Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014

There are a few spelling and grammar mistakes that I would like to change.

86.169.218.118 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
If it is additional information, please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand airing

Starts showing October 9 on TV2. Would add but article been locked 122.102.109.166 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Need a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] 122.102.109.166 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

In Broadcast->Critical Reception typo "webiste" should be "website". Ian Lumsden (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Episode 107 -- "Power Outage"

I noticed that an editor added the plot concerning William Tockman/The Clock King in the "Power Outage" episode summary; with another then reverting it, claiming that the storyline hasn't any note worthy bearing on the overall series. While I see the editors point, I believe some mention of the characters presence in the episode should be included, given the sizable amount of public marketing affecting the character. However, I'd like to hear others opinions on the matter. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Marketing doesn't impact episode summary though. The reality is that he barely appears in the episode and is handled by Iris as soon as he tries to escape. His appearance is like 3 minutes worth of episode. The focus was Barry, Farooq, and Dr. Wells. That had more immediate impact. Given that we're already at the word count limit, this isn't a complex episode to warrant a higher word count, it was best to leave out the least important aspect of the episode. Even if it featured a villain from Arrow. He didn't directly impact Barry. Before someone says so, I get that the word count is a "guideline", but if you start overstretching the counts just to include less relevant info, simply because of marketing, or who the character is, then you get into a situation where people will want to include everything. Word counts will continue to grow and we'll have a page that goes against the basic core principles of the MOS. These are 42 minute episodes, not 90 minute movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Could we possibly just add "Elsewhere, William Tockman holds Joe and Iris hostage at the police station"? Give the mention, but does not flesh out the whole mini story line. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to explain what happened afterward. Otherwise you're left wondering what happened. That was why, to me, it was a small item in the episode that did not impact the overall storyline. You don't miss anything with it being gone, when you're just trying to get a basic understanding of the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Just thought I'd suggest it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point Bignole. I suppose Tockman must be omitted. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thawne's dark secret

The line "Thawne's past is a mystery and he harbors a dark secret" is almost verbatim taken from the cited article, but that article is a press piece that came out before the series and doesn't cite its own sources. It's entirely possible that the "dark" descriptor was the journalist's and that he was simply looking at a press kit that described Thawne as having a secret (his relationship with Iris). Of course, it's easy to assume that he has a dark secret (or will) and that he is, in fact, Zoom. However, we haven't yet had any confirmation of that in the series or from any authoritative source that I've heard of... -Miskaton (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reference support, and the name is not exact. Livingston 12:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Other media vs. Shared universe

@AlexTheWhovian: If you wan't to grow up, stop being juvenile, and actually discuss your non-sensical point of view, then please do so, otherwise, stop changing the header back to other media. To help you out, I am going to explain to you my point of view:

• The other media section is for other media related the series. Arrow is another series related to Flash, but it is not another media, because it is the same media - two television series are both television series, neither are not television series, so they are both the same media. Therefore, Arrow should go under a shared universe header, just like how Agents of SHIELD has a shared universe section where info on connections to other entities that share the same universe can go.
• Yes the comic are other media to the series, and they can definitely go in their own other media section if you want, I just didn't think that would be necessary since they can also fit under another header that is already there - the shared universe header. This is because the comic exists within the same universe as the series, set between the first and second episodes. Your rationale for this not being the case is that they feature the same characters, so they can't share the same universe. By that logic, as I said, Iron Man and Iron Man 2 can't share a universe because they star the same character(s). Other examples would be that Agents of SHIELD does not share a universe with Agent Carter because they share a character. Man of Steel and Batman v Superman cannot share a universe because they share characters. This makes no sense, because it is untrue. The comic features the same characters, because it is in the same universe as the series. If this is too hard for you to grasp, then it can have its own other media section, but Arrow must still be moved from the other media section to a shared universe section.

Now it's your turn. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you both need to take a few minutes and calm down. This silly debate has caused you both to violate the 3 revert rule. So, for the time being, just leave the page as it is (and Arrow for that matter) and let's talk this out here. As for the setup, you could technically have both. Smallville uses "Other media" as the main header, with the subheaders contains the comics, books, spin-offs, etc. So, theatrically, we could have "Other media" --> "Spin-off" (Or "Shared universe") -->Digital comic --> Promotional tie-ins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There currently seems to be a battle going on regarding the title of one of the sections. I am not taking a position as to who is right and wrong, but why don't we discuss the reasoning for each of your positions here, instead of going back and forth on it? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 14:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bignole is spot on, this matter is a rather petty one to justify violating WP:3RR. Adamstom.97 you are also in violation of Wikipedia's policy on editor etiquette. Please be civil and proper when engaging with other editors, this isn't kindergarten. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't think it is a big deal, I disagree with your accusation of poor etiquette and childness, as I am fighting to have a civil and calm discussion with a user who continuously makes demands and accusations based on flawed logic, and seems to be against actually discussing any matter. I do think that this argument is "petty", but I also don't agree that the matter is petty - the headings of a page, especially a page as most likely to be visited as one about a currently airing and popular television series, are very prominent, and if they are incorrect or misleading, then that is a serious matter. I have laid out my reasoning for making the change multiple times, but the other user has made no attempt at returning the gesture, instead being stubborn. One example is when they took my explanation for why this should be done, and turned it back on me, which not only didn't support their argument in any way, but also came across as very self-entitled and snobbish. I completely understand wanting to stand by your point of view, but no one is above anyone else here, and no one WP:OWNs Wikipedia. Another point is that the user thanked me for starting this discussion, but has made no move to reply to me or give any indication that they intend to. If they don't care enough to discuss the issue, then what was that huge mess with the reverting for? This really bothers me because it isn't the first time this editor has tried to edit war with me based on poor logic, and has been unwilling to cooperate by discussing the issue and listening to logic and consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Hamill reprising his role as "The Trickster" in Episode 17

Think it's safe to add this information to the page. Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:595A:826A:2548:8DF4 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really a place for that info on this page, its already mentioned on the cast list page.Spanneraol (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Episodes out of order

An editor recently added properly sourced info for an upcoming episode of the series, however there are six intermediate episodes left untitled, blank space, or as currently shown, airing right after 10. This is simply not acceptable in my eyes. Not only is it quite confusing for non indepth perusers, but it is logistically inaccurate. Now the info could be placed elsewhere in the Episodes or Production section, because it is verifiable, but it cannot be added to the list as of now. I don't want to commence an edit war, which is why I'm bringing this here. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind if it is there or if it isn't. I don't think readers are going to be too confused when they see future episodes that have gaps between them. I imagine they could put two and two together and realize that we don't have episode information to the other ones in the season. That said, there are 3 options, and all are cosmetic with no guideline or policy directing them.

1) Leave them as they currently are

2) Add the other episodes up to the last sourced one and have "TBD" in all the cells that have no sourced information

3) Move the information to just below the table, and list it out in prose form until we can fill in the other episodes.

Seems like the most basic solutions to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If readers can't read the pretty obvious episode number which would explain that there are currently missing episode from the table, then that isn't our problem. If we have sourced info about an episode, we should add it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think adding the intermediate episodes, with "TBD" in the appropriate boxes, is the most logistically accurate thing to do. I completely disagree that it is "obvious" that the episode is not 11. When I first glanced at the columns new addition I automatically assumed it was the chronological next episode to air, due to it sitting right under installment number 10. It took me glancing at the entry three times before catching the 16. I just feel if we want to remain utterly factual, there needs to be a change. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are being factual. We may not be aesthetically pleasing when trying to read, but it is factual. :) I'm good with option B. I would say let some more people weigh in before adding them, just in case others don't like that idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I had initially went with somewhat option "B" (without all the TBAs) because I understood your point LLArrow. I also feel that we can not assume a reader will realize the episode is 16 and not 11. I support option B, as that is initially how I intended the info to be presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Having seen option "B" or "2)", which is now in the article, I think it looks awful. Adding five empty entries just for the sake of a single episode name is far from ideal. What I'd like to suggest is something other than the above suggestion: having a "..." line separating episodes 10 and 16: it makes it clear that there's a gap, and minimizes the space being taken up by non-information. I can demonstrate if you'd like. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the aesthetic is less than pleasing, it's logistically sound and accurate. If the episode must be in the table right now, it should stay as is. The only other option I can see is simply plopping the episode info in Production; or as a heading just before the Episode table. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Then take one of those other options. I don't see why it must be in the table right now, given that the episode is a minimum of two months in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Development

@Bignole: I question some of the info you removed from the development section, which you did with the edit summary "removing some info that may have been relevant in the moment, but isn't from a historical perspective". Development sections are supposed to show how a project developed, even if I perspective on events changed later on due to hindsight. See any development section for a film article. Plenty of that stuff could probably be removed or summarised, but we don't do that because we are showing the development. A major one is the pilot order. Yes, it seems redundant to list the pilot order, and then the series order, but it is useful in showing the development of the show to let people know when such milestones were reached. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and revised the section, mainly the second paragraph, and while doing so restored the pilot order date. I agree it's a worthwhile fact, and wonder whether it would have more impact if the first-air dates of the two Arrow episodes with Barry/Gustin (early December) were also given, since the latter was late January. Maybe so, maybe no. I'm not in favor of sections that read "on such-and-such date, X; on subsequent date, Y; on later date, Z; and so on. But important milestones should be noted and given their dated due. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea of a pilot being "ordered" is largely irrelevant. There is not context for the statement, and since the series exists the idea of knowing a pilot was ordered becomes inconsequential. We're not here to list milestones. Wiki is an encylclopedia, and should be written as one. It isn't written as a chronicling of every single event. The average reader is not missing anything by losing the statement, "The pilot was ordered on...". When you write professionally, you don't write sentences that are consistently, "On date...," "on date, this..", "on date, that".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, when there wasn't supposed to be a real pilot at all but a "back-door pilot", that there was ultimately a separate pilot is important, and when they made that decision and ordered said separate pilot thus becomes interesting in the show's Development, since it was a major change in plan. Let's leave the date in there unless a consensus develops to remove it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the statement, "The planned backdoor pilot was cancelled, and the studio opted to make a traditional pilot." already takes care of that. You're basically saying, "They decided to make a pilot", and then immediately follow with "On date Y, they ordered the pilot." It's redundant. We don't need to repeat ourselves with the only discernible difference being that there is a specific date of ordering, that the average reader will not care about because it has no relevance to the overall idea that a pilot was ordered. If there was a significant amount of time between when they decided to do a pilot and when they officially ordered it, then I'd probably be in agreement. There wasn't. It happened pretty much immediately after they decided to do a regular pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Andreeva scoop about the backdoor idea being dropped was November 18; the pilot was confirmed on January 29. That's over two months. Even if they wanted a confirmation from the ratings (which improved a bit when the episodes aired in December), it was still another month and a half before the order was announced. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Which means that it had nothing to do with the ratings and more to do with the exec's personal opinion. The fact that they ordered it 2 months later is hardly a significant amount of time. That's right during the start of the mid-season breaks. If they had waited 6 months, then sure, but they started that process pretty quickly. I imagine that the official pilot waiting until January to be ordered was to see just how well audiences liked him. That's my opinion, mind you, but that doesn't require a citation because in the end there is no reliable sources actually saying why they didn't just ordered right in November. You don't need a date for the order because the prior statement actually acknowledges that they are ordering a pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent copyediting

I have restored @Adamstom.97:'s copyediting work. It reads smoother, and if Bignole has issues with individual pieces of what Adam did, I think s/he should make those changes, instead of wholesale reverting. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Now Bignole is edit-warring over this, demanding it be taken "to the talkpage", after I'd already done so. I would encourage you not to revert again, Bignole. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually ,I did make the changes. Adam reverted my changes. His reads clunky, and contains grammatical issues. I don't know where you find that it is "smoother". Let's actually look at the changes:

• Adams: "Barry ultimately appeared twice in Arrow '​s second season, with the planned backdoor pilot cancelled in favor of a traditional pilot by The CW executives, who had been impressed by early cuts of Barry's first two episodes on Arrow."
• Mine: "Barry ultimately appeared twice in Arrow '​s second season. The planned backdoor pilot was cancelled in favor of a traditional pilot by The CW executives who had been impressed by early cuts of Barry's first two episodes on Arrow."
  • I took an unnecessarily elongated sentences that broke it down into two distinct independent sentences. That flows better than the mouthful that it was changed to.

• Adams: "On May 8, 2014, The Flash was officially picked up as a series, with an initial order of 13 episodes.[14] An additional 3 episodes were ordered in September 2014 following a positive response to newly completed episodes by executives,[15] and 7 more were confirmed the next month for a full 23-episode season."
• Mine : "The Flash was officially picked up as a series on May 8, 2014 with an initial order of 13 episodes.[14] The series then received three additional episodes prior to the show's premiere following a positive reception by executives of newly completed episodes.[15] The CW increased the order to a full 23-episode season on October 21, 2014."
  • Adam institutes this "On Date" setup, that is not the most professional way of writing. It just looks like a ticker of events when you read. This is why I reordered the sentence to have that come later. It flows better when you aren't starting sentences with dates. You also do NOT use numerical values for numbers less than 10. Adam also removes one specific date later in the statement, only to include a more vague date early on. If dates are so important, you'd think that the more specific date would be important to include and not the vague "September 2014" timeframe that tells us little. Again, I broke up an unnecessarily elongated sentence to have crisp independent statements. Any decent copyeditor the League of CopyEditors would have done that very thing.

Just to be clear as well, tag-teaming in a content dispute, even if you've only done it once, is still considered edit warring on your part and bad form. Instead of just coming to the talk page, you're arbitrarily picking a version that itself was a revert from my original edit that cleaned up the section and saying, "No, I like this and you cannot revert it back." That's sounds like we're actually here to make the article better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How is looking at two versions of an article, and noting "I think this one is best", and restoring it "tag teaming in a content dispute"? If you have particular issues with individual pieces of what Adam did, change those, but stop reverting wholesale. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you cannot recognize a content dispute and arbitrarily pick a version, revert yourself, and then say that I cannot change anything. I have already changed it to how I believe is the better version, which is free of grammar issues and better flow. I've pointed this out above, which you are ignoring. You have not said what makes his version better. The only thing he managed to do was insert 1 new date, get rid of another date, and then start connecting independent sentences so that they bordered on run-on. How exactly would you like me to work then? It appears that you're telling me on one hand that I should change the issues that I see, but then tell me that I cannot "revert". The changes were already made, so my "revert" is putting the fixes back in place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into your "us versus them" mentality. I changed a couple of things with which you expressed a concern, and I stand by my view that combining choppy sentences into longer ones reads smoother, in my opinion. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Choppy sentences"? Are you being serious? Just reading them separated flows smoother than the sentences that require you to take a breath in between commas. Your comment is merely a way of trying to be insulting than actually looking at the legitimate claim of separating sentences that have multiple independent clauses in them. Yes, compound sentences are good to have, but you need to know when it is appropriate to stop a sentence that is going on and on. It's more professional to come to a full stop and start a new clause than just keep tacking them on, no matter if the comma use is accurate or not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bignole, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is wrong. I am writing/re-writing this paragraph as I would any other paragraph on Wikipedia, and, considering I have support from several other editors, that is not out-of-line or incorrect. Just because you don't like us listing dates, does not mean we shouldn't do it. We are chronicling a series of events, announcements, and revelations over a period of years, informing readers of the development of a television series. If we do not tell them when these things are happening, they may not get the intended meaning, and in fact could get confused. That doesn't mean to say that we need to start every sentence with a precise date, which I agree with you would be ridiculous and unprofessional. By saying that something happened in September, and then the next thing happened a month later, the reader gets a perfect idea of when things happened and how they relate to each other, without having to read specific dates. This is a much more fluid way of detailing history, as opposed to the static listing of dates, but refrains from turning the prose into a story, which it is not. It seems you are under the impression that you own this article and it must appear as you wish it, whereas I, and presumably the other editors involved, are approaching it as just another article in a very large encyclopaedia, that really is no different than the rest in the way it should be structured and written. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. Wikipedia is not here to "chronicle the series of events". You may want to brush up on what Wikipedia is not. We're not a entertainment agency, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, and most importantly (as it states there) Wikipedia is NOT written in news style. We're an encyclopedia. We take all the information and we write it up in a way that flows for reading, not in a way that just lists out every event that took place. Show me any recent Featured Article for a TV show that is primarily written in the way that you're describing, please. How could not knowing that a pilot was ordered on a specific date confuse a reader? If you tell them it was ordered, when it was ordered is irrelevant to the meaning that you're trying to get across. You somehow thing that professional writing is listing things out date by date to alert a reader to every bit of minutia involving the show. It isn't. You may want to saying I'm "owning" the article, but in fact that I'm working to clean up the prose (pay particular attention to the section on "redundancy" and "flow") so that the article is kept to a high standard. The way you've reverted my edits back to the old style of writing is only going to inhibit the page in the long run. When the page is listed on the League of Copy Editors' page for review, as it likely will when it grows, they will be moving it in line with the direction that I was taking it. I know, because I've submitted enough articles to them that I know how they edit. So, yes, please continue with the news style writing that you prefer (even though it goes against our guidelines and policies).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay...did you even read my comment? Me: "That doesn't mean to say that we need to start every sentence with a precise date, which I agree with you would be ridiculous and unprofessional." You: "We take all the information and we write it up in a way that flows for reading, not in a way that just lists out every event that took place ... How could not knowing that a pilot was ordered on a specific date confuse a reader?" At least put some effort into the discussion. Your current attitude is insulting and detrimental to the community. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You: "If we do not tell them when these things are happening, they may not get the intended meaning, and in fact could get confused." --- So yes, I did read your comments. I asked you a question that was pretty simple, how could a reader get confused by not knowing when a pilot was precisely ordered? They wouldn't, because the exact date does not impact the overall message which is that it was ordered. Having no dates in the article wouldn't even confuse a reader. I do see that you've glossed over everything else that I wrote and chose to hyperfocus on the one thing you think you caught me on, when in fact you didn't. You're persistently ignoring the point that we do not chronicle events like a news source (I linked you to a page that even says so). Yet, you continue to want to present information that way and think (at least your actions and your words subscribe to this) that we need every bit of information about a show, no matter how minute it is. I see that you've also chosen to ignore my original comment that brought this section into being, which identifies why combining those sentences makes for a less smooth read and why they should be separate clauses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your position has been made clear. However, consensus is against you here, and you should acknowledge that and move on to other issues. Will a reader be harmed by not knowing the precise date on which it was ordered? No. But the information is very relevant to this article, and a person who was trying to find that information would likely stop by the Wikipedia article to look for it. And since we don't have the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia, there is absolutely no concern with including such dates. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my issue here was the poor connection of independent clauses in the section, after I had separated them. As I've shown above, in various links, unnecessarily long sentences that join multiple independent clauses does not make for well written articles. I've shown you links to pages that discuss this. In addition, I've shown you links to pages that discuss writing from a "news style" setup, which is what happened in multiple sentences that I've outlined. Please do not confuse consensus with majority (2 to 1 is such a significant majority). I have outlined reasons why the current set up (ignoring what dates are included and what are not) is not the best way to write the section, and I have linked to multiple pages that include guidelines, policies, and essays (linked from policies and guidelines) on how best to write the section. You two have subscribed to the, "Well, we both like it, and there's only one of you" argument, without actually addressing any of my concerns or acknowledging anything that I have linked to. So, forgive me if it's a little hard to assume good faith on this idea that we should be working together, especially when your argument rests with "we like it, so move on".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given you no reason to assume other than good faith on my part. And while you have dumped a bunch of links into the discussion, none of them say what you seem to want them to say. What it basically boils down to is that you don't like the way it's currently written, and are frustrated that your view that certain dates don't belong and short, choppy sentences are preferable hasn't (yet) marshaled any support. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to go to the pages? Clearly not, otherwise you'd see that they do say what I've been saying. As for the dates, again you're focusing on one aspect. Yes, I don't believe that the dates are as important as you think they are, but my recent argument has been about the structure of the sentences. Please, show me "short, choppy sentences". I'd like to see them. There was one sentence that could be classified as "short", and that was the very first one. Everything else is neither short, nor choppy. In one instance, it's purely a rearranging of the text to a more professional layout that doesn't involve starting a sentence with "On date Y..." --- which is very much the news style writing that we have a policy stating not to use. So yes, excuse me if I find it hard to assume good faith when you appear to not even be reading anything on this page or the actual article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright guys, this is getting silly... Bignole's version is better... its better written as the other version contained excessively long run on sentences.Spanneraol (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

In what world are run on sentences preferred? Go take an english class and stop disrupting the article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to be immature and disruptive then I suggest you go elsewhere. This place is for discussion in pursuit of consensus, not personal attacks and unproductive remarks. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This entire silly discussion has been about personal attacks and unproductive remarks, including several by you. Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Every step of the way, Bignole has resorted to insults. As for short, choppy sentences being "better", to each their own, I guess. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 01:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What insults would those be? I said the sentences were "clunky", but unlike you, I at least had the courtesy of providing a detailed listing of why I thought they were clunky. You just say, "they're choppy", but have provided no reasoning. In fact, you have not actually provided any sort of evidence in rebuttal to anything that I have said. I have routinely provided pages, examples, and tried to engage in a discussion about the sentence structure. You stick to, "I like it" and "It's choppy" and nothing else. Then you and Adam have the audacity to actually say that I'm just saying "I don't like it", when I've actually provided reasoning and rationale for why I think the way I do. But yes, you're right. I'm just hurling insults and nothing else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nav box

Recently, an editor added a nav box for Firestorm to the article. I do not believe it is appropriate to add. First, Firestorm is nothing more than a special guest character at this time. This isn't a show that features him, merely contains some appearances. We don't list the Suicide Squad in "Arrow", even though they appear. It isn't their show, just like it isn't Firestorm's show. If he was a main character, then I could understand. If we start including nav boxes for every character that appears on the show, then the page is going to be overrun with boxes within a couple of years (The argument to include would mean that we should add the nav box for Batman, The Atom, Suicide Squad, Firestorm, and the Outsiders to "Arrow" because that show has a lot of characters for those comics). There is no reason to create the bad habit of just letting every nav box in because a character appears on the show. Yes, I understand that there are other characters in Firestorm's history that are regulars on this show, but that does not have anything to do with Firestorm at this time. Including the nav box for Firestorm makes it appear to readers that he is a bigger part of the show than he really is. He's appeared minimally, and as far as we know is only going to appear at least 1 more time. That hardly warrants a nav box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that it is inappropriate for the page right now. However, I think there are more than enough articles to create an Arrow/Flash nav box, for use across both of the shows. We could then solve some of this issue by potentially including a "characters" row, which would link to the Firestorm article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we create a crossover nav? What happens if more shows start getting connected? Right now we have that (annoying) piece of information about the possibility of Supergirl being connected. I guess the question is, do we need a nav box at all at the moment? We'll probably need one for Arrow before long, but I don't think we'll need one for The Flash for at least a couple of years (just based on the amount of reliably sourced information that isn't as available right now).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this last point, but I agree that the Firestorm navobx does not belong on this page at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is just some food for thought and something to ponder for a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we get a couple more pages created for "Arrow", like the one I started in my sandbox and we can get that navbox created sooner rather than later. I don't think the Flash is going to need one for awhile though (unless something changes here unexpectedly). Either way, it seems clear that the Firestorm box doesn't belong at this time. I'm ok if he becomes a series regular, but definitely not a guest star status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A late response from me. No, he's not a series regular, but Caitlin Snow (the civilian ID of the new 52 Killer Frost) is. Robbie Amell is not a guest star either; media sources like Variety [4] and Hollywood Reporter [5] broke the announcement of his character (and confirmed by the cast and producers) being a recurring role, likely a major one in a vein similar to Sara Lance/The Canary on the Arrow show. I presume that somehow justifies the Black Canary navbox's existence on the page? Keep in mind that Caity Lotz/Sara Lance was never a series regular; Laurel is, and it's only season 3 where it's been confirmed that she will succeed her sister's mantle. The Firebox navbox does not just represent him as a feature character, but also his cast of supporting characters, villains and mythos (the TV show's use of particle accelerator meltdown as plot device is closer to Firestorm's nuclear meltdown origin then the Flash's various chemistry-centric origin stories), which season 1 of The Flash have so far drawn quite a bit from. Anyway, given the direction of the show, it's only a matter of time before the character is upgraded to series regular like they did with Felicity Smoak and Roy Harper on Arrow, and regardless they will never supercede the feature role of the Arrow or the Flash on their own respective titular shows. My two cents anyway. If you all feel very strongly against adding the navbox, then status quo it is. Haleth (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't include a nav box for other recurring guests, nor for series regulars that are secondary characters and another's nav box. That is Firestorm's nav box, mnot Killer Frosts. As for Black Canary, that is there because of Laurel, not because of Sara.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Harrison Wells revealed to be [SPOILER]

Shouldn't the inclusion of the reveal that Harrison Wells is indeed the Reverse-Flash be noted on the page due to the mid-season finale? 2601:C:780:234:B5E9:F3E0:1328:6A95 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, it isn't revealed that he is. It's revealed that he has the same suit. Considering it wasn't explained how he could be literally in two places at once and beat himself up in front of everyone, we shouldn't say they are the same. There could be other reasons for having the suit (e.g., It's the suit from the RF from the future that he acquired). That said, we wouldn't put that on the page here. It would be on the character page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Second, Cavanagh did voice all of the Reverse Flash's dialogue for the episode. As for how it's a possible for Wells to beat himself up. Causality loop, Wells travels back in time, beats himself up and steals the tachyon emitter, he then gives it to his past self, so he can travel and beat himself up and steal the tachyon emitter. That goes on forever. 2601:C:780:234:98D5:5A6E:B6EC:B25E (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research. Sharing a displaced voice does not mean that it was the same. Again, you're jumping to a conclusion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Cavanaugh has just confirmed that he is in fact THE (emphasis intended) Reverse Flash , so the argument that nothing's been confirmed is now moot. Therefore, I would very much advocate adding mention of Wells being the RF to the article.DigificWriter (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's still unclear.. that article can be read many ways.. lets just leave it out till the show reveals something. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Cavanagh blatantly stating that Harrison Wells is Reverse Flash 'unclear'?DigificWriter (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't need to be here. Even when it finally happens on screen (which is probably best, considering that Kreisberg avoided actually saying Wells was RF), it doesn't necessarily need to be here. Wikipedia doesn't avoid spoilers, but it also doesn't just blatantly put them in articles for the sake of having them there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is an interview with Cavanagh, and he seems to clearly state he is the Reverse-Flash, in some shape or form. I don't see the harm of linking to Reverse-Flash somewhere in his character description (along with this source). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its better to wait till it is revealed on the show, rather than an actor talking out of turns.Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

At best, it should be something along the lines of "Cavanaugh stated in an interview that he was the Reverse Flash", but that is probably best left for the character page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Episode 13 row

A rule that I have seen enforced for every series page that I regularly contribute to, including this very page previously, and Arrow, is that we don't give an episode it's own row in the episode table until we have at least two pieces of information (i.e. a title and a date, a director and a writer). At the moment, the episode 13 row has only a title, but when I tried to remove the row (an edit that had previously been made by at least one of editor) I was promptly reverted by user LLArrow who declared "Absolutely not. The title is the most pertinent piece of information for an episode. Not to mention it is the next chronological installment." I don't see why this excuses the fact that we only have one piece of information, so I think the row should still be removed for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen this rule enforced (other than only a date). I would be curious to see if you could find any official guidelines to back up this claim?. It is improper to call out an editor by name on article Talk pages. If you have a personal grievance, converse with me on mine. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

The Flash will debut in portugal next 25th JANUARY

89.152.30.166 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No source provided, and as per WP:TVINTL, English-speaking only countries are included. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Season two colour choice

Like Arrow, I thought it prudent to suggest a colour to be used for the episode table for the second season of the series. Always good to plan for the future.

Season 2
Selective yellow       Color coordinates Hex triplet #FFBA00 sRGBB (r, g, b) (255, 186, 0) HSV (h, s, v) (44°, 100%, 100%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (80, 100, 55°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

I selected this colour do to the similarity with most of the marketing material for the show so far. Please, let me hear from you. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the background color, and it passes the WP:COLOR test with flying colors (pardon the pun). I'm not sure I like the text being white. I think it looks better with black. See below.

Season 2
Selective yellow       Color coordinates Hex triplet #FFBA00 sRGBB (r, g, b) (255, 186, 0) HSV (h, s, v) (44°, 100%, 100%) CIELChuv (L, C, h) (80, 100, 55°) Source [Unsourced] B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

For me, the white text with the light background makes it look blurry, almost blending in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Black looks swell. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Please replace the URL: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Flash_enemies#Peek-a-boo" by "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Flash_enemies#Peek-a-Boo" because the original link doesn't send you to the expected page. M beltramo (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done – Nice find--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Please add the information for the 15th episode to the episodes table. The next episode title and date has been announced, and a trailer promoting it has been released. Episode No. 15 - "Out of Time" is set to premier on March 17, 2015. No information is currently available on the writing and directing staff involved for this individual episode, presumably due to the month long hiatus. [6] 198.233.249.19 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad source given. Please provide a verifiable reference. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How is the source not verified? Regardless, the promotional can even be found on the official Facebook page for The Flash with the same information provided... https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=796655763760062&set=vb.583390655086575&type=2&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.233.249.19 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think he meant to say reliable. Comicbook.com is not a reliable source--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have taken care of the addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Episode 15 title

I'm going to be removing the current title for episode 15, AKA Out of Time. The only reliable source I can find is the one cited, YouTube. However, it is not stated anywhere on the page that the actual title of the episode is "Out of Time". Arrow's third episode of the current season, Corto Maltese, was released on YouTube with a trailer titled "Thea". So it's obviously not an adequate indicator. If anyone can find another reliable source, please re-add. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment... that's the name of the teaser, not necessarily the episode title. Spanneraol (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but can we get the revision at 04:44, 19 February 2015‎ restored with the text modified to reflect its merely a trailer titled as such with the episodes returning a month from now? Or is that wiki faux pas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.12.169 (talk)

Not bothering to think that the time stamp might reflect my local time, I meant the second edit by YLCC23. Sory for the bad form too 72.201.12.169 (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't really report on trailer titles. And we can't really use the video to source the return date, because we generally follow having at least two pieces of episode table data to show it in the table (ie title, director and/or writer(s)). So we just have to wait for the info to come out (or confirm that the trailer title is the episode title). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

On the part where it says "The sixteenth episode is titled "Rogue Time",[27] and the eighteenth episode will be titled "All-Star Team-Up".[28]" Add the fifteenth episode is titled "Out of Time". [7] 24.18.200.66 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: For reasoning, see above discussions concerning the issue. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking episode characters to their comic "counterparts"

Unless we have explicit citation linking the television show characters to comic book characters, we should not be wikilinking them. It's Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest talking a look at a discussion of the exact same topic over on Arrow's talk page, of the same shared universe. They appear to have come to a form of consensus. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there something specific you're referring to Jack?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Harrison Wells should NOT be linked directly to Reverse Flash as the characters do not have the same name... Unlike Barry Allen and Iris West whose pages have those names, the Reverse Flash page is not named Harrison Wells... If you are gonna connect him add the link where it says Reverse Flash later.. Otherwise it makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In answer to Bignole's question, I am referring to any character who has not been linked via reliable reference to their comic book character counterpart. Linking in the absence of that is synthesis. The question that remains is how much referencing do we need? If, say, dozens of sources link "the Dark Archer" to John Barrowman's portrayal of Merlyn in Arrow, but only one source calls him the Dark Archer, do we use that source? Or do we sidestep it as a very minority term? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, it's about how it is linked. If it's linked to the overall page, then I would agree. I mean, Caitlin Snow is not Killerfrost so to speak, but that is the same character. She should be linked to the section that discusses this version. Well, really should be linked to the List of characters page, and then that page should link to the section on the character (if it's somehow different). Additionally, I don't mind when we link by saying, "this character is based on character Y from the comics" when it's been established that is the connection. For example, Weather Wizard, who was not directly named in the show (though, Cisco did call him a "wizard"), but Mark Mardon is the Weather Wizard in the comics and his powers were the same. It's not synthesis. I would say that there needs to be a healthy respect for the spirit of WP:SYNTHESIS, but not a letter of the law type of approach. Per WP:What SYNTH is not: "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison." There are times when it is clearly obvious, and others where it isn't. I would say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when trying to wrangle real synthesis in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet we are still missing an important part of the problem, Bignole. Presuming that linking the two is not synthesis (and I tend to adhere to a more strict interpretation of it than some), we are still left with the issue of importance. If only one source considers this information important, and every other one either ignores, disregards or decides it is unimportant to mention, we are, in essence, construction workers. We take the building materials presented by primary sources and assemble them. We do not manufacture them ourselves.

In a tv-related article, it may not seem that important, but I have personally seen lax reference work in media articles being used as precedent in the sorts of articles where making our own connections would prove disastrous. While there are no firm rules, uniformity of approach is helpful in an encyclopedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that concern, but we're not talking about situations that were much more prevalent in Smallville, where characters were used by renamed and no one ever actually said they were who comic book fans thought they were because of DC restrictions on names. If a character is named Mark Mardon and he can control the weather, I don't think it's a violation to "link" to Weather Wizard (not renaming him weather wizard or using that alias in the article). It was a violation of synthesis when people wanted to say that Vordigan was Merlyn. He wasn't. He was modeled after Merlyn, but he wasn't actually Merlyn and to assume that an archer in dark clothing is Merlyn, when he has a completely different name, is synthesis. Linking Cisco Ramon to Vibe, even though he isn't a superhero on the TV series is not a violation to me. That is why we have sections to say "Live-action" and link to specific areas that explain that this interpretation of the character does not match up to the comic books. I think taking a hard-lined approach to this by saying that editors need to have a producer (or someone) specifically say "this is the same character" is borderline lawyering when it comes to keeping original research out of an article, and common sense should be exercised to a degree (e.g., if it's contentious then discuss it on the talk page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, Wikipedia protects itself best when the content is not created from the Sherlocking of its editors. As you say, we'll take this on a case by case basis, but you deserve to know that I am always going to ask, who thought it was important enough to mention? If there's no reliable source that does that, I'm not going to favor it. Call it "lawyering" if you want (even though that's a little dickish, and I'm kinda surprised you'd say that), but I'm looking at the big picture here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Flash Episodes wikipedia page

I dont know how to create one, but can we all agree now for a special episodes page to be created? The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the page isn't large enough to warrant a split yet. Contrary to the intended "common" practice of some editors, you shouldn't split off a page until the parent page can no longer handle all the information. WP:MOSTV outlines examples of when to split, and WP:SIZE gives you a range for the page size itself. This page is nowhere near the size needed to split.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

"On December 18, 2014, WaterTower Music and La La Records released a selection of music from The Flash/Arrow crossover episodes, as well as two bonus tracks from their respective 2014 midseason finales." La-La Land didn't distribute any of the music on that release. The cited source is WaterTower Music alone and there is no trace of a digital release on La-La Land Records' website (nor was there mention of the release by the label through their official Facebook page) in addition to other credible listings found through Google searches for the album clearly displaying "WaterTower Music" as the record label. I'm not challenging the validity of the general information presented there but the specificity instead. 2602:306:3BA6:F330:D7A:3F58:B671:A251 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed, as it wasn't in the source and there was no other source attached.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

Please give credit to the original creators - John Broome and Carmine Infantino.

Thank you for giving credit, if you ever give credits to original creators. 174.24.211.161 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that they did not create every original character. Barry had a third creator (Robert Kanigher), Iris had Joe Kubert, Caitlin had Gerry Conway and Al Milgrom, Cisco by Gerry Conway and Chuck Patton, and Dr. Wells (technically Reverse-Flash) by John Broome and Carmine Infantino. There is some crossover, but for the most people each has a separate creator. That's a big list and it's easier to just give credit to who owns the characters (DC).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rogue Air

Okay, there seems to be many differing reports on which episode "Rogue Air" is. Actor Doug Jones revealed that he would be appearing on the the nineteenth episode of Arrow, but the twenty-second of The Flash, yet multiple sites are claiming his Flash appearance to be the nineteenth, airing April 21. This is highly unlikely, given the fact that episode nineteen of Flash has been wrapped for a few weeks now, and Jones was just on set yesterday. Perhaps we should rethink how we present this conflicting info. LLArrow (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Doug Jones' social media posts never indicate that he was on set on 3/21, he just made the post then. It actually makes more sense that it is episode 19, given he appears April 15 on Arrow, so it would then continue on the April 21 episode of Flash. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would be inclined to go with Jones's tweet, which was retweeted by Grant Gustin without further comment or correction. The SuperHeroHype source—is it even a reliable one?—seems to be basing their episode info on the same Jones tweet, yet they're mistranscribing it. I don't know what other sites are saying, but if they're akin to this one, I'd go with the primary source (Jones) on this one, since Gustin has given it legitimacy. (Although it isn't evidence, since The Flash at least started out ahead of Arrow in terms of shooting: the pilot was already done, and The Flash starting filming the episode 8 crossovers before Arrow did, so it makes sense the The Flash would be starting episode 22 first. Arrow doesn't start their episode 22 until Thursday.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is definitive: director Doug Aarniokoski has just tweeted that he directed both of Jones's episodes. As he is confirmed as the director of Arrow 3.19 (Guggenheim's tweet), I think we can safely say that Jones does not appear in Stanzler's episode of The Flash (1.19); there's no reason now to doubt Jones's 1.22 number. (Stanzler directed her episode the week ending February 21 (so February 16 through 20, and probably on one side and/or the other of that week; Jones was filming his). BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the episode slate, where you can see Aarniokosk's name and 122 (in the upper right), so that is all definitely correct. Also the additional photos of the set kind of confirm why it's 122 and not sooner. Also please note HEAVY SPOILERS in the additional set of images. The slate one if fine, but if you don't want to learn some potential info, don't click the other link. ;) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevant discussion over at the Arrow talk

There is a relevant discussion regarding creating the article for the spinoff series over at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Create spinoff article for anyone that is not an editor of that article. Please feel free to comment regarding this over there. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

i wish to add episode 20 and 21's titles, now that they're released 108.206.220.151 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide the source for this info so it can be completed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

AntarticWolf (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC) ep 21 = Grodd Lives

Source?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Episodes 17 and 19 titles

Hi there. I've found a reliable source for the titles of episodes 17 and 19. The site where I found it is Warner Channel. This TV channel broadcasts The Flash in Latin America.

Episode 17 is titled "Tricksters" and Episode 19 is titled "Who Is Harrison Wells?". I found them when I searched the schedules for April 2015 in Warner Channel. Here are the upcoming episodes (dates are for Latin America):

April 2: 16. Rogue Time http://www.warnerchannel.com/mx/schedules/?ref=mainmenu#/2015-04-02
April 9: 17. Tricksters http://www.warnerchannel.com/mx/schedules/?ref=mainmenu#/2015-04-09
April 16: 12. Crazy for You (repeat) http://www.warnerchannel.com/mx/schedules/?ref=mainmenu#/2015-04-16
April 23: 18. All Star Team Up http://www.warnerchannel.com/mx/schedules/?ref=mainmenu#/2015-04-23
April 30: 19. Who Is Harrison Wells? http://www.warnerchannel.com/mx/schedules/?ref=mainmenu#/2015-04-30

There are also titles of upcoming episodes for Arrow. Check them out.

--Grmy92 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good sources, yes, but they're not in English - this is the English-based side of Wikipedia. We'll wait for sources that match this requirement. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually a guideline that states that we can't use non-English sources? Because I'm pretty sure we have before. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but how can we confirm that the source contains what it's been claimed to contain when we can't even read it? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The titles are in English (for some reason). - adamstom97 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The source has already proven itself to be unreliable by stating incorrect airdates for episodes. LLArrow (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes we can use non-English sources per WP:NOENG. But, that states that English sources are preferred if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. And in this case there are: Futon Critic, Zap2It, producer's tweets, MSN, TV Guide. So while they may not be up to date as this non-English source, the English ones do exist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hey. I wrote this in March 7th and both titles turned out to be correct. In March 10th, episode 17 title was revealed by English sources to be "Tricksters". Today, April 2nd, Zap2it listings revealed the title of episode 19 is "Who is Harrison Wells?". The source I gave is the official channel who broadcasts The Flash in Latin America (Warner Channel). Titles are in English because the show is aired in English with subtitles in Spanish. Warner Channel does not translate the episode titles of the shows they air. To LLArrow who said "The source has already proven itself to be unreliable by stating incorrect airdates for episodes": Airdates stated in the source are for Warner Channel in Latin America, not for the CW because it is not a USA listings site. But well, this was a very reliable source and I really hope you start accepting non-English sources next time. --Grmy92 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment directly above yours as to why that probably won't happen in the near future, at least on this article for episode information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: WP:NOENG says that they are perfectly fine when the English sources of equal quality and relevance don't exist. That does not mean we leave out information when it has been confirmed by a reliable source. That means we put in the information when it's confirmed by any reliable source, and then if that first source is non-English we update it with a reliable English source of equal quality when one exists. The airdates are not incorrect, this is standard practice for any tv series at any site. They report the air date for their primary userbase. This is also the official website for a TV network, so no, they're not wrong.

That being said, I am concerned about whether the pages will always list the English titles, as some series have different episode names in other languages. ― Padenton|✉   14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOENG does not say that. The interpretation I stated above is correct. If we have English source of equal quality and relevance (which we do), we are to use those over the non-English ones. We are in no rush in regards to adding this info. So we wait for the English ones to be available. Second, there is absolutely no reason for this (or any other English-based produced series) to mention titles in other language. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:Says it right here: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page" ― Padenton|✉   16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes but episode titles can be changed between laungauages so they should not be gained from non-english sources as they can be different.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015

Please change Episode 21's title to "Grodd Lives" MWyatt567 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This information is provided by a fansite, which may not be used as a verifiable source. LLArrow (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

I can't edit the page myself, but this page needs to be edited to show that the 21st episode is called "Grodd Lives" Source: http://twitter.com/FlashTVNews/status/584827200706252801 HDXylophone (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)HDXylophone

 Not done unreliable source. Twitter sources have to come from offical twitter accouts for the show/actos/Director/Writers/Showrunners--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

additional info: While the name may sound official, 'FlashTVNews' twitter account is run by KSiteTV, a fansite. ― Padenton|✉   18:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft of Arrow universe

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Arrow universe at Draft:Arrow universe until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. With all the info coming out now about this universe expanding, an article may be useful sooner than later. This is just for users to help create something, and have it ready should we ever want this article. I started it, and it's really rough, but give a general idea of what I'm thinking. And heck, the article title may not even be the best, but it's the most descriptive of what it is at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You might consider calling it something other than the Arrow Universe. Arrow may have been where it started, but it represents so much more now. You might consider the "DC Comics' shared universe television series" Or something along those lines (although maybe a bit shorter).Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)