the opposite, I made myself clear that out is not ready. The new information I was taking about was in the costumes, production, casting and filming sections. The plot however should be relevant and A plot of the season should appear, s every other article for a session of a TV series has (on top of the episode by episode summary.Oraklebat (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The casting information you provided was from an unreliable source. I told you that. The costumes, filming, and production were from other pages. I didn't see anything actually new there. The plot doesn't need to be there. We provide a basic premise of a season, if that, and not an entire plot. Smallville (season 1) doesn't have that, and it is featured and the first real season article that was created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see the changes I recommend you log at the edit history then, I don't know what she to tell you. Another issue I though I would bring up is that as you have said (repeatedly) that a lot of this injunction is in the main article, which prompts the question: Should it be there? Out of a very extensive article. And I will say again, the idea is NOT to move out to the main space now, it's to develop it with as many editors as possible so that it can be ready. And btw, should we move this conversation to the talk page on the specific articles?Oraklebat (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: I know you have a lot more experience that me, but why should we guide ourselves by one article? All articles of season of a TV series follow the same guideline but they are definetely not identical. Take Homeland (season 1 ) (just to give a random example of a different way to do it). Smallville does not have a cast section (which should have, it is extremenly hard to follow the changes in the cast) and the awards section should be in the form of a table. I am not criticizing anybody or anyone's work, but we should arrive to the format which better suits this particular article. I do understand that a plot for the season is unnecessary when we have the episodes synopsis, and I agree on that. My bad. What I do not understand is why @Favre1fan93: deleted all episode numbers. In my opinion it very easily explains and demonstrates the importance of the different cast members. It is not the same Emily Bett Rickards who appeared in 17 episodes than Jessica De Gouw who was in 3. If the problem is sources I can quote imdb.com (and while I'm on the subject of sources I will change the sources in casting to more reliable ones).Oraklebat (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There aren't changes in a cast in a particular season. They would happen before or after a season, and it would be really hard to chart changes in a cast across multiple season pages (that's why we have a character page and a main article). As for episode numbers for characters, it's an irrelevant detail. How many episodes they appear in doesn't serve any purpose. If you were a series regular, then appearing in 20 or 23 doesn't change that fact. It's a trivial detail that doesn't impact a reader's understanding of the subject. Also, it's entirely original research to suggest that someone appearing in less episodes was somehow "more important" to the show. I can show you plenty of examples where less episodes really meant more impactful episodes, and more really just meant "they were cheaper to have appear". Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. It's user edited, just like Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of a season article page, it can be certain episode have a seperate article like the premiere or when the critic review is outstanding. I seen a few other show have that with high acclaimed reviews on the episode? It will take some time to search and find high acclaimed review but it possible, but maybe it best to wait after season 4 and do season article than episode by episode article (UTC)commanderbond007Commanderbond007 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think that would be harder. It's complicated enough to make an article with enough information to be considered relevant on 23 episodes, you won't get less opposition for 23 different articles. You'll actually get more, because they will argue that you have barely any information to be consisdered relevant. Most of the articles for particular episodes of a series don't really meet the standards, but since the editors' interests are closer to stuff like this, they're overlooked. Plus, even to have episode articles you always have season articles that link back to a season article. I have never seen what you're suggesting. We should concentrate on season articles (at least for the time being)Oraklebat (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

S04E01: Should mention funeral/grave.

S04E01 description should note episode ends with Flash arriving late to a funeral, where we see Oliver, in tears, standing over a freshly dug grave. The scene starts with a sub-title of '6 months later.' This portends to be highly significant - as the implication is that Felicity, whom we just saw Oliver ready to propose to, has died. But we don't actually know that, as the front of the gravestone does not appear. (Felicity does appear in the description for the next episode, but NOT in the previews shown with this E01 episode.) BTW ... thanks for being here / maintaining this article. 216.58.116.178 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of original research. We don't know the implication and we don't know that context. Also, unlike the flashbacks, we don't if this will be a driving force for the season of it's just a tease for fans. For example, the flashforward in season nine of Smallville was a driving force for the entire season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, the producers have said that someone indeed dies, though they don't know who. At this point, that plot point is more relevant to when it actually happens, not here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Characters in episode descriptions

Just wondering why Felicity doesn't feature in any of the Season 4 episode descriptions? She's a major character and her arc at Palmer Tech is a big plot line this season, not to mention her relationship with Oliver. She should be there. Afan81 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history...seeing as how you're trying to shoehorn her into the plot summaries, mentioning her isn't really necessary for the plot summaries, regardless of her status. DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Season colour schemes

I recently changed the season colour schemes to more accurately match their respective DVD/Blu-ray cases, as it seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. Not to my surprise it was met with a quick revert. I understand the editors argument that the colour for seasons 1 and 3 are quite similar, but in all honesty it does not matter. The two seasons are not directly chronological in nature, therefore there is no issue with differentiation. Following some sort of makeshift standard is desirable when it comes to the colour schemes on television seasons because it keeps petty arguments and debates from arising, similar to the ones above. I am all for following the unspoken standard; changing these schemes to match their marketing material. Please, let me know what you think. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning behind the editing of the colour schemes, but for a show where all of the marketing material is green, this gives little room for contrast between the seasons. Also, given the fact that there isn't any DVD/BluRay covers to go by for Season 3 yet, since the season isn't even half-way through yet. Seasons 1 and 3 may not be directly chronological in nature, but there should be at least some contrast between the two. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is most definitely some contrast between the two. The first is tinged with a dark blue and gray, while the third has a hue of gloomy green. You are completely inaccurate stating that all of the marketing material for the show is green. There are several posters with not a hint of the colour other than the font used for the title. While technically the third seasons DVD cover has not been revealed, in way it has. The past two seasons have used a variation of the official season posters as the cover art for the DVD/Blu-ray. With the third seasons official poster revealed before the commencement, it is not a leap to presume it will be used for the forthcoming cover. Even if it is not, it is the only official marketing material released for the season so far. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we went by the DVDs for this show then they would be identical every season. There was no noticeable difference in the color scheme of the DVD/Blu ray boxes (black and green). If anything, we should pick a couple of shades of green (maybe have black) to work with (all that match the WP:COLOR setup). I don't necessarily like the use of blue and red, because they are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the show itself. To me, this will ultimately lead to unnecessary changes from editors (both registered and not) that feel that it should match the DVD set--which, as I stated, are identical anyway. You cannot go by a poster, because there are multiple posters for each season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, while there's ordinarily more than one poster for other series, Arrow is unique in that it only has one official poster mid-season. At least that has been the case up til this point. If you look at the colours I selected it was through careful judgment and comparison that I arrived at them. All of the shades I used can be found in official material from the selected season. I absolutely have come to agree that the red and blue do not accurately reflect the series or seasons, which is why I initiated change. However, I do not believe we should leave the choice of colour to any one editor. We should pull the scheme from whatever identifiable colour we can grab from the seasons DVD art and rid all opinion. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The season DVD art is green and black. Unless you're going to try and identify one of the various colors that exist (They aren't a scheme of colors, they are merely the colors of clothing), then your scheme is green and black.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pulling from the borders of the cases. The colour for season 1 is derived from the clouds/debris in the foreground, for season 2, the light that shines on the cast, season 3 the atmosphere. All of these choices have a staple in common; they are the most prominent differentiating colour available. Again, it may seem that I'm grasping for proverbial straws, but the colours correspond with the covers nicely, and they differ sufficiently from season to season. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We are still having a healthy discussion about this, but I still would just like to make everyone aware of WP:DEW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have the boxes, and I've stared at them side by side. You're arbitrarily picking spots in the image to identify a color and then assuming that it's a "scheme". There is no discernible color scheme in the foreground (the only actual scheme is that of the borders). To suggest a scheme exists would be purely opinion based on your own photoreceptors. Again, this is because you're picking items you've personally identified as important and then attaching a color to them. You cannot call that a scheme. I mean, first and foremost, you cannot have a "scheme" with just one color. By it's very definition, it's the use of multiple colors in a design. The color scheme of "Arrow" is black and green. It's the same every season. Given that every other show page that uses the DVD art for their "scheme" is using the border, we cannot just shift to a randomly chosen aspect of the image itself and call that the color "scheme" for the season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 your warning of WP:DEW is completely unwarranted here. Not one person has reverted even twice. Bignole we absolutely should shift to a, not, randomly chosen aspect of the image, when we run into a scenario such as the one Arrow is in. You are putting way to much emphasis and attention on the word "scheme". I'm merely using it has a substitute for "overall colour". I never said that what I say goes. Anyone can find a colour in the individual season box art; and bring it here. We should all have a vote as to the colours chosen, but the choices must come from somewhere official, and not just pulled from thin air out of someones head. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall color or color "scheme", it still amounts to green and black for "Arrow". This is why I go back to my original suggestion of a couple of variations of green to fit with the actual theme of the show and leave it at that. Then we're not staring at box art and trying to identify generally indiscernible colors to use as our theme for the episode tables. Not every show is going to have different colors for different seasons. Most pages either stick to a basic scheme for the page, or they go the route that Alex reverted to and arbitrarily assign colors to each season. Personally, I hate that look because it has no rhythm or reason behind what the color should be. At the same time, I don't like the idea of just picking something in the actual cover art to justify a color choice. To me, that is no more rational than randomly assigning a color.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it not? You are taking an official colour and applying it to the article, in turn making the page slightly more credible. We can't have someone pick a bunch of random shades of green, because that will be a choice/opinion, with people bound to clash over it. We should take a shade from the individual seasons box art the is heavily predominant. Something that is widely done throughout other like articles on Wikipedia. I too dislike the current arbitrary set up, which is why I'll continue to push this issue. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what you're doing though, you're picking a random shade that YOU see. I don't see the shade of colors you chose as being prominent colors on the box art. So, in essence it still comes down to a "choice" of what color to use. People are going to clash no matter what because not everyone sees in the same color palette (it's based on people's receptors). You're seeing shades of color in the box art that are not the same shade to me, or at least they are not as prominent. Thus, instead of trying to just guess as to what color to use, we should stick to a basic formula setup to pick the colors. One that is not requiring people to all see the same shade to understand the theme being used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this idea may be optimal, if, we can get a some form of consensus on the colours to be used. Perhaps you could bring some options to this page to choose from. Or I could, if you'd prefer. My goal is just to cut down on inevitable reversion as much as we can. The best way to do that is with full disclosure on the Talk page and consensus. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say bringing in some options would be good. If you want, you could set up a basic table with generic info that only really highlights that colored headers. Then we can see comparison wise what would be best. We can also verify them against WP:COLOR to make sure that they are appropriate for visually impaired readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Season 1	Season 2	Season 3
Army green       Color coordinates Hex triplet #4B5320 sRGBB (r, g, b) (75, 83, 32) HSV (h, s, v) (69°, 61%, 33%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (34, 30, 95°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)	Bottle green       Color coordinates Hex triplet #006A4E sRGBB (r, g, b) (0, 106, 78) HSV (h, s, v) (164°, 100%, 42%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (39, 36, 155°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)	Islamic Green       Color coordinates Hex triplet #009900 sRGBB (r, g, b) (0, 153, 0) HSV (h, s, v) (120°, 100%, 60%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (55, 85, 128°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

@Bignole: Not sure if this is what you had in mind, but here it is. What do ya think? Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I saw your post but kept forgetting to respond. I think that should do. I don't personally like the Army green, but at the end of the day, everyone's not going to be happy with every color. At least this should keep with the general color theme of the show. Good job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've checked these colours across a number of devices on my network using different browsers and monitors and I'd give these colours the thumbs up. I agree with Bignole that everyone's not going to be happy with every colour, but these seem a reasonable choice. While it's a bit early, I'd suggest coming up with a colour to be used in season 4 when and if it happens. That way we don't have to go through the process of forming consensus again. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I second the idea of finding a season 4 color. I don't think we need to wait for official confirmation to determine what color we'll use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Season 4
Kombu Green       Color coordinates Hex triplet #354230 sRGBB (r, g, b) (53, 66, 48) HSV (h, s, v) (103°, 27%, 26%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (26, 12, 118°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Here is a fourth season recommendation. I agree that the Army shade is less than desirable, but it gets the distinguishing job done. Glad you guys approve. Cheers and a prosperous 2015, LLArrow (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Season 4
UP Forest Green       Color coordinates Hex triplet #014421 sRGBB (r, g, b) (1, 68, 33) HSV (h, s, v) (149°, 99%, 27%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (24, 29, 139°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

What about this? The Kombu looks more grey than green (to me).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Either are suitable in my eyes. LLArrow (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for the Army Green (in my eyes), but I'm glad all involved came to a solution. For season 4, I would go with UP Forest Green over the Kombu. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think its now time to change the color scheme to match the tab that is shown on the spine for each dvd instead of the covers? 72.64.207.76 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No. The colours do not meet with compliance. The current colours do. Please leave them be. LLArrow (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Season Pages

Can we finally create one now that season four is airing cause the page might be too big one the summary for most of the eps are filled or is it too early.72.64.207.76 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous discussion on this topic. Alex|The|Whovian 23:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Home Media

Recently Alex changed the home media section so that each season has its own individual table. While visually they look nice, my problem with them is that 1) They contain unnecessary information (aspect ratio, number of disc, etc.) that are irrelevant. We're not here to sell a product. 2) Instead of a single list of basic features found across all the releases, we know of features for every one. Again, we're not here to sell a product and don't need to know that there is a gag reel for each release. 3) What happens if this show goes 6 or 7 seasons? We'd have a table for each, and each one is larger than the table we use to house all the release information now. I don't think that they are functional for an LoE page, and honestly even for a season page that information is better left as prose because it's not a lot for a table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What MOS (which noted, are guidelines, and not necessarily policies) dictates that the special features cannot be included in home media release tables? MOS:TV#Home media states "Features listed about a DVD should be presented in prose format, with focus only going to unique features", so I can understand the possible aversion to the list within the table. "Listing of every episode with a commentary track or deleted scenes is discouraged" is enforced, with only a general listing as to the commentary tracks and/or deleted scenes, and not individual entries. "Instead, focusing on special featurettes that discuss something unique about the season would be appropriate" is again enforced, listing the special features that are unique to each season, which opposes your false statement of "not to just start listing every special feature for every box set". I also don't see the reason behind reverting a valid edit, then making a discussion (unless the typical reason is BRD, as it always is). Alex|The|Whovian 13:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be what I'm referring to. We don't need to document every gag reel or basic commentary. You don't need to say "gag reel" every time. It's irrelevant and doesn't add anything to the page. We're not here to sell a product, so it doesn't matter that there is a gag reel or commentary. Again, regardless of all of that, it still contains other useless info like ratio and number of discs, and you certainly didn't address the fact that one table takes up more space than the single table that housed all of the release dates before that. I started a discussion because I wasn't sure that you would. Yes, you can look at BRD, but YOU don't have to be the one to start the discussion for BRD. Your edit yes was in good faith and "valid", but I would argue as to whether it is the best way of displaying the information. Other than visually being snazzier, it's generally filled with either unnecessary, irrelevant info, or just a bunch of empty wasted white space with everything so spaced a part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tentatively scheduled date

I was very surprised to see that a "tentatively scheduled" air date (according to TV Guide) was included on the upcoming episodes list, and I removed it. It was restored with a two-prong argument: one, that all advance dates are tentative, and two, that it's a reliable source and verifiable.

If the article had said "scheduled" I would have had no concerns: this is a set plan. However, they went one step further and added "tentatively". To me, this is a reliable source saying that we have preliminary information that has not yet been finalized (and we've been told that it hasn't been), so we are responsibly not stating that it's definite. And if they are being that careful, we should not be listing that date based on their information. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Tentatively scheduled" means "scheduled for now", and since we constantly update information as we learn it, I don't see why we can't add a tentative and reliable date now, and update it later if needs be, rather than deciding for ourselves that it will change before we even know that it will for sure. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Tentatively scheduled" is highly subject to change and falls under WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A tentatively scheduled date is not "almost certain to take place" and so it should not be included. That is different to a date where it is supported by a press release,[1] as that means that the airing is almost certain. Updating based on tentative information can be problematic at best. For example, an editor decided to update Restaurant: Impossible based on tentative information he gleaned from Twitter posts and local newspapers during production. As a result he made 155 edits for a mere 8 episodes (he actually listed 9 episodes at first), while the previous season, using more reliable sources, took a mere 25 edits. That article was therefore filled with speculative content for 5 months because an editor "constantly update[d] information as [he] learn[ed] it". It's best to wait for reliable sources in which we can have a high degree of confidence. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of RTitle content and citation ?

@LLArrow:: I'm not complaining, just curious to understand the logic ... Why was the RTitle parameter content and citation removed in this edit? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 07:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the episode had aired, and hence the episode became the primary source for the information listed. Note how none of the past episodes have the RTitle citation either. Per Template:Episode list, the "RTitle" parameter's documentation states it is an "unformatted parameter that can be used to add a reference after "Title", or can be used as a "raw title" to replace "Title" completely. Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Note that only "future episodes" are noted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What Alex said. LLArrow (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I learned something that I didn't know. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis too long?

I'm confused about how the person who labeled some of the episode synopsis too long while leaving others alone. It appears that most of the labeled ones are the same length as the unlabeled ones. What criteria was used? (Also, they look about the same length as synopsis for other shows.) On the other hand, there's a good argument to be made that this article should be about the show in general, and separate articles set up for details about each of the seasons. It does seem strange that there's so little about the show in general, and so much a detailed synopsis of each episode.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TVPLOT, episode summaries should not be more than 200 words. All the ones tagged are over that limit, even if just by a few words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The lengths were determined using a script I created at User:AlexTheWhovian/script-plotlength. You're more than welcome to use it to verify that the plot lengths are, indeed, over the suggested limit. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Green Arrow episode flashforward

@AlexTheWhovian, why shouldn't we include that flashforward in the plot? and you can't expect anyone to search all diffs in the talk page history to find the discussion. so either restore it or give a brief explanation. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As it says in the note: read the talk page archives. I never said read the diffs, just the archives. There's already been an entire discussion over it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

i read the discussion. my edit doesn't contain original research and i wrote what was exactly shown or implied in the scene. and since it's an important scene, it should be mentioned. it doesn't matter if it's repeated in the future of the season. we're not teasing anything here. the MOS expects us to mention important plot points. --HamedH94 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote, i did read the archive and i didn't find the arguments convincing. if you got a new point of view, i'd like to hear it. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94 If you didn't find the arguments convincing, then you should start a new topic thread. DonQuixote (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote, this is a section meant for that. and you're the one who's shown objection to the edit. so you should state your argument. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not how disagreements with content on Wikipedia works. There is a current and holding consensus on the fact that that particular section should not be included, and that's the way it stays until opposing editors start a new discussion with new and valid arguments on why it should not be included. A consensus doesn't simply stop because one editor disagrees with it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@‎AlexTheWhovian, i did present my argument in the second subthread; but you didn't respond. --HamedH94 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(No need to ping me, I've got the page on watchlist.) You stated that think you think it's an important scene, you believe it should be included. That's not a new argument. The scene is not relevant to the plot of that particular episode. The MOS states that we should not list every detail, and obviously, especially not those that do not contribute to the events of that particular episode. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

there's no such thing as important and unimportant. it's about more or less important. the MOS suggests a maximum size of 200 words for each episode. if a summary is larger, we need to start cutting less important ones until it's the recommended size. and my edit containing that scene doesn't pass the threshold. so there's no need to cut it. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where any such argument about removing it due to size was put forward. I don't believe there was. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

and you got no argument proving that scene to be unimportant. the MOS's suggestion to cut less important scenes is indeed meant to avoid the plot summary getting too long. take a look at WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's not important. I am saying that it is not relevant to the events of the episode itself. If the scene is not included in the summary, do you still understand the episode the same? Yes. Hence, it does not relate directly to the episode's plot. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

it's a series, mr. whovian. the scene may not be relevant to the events of that episode, but it surely will be to the future episodes. and the MOS doesn't say anything about removing irrelevant scenes. it's about less important ones. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why we're bolding names here; are you perhaps saying that because Whovian is my name, I can't speak on other topics? Back to the discussion: If the scene is relevant in future episodes, then list the scene in said future episodes. This has always, and perhaps always will be, been the local consensus. Guidelines are not love and life. Articles run by multiple consensus' between many editors as well. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"If the scene is relevant in future episodes, then list the scene in said future episodes." there's nothing in MOS that supports it. and since I'm opposing it with valid arguments for which you don't respond, there isn't a consensus, which is not based on the majority's view, but the quality of the argument. see its page. and I bolded your name cos a whovian, of all people, should know how a series works and how episodes are related. --HamedH94 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to all of your arguments. Just because you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean there's automatically not a consensus. Even per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. As I said: the MOS is not the be-all-end-all; local consensus' also exist between editors in each WikiProject. The idea of not listing scenes that do not affect the episode's plot, and hence are not relevant enough to be added, falls under this category. (Also, that last bit about being a Whovian made zero sense to this discussion.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I was involved in the previous discussions about the flashforward but I wouldn't have completely agreed with its exclusion then. However, I do now agree that the flashforward is really unimportant in the episode and that there is a standing consensus not to include it. I've just finished watching all of the seasons of Game of Thrones, and my wife has now started watching it. Since she started, I've noticed a lot of things said in earlier episodes that are like the flashforward here. They set up subsequent events but are really unimportant to the plot, as is this flashforward, so I see no need to include it. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"the MOS is not the be-all-end-all" if you wanna make an exception to what's written in MOS, you need a rationale, which you haven't provided. the flashforward IS part of the episode and the MOS doesn't suggest removing flashforwards. --HamedH94 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT does state that for episodic summaries, the way to give the summary is in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points and/or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section. Season story arcs and main plot points. This particular scene falls under neither of these categories for this specific episode. It was not a main plot point for the episode, and it was far from a season story arc, as the scene is featured in the first episode, and then the event itself doesn't happen until towards the end of the season (4x18). Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

that's something completely irrelevant. it says there are two ways to write the plot summary of a tv season. one is to write the whole season like the plot of a film. and one is to write it in a table seaprating episodes, which we use for arrow, while both are used in some articles, like 24 (season 1). what does that have to do with the discussion? even that MOS doesn't say anything about excluding flashforwards. --HamedH94 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is completely relevant. It describes how to write a summary for an episode (as well as, yes, for a reason) when given in a tabular format. You're not going to find anything as specific as "do not include flash-forwards". However, the MOS is a general guideline to (almost) all occurrences that rise - this is one of them. To summarize again, WP:TVPLOT describes the two ways, and when listed in either or both formats, one should give "season story arcs and main plot points". Now, as the one who states that I've ignored your arguments, are you going to respond to AussieLegend's views on the topic? I have also requested other editor's views on this issue at WT:TV. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

in this article, we're using tabular format, which "sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section" not the prose section format, which "gives season story arcs and main plot points " you need practice in reading. and if you think that a part of MOS somehow alludes to excluding flashforwards, feel free to say which part. and aussie didn't say something new, except that his wife has started watching game of thrones, which is irrelevant to the discussion. you think that's "completely relevant" too? --HamedH94 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for other editors to add their opinions to this discussion before continuing forward with you. I've seen how circular and unaccepting you become with editors who disagreew with your own opinions, primarily at Talk:Arrow (season 1), and given that I'm already in another discussion with another such editor, I don't aim to get into yet another such discussion. No offense, I'm sure you understand. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94

you're the one who's shown objection to the edit. so you should state your argument.

I only reminded you that you should discuss it on the talk page and try to change consensus, so, no, I don't have to do anything. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote, when you revert an edit, you sbould get engaged in talking. remember that cycle you proposed? it includes discussion. so if you continue to revert and refuse to talk, you'll be charged with disruptive editing. --HamedH94 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok...here's my "argument". You should stop reverting back-and-forth and instead discuss it on the talk page and gain a consensus. That's basically what my objection was. DonQuixote (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

and if you look at the page history, I waited for about a day after my last comment in the discussion and when I didn't see any response, I assumed alexthewhovian was convinced. then I reverted. wouldn't you have done the same? --HamedH94 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A day is too short a time to expect a response. But other than that, yeah, I probably would have done the same and I probably would have been reverted as well for similar reasons. The next course of action is to try discussing it on the talk page again or start a third opinion or some other type of dispute resolution. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The table may be sectioned off, but it is still a single thing, and should really be written as if the reader can read it all at once. That means you don't have to set up stuff that you have already introduced earlier in the table, and likewise you don't have to introduce stuff unless it becomes important later in the table. This is a cool teaser for the audience, but it doesn't actually affect the plot until later in the season, and since the whole season is being summarised together, there is no reason to introduce it earlier. If the episode had its own article, then it would makes sense to include it I think, but not here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason it isn't there is because at that moment in time, it's not relevant. It's a teaser. We're not in the business of teasing readers. We just write what is essential to understanding the plot of THAT episode. The flashforward is in no way essential to that episode. It's not even a driving force for the season, like the flashforward moment for Smallville was in season nine. It's a tease that they admit they did not even know then who was going to be killed off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, adamstom.97 and Bignole on this matter: it should not be mentioned in "Green Arrow". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinkage. Again

Yes, we need to reference where a reliable source has connected a character from the tv series to the comics. Saying that we have a page that lists the characters and the relevant referencing and therefore don't need to cite a reference is incorrect; we have several different pages where the topic of the Sherman tank is referenced. We don't fail to reference wikifications simply because one exists on another page - and not even the page being wikilinked to. If a statement or wikification is question, it has to be referenced. Simple as that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the wikilinkage connecting the Prometheus character from the series to the one in the comics, as per this reference, wherein Arrow executive producer Marc Guggenheim has said:

"Arrow executive producer Marc Guggenheim has said that this Prometheus is a different character from the comic book version. He specifically told Entertainment Weekly, "[Prometheus is] a new character, someone who fits into the theme of legacy this year that’s going to be driving all of our characters, including the big bad.”

So, it stays out, as per the words of the showrunner explicitly saying they ain't the same. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddy buddy, overly-familiar nonsense

I've twice had to remove the calling of the main character by his first name. Its fan-forum-y, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I understand that there are more than one person named Queen, and Lance, and I've taken pains to differentiate them, but using the character's first name seems...in-universe-y and overly fannish. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that there was a discussion on this at the talk page for the Season 1 article for the series. If memory serves me well, WP:COMMONNAME was he consensus of the guideline to abide by. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that you are mis-applying the guideline. We aren't talking about the article title, and using the character's surname doesn't interfere with the immediate understanding of who the summaries are talking about. When in disguise, its Green Arrow. When out of disguise, it should be the character's surname, Queen. This helps to avoid the fannish, unprofessional appearance to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Go read the discussion. I'm informing you, not misapplying anything. Consensus means multiple editors. ~~

I don't disagree with your argument that going by first names is a bit fannish. But, look over this entire article. His name has been given as "Oliver" throughout, not "Queen". The only exceptions have been with his other identities as Arrow/Green Arrow. And, this has been done with multiple editors for years. That's consensus as far as I'm concerned. Now, if you want to change over 100+ synopses, be my guest. I ain't doing it. Otherwise, leave well enough alone. Ooznoz (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz

Right on, I will do do all of the synopses. If you could self-revert your last edit, I will finish it by tomorrow. Sound like a plan? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, as you do not have consensus, and if you go ahead, I will personally revert you. I'll even link you to the discussion on what names should be used: basically the entirety of Talk:Arrow (season 1)/Archive 1; original thread and RFC. Read it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify my position a bit. Like I said, I don't disagree with your argument. But, by that same token, I also don't mind that he's referred to as "Oliver". I just don't think it's that big a deal. It's been this way for years, as I said, and changing it that radically, at this point, is unnecessary and pointless. But, if you feel it's vital, and if others also sign on, then go for it.

Also, are you going to go after other shows in the Arrowverse: Flash, LOT, and now Supergirl? Really, what is the point? These are CW shows, which have a more soap-opery feel to them, so the use of first names doesn't feel out of place. And the usage is generally excepted, by me as well as practically all other readers and editors.

Again: leave well enough alone here. I really don't believe it's worth your time, effort and energy over such an issue. But to coin a phrase, I could be wrong. Let others weigh in as well, and get a real consensus going. Ooznoz (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz

Just to clarify, the RfC close was The general consensus is that the principle of WP:COMMONNAME should be followed, even though the relevant policy is a naming convention. This will likely mean most characters are referred to by first name and others by last name.[2] Oliver Queen is most commonly referred to as "Oliver", so that is how he should be referred to in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To argue that it's in-universe to call someone by their first name in a fictional show summary, or "fannish", would imply that they should be treated like real people. They are not real people. Even if they were, COMMONNAME would tell you that you go by what is the most common usage. He is more often than not just called Oliver. In the realm of fictional characters, their first names are typically the ones most readers are going to know and easily follow, with exceptions to the rule (Damien Darhk is more commonly known as simply Darhk and not Damien).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offering this view based upon treating fictional characters like real people. I am speaking of the tone of the article, which seems overly casual and - as I've noted before - fanboy-like. This is an encyclopedia, not a Arrowverse wiki (and seriously, the moron who came up with Arrowverse deserves to be beaten with a grammar book). A very smart gu y wrote that "FORMAL encourages the use of formal tone for all articles; and it doesn't exclude fiction. the essay discourages colloquialism, which i interpret as using first names, aliases and nicknames". I interpret the use of first names, when surnames can be used without detracting understanding or flow, as unprofessional and buddy-buddy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Except, you're battling consensus to use COMMONNAME (a policy) over an essay that talks about formal writing. While I agree that an article should be written with formal writing, I separate character names when it comes to fiction. Using a character's most common name does not make something "buddy buddy" or informal. If we used nicknames, like "Ollie" or "Dig" for Oliver and Diggle, which they use in the show, then I would completely agree with you. But you are saying that a fictional character's most commonly known name is less important than using a formal surname when we know it? I don't subscribe to that theory for how to use FORMAL, which in this case is the counter to you not subscribing to the theory that COMMONNAME would apply here as well. The argument in that discussion boils down to some other examples. We don't call Madonna by her surname of Ciccone, even though that's her formal name. The same is true for countless other real life people that go by stage names, but their legal names are different. The same would be true here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oliver is his name. Why make a fuss out of something so insignificant? "Ollie" and "Dig," I can argue would be fanboyish, but not Oliver. That's his name. Jack, do you have the same problem with using Barry over Allen, too? Because I also see nothing wrong with using "Barry" either. Just because the first name is being used doesn't make it overly casual. Using "Queen" and "Allen" just seems too formal to me. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You've both presented good arguments. I still think it could be more formal, and I think that COMMONNAME has been bent a little further than it was designed for, but it seems that there are people on the lookout for creeping fanboyishness. Okay. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Time for season pages

The synopsis for all the eps so far is making this page way too long.S hannon434 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to create drafts of such pages, by all means, do so. Be sure to read the multiple past conversations on this topic first. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the length of the plot summaries themselves is irrelevant because they are (mostly) in line with the MOS and they aren't going to be shorter or longer on a season page. It's really about having information to support a season page. Other than season 1 (which would largely duplicate the main page), there isn't a ton of real world commentary on the show as a whole. I do agree that some drafts might be in order because we can easily start working on them and get them developed and see what we can do. We did that with Oliver Queen (Arrow). When it was ready, we moved it. That said, just checking and they already exist (Draft:Arrow (season 1), Draft:Arrow (season 2)....these do not Draft:Arrow (season 3) and Draft:Arrow (season 4)). Looking at them, like I said, they mostly duplicate information found on other pages (main page, character list page), and would need to be cleaned up and expanded upon with real world commentary. Then we'll need to trim the main page and some of the others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll just add that season articles don't actually make the page shorter. In fact they increase the size because we transclude them, which is why seasons 1-20 had to be split from List of the Simpsons episodes to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20). --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried creating a page for season 1 months ago but it all got reverted back to redirect.S hannon434 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I was searching on Wikipedia and one episode of Season 4 premiere "Green Arrow" been made as a individual page but it was not linked here. Did anyone here make it? -Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.174.72 (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Does it need more details?S hannon434 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, individual season articles need to be more than just the episode tables. Ideally they should have production and reception info, etc. Same for episode articles - they need more than just a summary of the episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: Create the article in the draft namespace, and when done, gain approval and consensus for it, then move it to the article namespace. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Already finished a draft article after I gathered much of the early details as I can. S hannon434 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Season articles need an episode table. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Besides, it's probably best to work on season pages for previous seasons before working on one that hasn't even premiered yet. Per the discussion on my talk page, the drafts for the first two seasons only need a few more minor edits to make them article-worthy. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well most of the season 5 stuff has been coming in lately while I was updating the draft article.S hannon434 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Arrow (season 1) is now a valid article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Arrow (season 2) is now a valid article. Draft:Arrow (season 3) created. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Draft:Arrow (season 4) and Draft:Arrow (season 5) now have enough info to become valid articles. Draft:Arrow (season 3) still does not have production info so not certain if it's ready. — Brojam 18:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrow (season 5) now a valid article. Brojam (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I've no idea what sort of sense it makes to have given precedence to Season 5 over Seasons 3 and 4. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. This seems like there was a rush just to get something into the mainspace. There is actually very limited information on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And Season 3's draft has been requested to become an article, when the only information under Production is a statement about the renewal. Brojam, I would suggest you revert both of these back to the draft space. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the rush is connected to the ratings tables, because if you removed those, then those pages are largely casting and episode summaries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And, if there is any production information on the page, it is just copy/pasted content we already have on other Arrow-related articles, not new, additional info I feel is necessary to warrant an inclusion (season 4's article in particular). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The season article has been moved back to the draft space, and the table restored to this page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Flash episodes#Remove production codes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Flash episodes#Remove production codes. - Brojam (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)