Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

So this happened...

So. Um... This was made earlier: DC Telvision Shared Universe. Not only is the title wrong but it doesn't yet meet the notibility guidelines that were discussed at [1]. I've nominated the page for deletion based on those ground for now, and it doesn't help that Television is spelt wrong and can apply to the animated Justice League shows or any of the other animated TV shows.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't exist and should be redirected to the draft page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
And again!! Arrowverse--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've redirected it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Should I just redirect them if I see another pop up?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I would, but nothing has actually changed with this topic. No one is talking about a "universe", just these individual shows. So, we're stuck here till they do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If anything else comes up, don't redirect to the draft article. Redirect to Arrow (TV series)#Shared universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming series regulars

Fourth season main cast member Neal McDonough has been added to the infobox, but I have never seen this done before. I was under the impression that no actor is to be added to the infobox/starring list until they have appeared onscreen. Would someone more knowledgable than I on the matter share their wisdom. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As someone supporting the inclusion, I (similarly) have never seen anyone oppose the inclusion for upcoming main cast members, regardless of if they've appeared onscreen yet. That's why your undoing of my edit through me a bit. But I don't have a problem seeing what others have to say on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Both the number of seasons and number of episodes fields are not updated until the next episode (or first episode of the next season) have aired. The same reasoning should apply to main cast members and, for that matter, producers, etc. The situations are similar: until the episode has aired, the actor or producer has not been so credited on a broadcast episode. There's nothing wrong with discussing that they're being added to the main cast or promoted in the production staff in the body of the article (with the requisite sources, of course), but it doesn't belong in the infobox until actual broadcast. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Can i added the season four premise? 111.94.88.176 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2015 (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".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Constantine to related shows

In an interview with IGN (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back?%20hub%20page%20%28front%20page%29 Arrow producer Wendy Mericle has said that the version of Constantine appearing on Arrow is the same version and character from the Constantine show, thus making the events of Constantine canon to this universe, and should therefore be on the list of related shows. Ttll213 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please try to centralize the discussion on one page.
As for "canon", encyclopaedia editors can't determine what's canon--that's what reliable secondary sources are for. The only thing that we can say is that's it's a crossover. There have been several crossovers between two unrelated shows, so we can't assume anything about the relationship between these two shows. We have to get that information from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that in the article, Mericle is explicitly establishing that Constantine IS canon to the Arrowverse. Therefore, it deserves to be on the list of related shows. Ttll213 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Reading the article...no she does not. DonQuixote (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
In terms of whether we should assume that this is firmly considered the same version of Constantine from his own series (and thus retroactively linking the Constantine series to the Arrow-verse), Mericle said, “Absolutely. He is coming in fully as who he was on the show. Ttll213 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying that won't exist. The difference is that The Flash, Vixen, and Legends, will have direct ties to Arrow. That isn't the case with Constantine. "Related shows" are not for every show that has a connection. They are for shows with direct ties. The Flash, Vixen, and Legends were spun off from Arrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) She says that it's the same character...that mostly amounts to a crossover. Encyclopaedias are mostly interested in spin-offs and crossovers (that is, writing from a real world perspective). If you want to write about "shared universe" and such (that is, writing from an in-universe perspective), you're free to do that on a fan page or a wikia. DonQuixote (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that the section on the cross-over seems way too large and detailed in the scheme of the show. Seems to have undue weight for such a long paragraph describing what essentially is one episode. Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, crazy long for a one-off - I've trimmed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really, it lists the development side of the crossover and what led to it, and third-party reliable sources seem to think that it is all necessary since it is all sourced.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is an overview of this show.. a long section about the development of a cross-over bringing in a character for one episode seems unnecessary. Perhaps if a separate article was written on that episode the development info can be included. It would also make sense to have some of that info on the Constantine page perhaps explaining that after the show ended he went on to appear for an episode on Arrow. Spanneraol (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The new version is still too long. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It isn't too long. It gives context to the signing of Ryan to appear. I reduced some info from it from its original incarnation, and now the first paragraph gives the lead up of Amell's possibility to appear on Constantine, with Guggenheim's statement on subsequently bringing Ryan to Arrow. And the second is all the actualities of the deal and what Constantine will be doing in the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

it's too long - it's currently the same length as the first two paragraphs on the conceptualization of the show - for a single character who will appear one for (let's be generous) twenty minutes of screen time - it's too much. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The show is being added back to the infobox. User appears to not want to join the discussion here. Don't want to edit-war, so could someone else revert please? Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 00:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the show is (even that retroactively) a part of the Arrowverse. It is canon now (entirely not relatable is the fact that the show got cancelled). Not necessarily the show must be an Arrow spin-off to be a part of the Arrowverse. Putting Constantine in a separate topic may confuse readers. The same goes to Supergirl, come it to have a crossover in the future; regardless of being from a different channel or not being originally planned as a part of the shared universe, it would be. I say we leave a topic named Arrowverse and divide it in two subtopics: Related shows / Spin-offs (The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Vixen) and Crossovers (Constantine and, possibly in the future, Supergirl). — Artmanha (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, editors' opinions on what's canon and what's not is irrelevant because Wikipedia deals with verifiability. Unless you can show that they're related, then by default they're not. And most people know that crossovers can occur for shows that are both related (between Star Trek spin-offs) and not related (Simpsons & Family Guy), so it really won't confused readers. DonQuixote (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

On filming the episode, Guggenheim stated it felt like the production team was "doing a Constantine/Arrow crossover, and it’s so exciting... We’re just really glad we got the chance to extend Matt Ryan’s run as Constantine by at least one more hour of television. I think you’ll see he fits very neatly into our universe. It never feels forced, it feels right."[1] What other source do you need, to verify that Constantine is a part of the Arrowverse now? Retroactively yes, but still a key element of the series. It was he who makes possible the involvement of Sara Lance/White Canary in all future installments whether that be Legends of Tomorrow or The Flash or Arrow. The character is the same character portrayed in the Constantine TV series. Burningblue52 (talk) 06:11 15, November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Perry, Spencer (September 14, 2015). "Marc Guggenheim on The Infinite Adventures of Jonas Quantum, Constantine on Arrow". SuperheroHype!. Retrieved September 14, 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015 - Season 4

Last month, I had posted information in the series overview regarding season 4, mainly based on the trailer which had aired at that time. User LLArrow had removed it. While I understand that my addition may have been premature, I don't feel like all of it should have been removed.

Nonetheless, now that the season has started, I would like information to be added regarding the overview of season 4, which may be updated periodically, as the show progresses.

Possible suggestion for season four overview:

"In season four, Oliver and Felicity have been living together for the past few months outside of Starling City, renamed as Star City after Ray Palmer's apparent death. Laurel, Thea, and John have trouble with a new group of thieves known as Ghosts, who work for Damien Darhk, Ra's Al Ghul's friend-turned-foe. The team decides to bring back Oliver, as they can't take down Darhk and the Ghosts on their own. Oliver realizes that Star City still needs saving, and decides to become the city's beacon of hope, as the Green Arrow. "

Also, in season four, since Oliver's suit is completely changed, the Costume Design may need to be updated, with both info and a possible picture of the new suit.


Gschadha7007 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Gschadha7007

  • Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.
  • You should be autoconfirmed as your account is over four days old and has more than ten edits. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New subsection for Arrowverse

I feel that we should create a subsection that list the projects and characters that were planned to be on the show or get their own (i.e. Suicide Squad), but didn't pan out. Some of this info was already in the article but was inexplicably removed. There are plenty of sources to back this section up. What say you guys? LLArrow (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No reason to create a speculative section based on various rumors.. The Suicide Squad for instance never was a serious plan for their own show.. An actor mentioned something in passing... that doesnt mean there was every any real plan. A section listing every possible rumor or fan musing seems unnecessary. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested using fan theories in the section, as a matter of fact I deliberately said "sourced" info only. The purposed Suicide Squad spinoff, made public by actor David Ramsey, is a shining example as to why the section should exist. Its validity is of zero consequence, what matters is that his comments sparked dozens of articles being written, including several with comments from the writers of the show. Anything of note, should be added to the series' article on Wikipedia. Another applicable reason for the sections existance; recent comments by showrunner Wendy Mericle stating that the character of Green Lantern/Hal Jordan, despite heavy onscreen easter eggs and countless articles written, will never be appearing on the show. Wikipedia is meant to be a mecca of accurate, notable information, I fail to see why this doesn't qualify. LLArrow (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
See this archived discussion about the Suicide Squad info here. I don't really see the need to reformat the section. We currently give a small amount of development info for each, plus the actors that appear across the shows. That's enough. Anything beyond that is really suitable for these articles, and should be developed on the draft page we have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
We kind of already have a section for the Arrowverse. The only thing that isn't there are the things on "potential" series. The problem with including it is that none of the potential series were really potentials. The Suicide Squad was a lot of conjecture from David Ramsey, and the Supergirl one was really wishful thinking from Greg Berlanti. I wouldn't want to give undue weight to shows that really didn't seem to have a chance of getting created or being connected to the Arrowverse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
On Bignole's point, the only series currently that still has a chance to join is Supergirl. And if it ever does, that can easily be added once it is confirmed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. Perhaps this section should not even be placed under the "Arrowverse" heading. It may be deserving of it's own section. Neither of you spoke to my point above, the potential series do not deserve to be on the page because they did or didn't make it far into development, they deserve to be on this article do to notoriety and infamousy. There are dozens of articles written about potential series/characters that have not come to fruition concerning this show. It cannot be chalked up to fancruft because several of the instances have comments from writers of the show. I don't want a discussion as to whether or not the info belongs in the Arrowverse section; I want somebody to supply a valid reason as to why we should not include notable information that holds extreme relevance to the show and internet. LLArrow (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable, nor notoriety or infamousy that someone took David's comments and got really excited about it. What professional sources have talked about these shows outside of referencing David or Greg? The CBS president shot it down immediately. The idea of talking about a show doesn't mean it was in development. None of them were in development, or developed originally as part of this universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Again this comment has very little to do with what I'm purporting. I'm not talking about Supergirl at all, never mentioned her, don't know why she, or the show, is being brought into this discussion. I am speaking about failed spin-offs/characters that were meant to come on the show or who have been pined after, but nothing has ever came to fruition. I can think of several articles, off the top of my head, written about Onomatopoeia, Green Lantern, Ted Kord, Nightwing, just to name a few. Each of those names has received bookoos of press. If it's notable to nearly every site (Comicbook.com, Comicbookresources, Screenrant, Deadline) that has written about Arrow, it should be notable here. LLArrow (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
None of those series were ever in development. Just because some various websites spent time speculating about something doesn't make it worth noting in this encyclopedia. Nightwing and Green Lantern were never considered for this show, and cant be due to the characters being tied up elsewhere... so adding some blurb about some gossip site speculating about them doesnt add anything. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Never did I say anything about "gossip websites", unless that is what the cites above are considered. I'm talking about hard evidence that there has been talks and conversations, with comments from the writers of the show. I seem to be repeating myself often, that must be because I keep getting erroneous arguments. I would appreciate someone commenting who as actually read my proposals, instead of just presenting a counter point, to counter. LLArrow (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What "hard evidence" do you have that Nightwing or Green Lantern or the other characters you mentioned were ever considered for inclusion on the show or a spin-off? I have never read anything other than gossip suggesting such. The only comments on these characters I've seen from the writers are them shooting down such suggestions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
THAT is exactly my point, if the casting/issue's notoriety has risen far enough that it warrants articles written with comments from the writers, THAT makes it notable, in some fashion, to this article. LLArrow (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
People write stuff all the time. Identification of casting, and I don't even recall Nightwing or Green Lantern ever being talked about, so it clearly wasn't that notable, is not a notable thing. Basic announcements does not equate to notability. That's why "significant coverage" explicitly states that basic announcements don't count. Where are the sources that discuss these things anyway? I don't remember any of the shows you were mentioning, let alone them being part of the Arrowverse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Since consensus is clearly against me, I'll be dropping the matter, but I still believe that my point was never truly understood despite every effort to convey it. P.S. Bignole, Showrunner Wendy Mericle recently did an indepth interview with the EMMY's talking at length about the fact that Green Lantern will never appear on the show. LLArrow (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So....it's notable that a showrunner says that a character will never appear on the show?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the fact the character has been teased prominently on the show, especially recently, absolutely. And I find your sarcasm resentful. LLArrow (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The character has not been teased on the show... mentioning the city and Ferris Aircraft are easter eggs for the expanded dc universe and arent the same thing as teasing that the character will appear. Lots of characters will not appear.. its not notable that they were asked about this one and addressed it. Spanneraol (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you did not view the premiere of season four, in which Hal Jordan, or at least the viewer is led to believe, makes an appearance. LLArrow (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, I watched it and I don't recall HJ making an appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest watching it again then. It's a split second cameo, during the flashbacks, in a bar in Coast City, with Oliver and Amanda Waller. LLArrow (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to rewatch it. It never happened. I don't know where you're getting that information from. A homage to Jordan does not mean that it IS Hal Jordan. No one said "Hal Jordan". You got a jacket with a name on it. Not much different than any other side joke that happens on Arrow or The Flash. Not something to say that the character actually exists (since they don't call him by name) and not something to assume a show is getting created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, okay. Well, that's all from me folks. Peace. LLArrow (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, sorry I'm late to the party. Personally, I don't see the harm in adding a list of characters that were proposed to be added, but weren't for a reason. For example, Onomatopoeia would have been in the series, but after finding out that he could not be adapted for screen, they created Mr. Blank. I feel that If you know that a certain series/character was to be brought into the Arrowverse, and there are significant, credible sources, then add them. If you don't, then don't. (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is with finding a source that actually says the characters were seriously proposed to be added... as opposed to just being easter eggs or fan speculation which most of these were. Spanneraol (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My argument would be - if there is actual physical and readable sources for things that people put on Wikipedia which are insightful and actually may pan out later in further seasons of the show - why the #$%@ delete/remove it? Fans of different shows, bands, movies, etc. come on Wikipedia to learn more about it. There's one thing in saying that unconfirmed things should not be posted, but with things that have been confirmed by anyone involved in the show - why be so freaking petty? I would one day like to learn how people become actual editors of this site, that override everyone and can be so controlling. Burningblue52 (talk) 06:11 15, November 2015 (UTC)

Please remain civil during discussions, by not swearing or attacking users. Alex|The|Whovian 01:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Who swore? ^ I certainly know I didn't. Burningblue52 (talk) 06:11 15, November 2015 (UTC)
Self-censoring still counts. Alex|The|Whovian 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
A thousand pardons I actually put symbols to be humorous. Nor did I single out any specific users. This site's 'powers to be' editors that are constantly removing useful information create such confusion and inconsistencies within Wikipedia. That right there alone is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is viewed by many as an unreliable source. It is constantly changing. I believe that this site needs to become more uniform, orderly, and consistent. I don't understand the arguments on here between editors. It's really classless. Burningblue52 (talk) 06:11 15, November 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That's why we don't add every single thing that is provided about concepts, even if by reliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

'Queen does not initially go by the alias "Green Arrow" until the fourth season.'

So after three seasons have gone by, he "initially" goes by Green Arrow? That doesn't any make sense. Can we please re-word that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.181.69.67 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It says he does not "go by the alias "Green Arrow" until the fourth season." -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Arrowverse vs Crossover

While I realize that Constantine did not begin with any characters who debuted on Arrow (like Barry Allen from Flash and Sara Lance from Legends of Tomorrow) the same could be said of Vixen, yet we list Vixen as part of the Arrowverse. For that reason, I think we should just have a 'Constantine' section under Arrowverse rather than a separate 'Crossover' section. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Vixen has been confirmed to be a part of the Arrowverse, Constantine was just the character appearing with no confirmation on the rest of the series. Think of it like the MCU, where the actor who portrayed Blade in the trilogy is likely to come back for any more films but that doesn't automatically make the trilogy a part of the MCU. Until we get confirmation we're treating it as a crossover.--16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
THe producers have said it was the same world, the difference being that it wasn't originally intended that way. We only really got a character coming over, and none of the events in that show impact Arrow or The FLash. Those two characters do impact the world of Vixen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Credit adjustments

We need to add notes, in the infobox, concerning key behind-the-scenes talent (i.e. executive producers, cinematographers) and the tenure on the series. Such as David Nutter, who only served as EP on the pilot of Arrow, or over on The Flash, where Nutter served as EP for season one, and Gabrielle Stanton served for the fall part of season 2. The argument being made by another editor is that the information is irrelvant to readers of Wikipedia, which, being a behind-the-scenes denizen, I find offensive. Please, let me hear your opinion on the matter. It really means a lot, LLArrow (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not relevant in the infobox. I said it's needs to be in the prose section. We don't include years for actors that are on a show, why would we do it for EPs, or any other individual? Nutter is an exception with the pilot, because it's rare to be an EP for just one episode. The fact that Stanton is no longer an EP does not need to be stated in the infobox. The infobox is a basic summary. Let a prose section detail why she isn't an EP (which it already does).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Actors, in some instances have entire articles detailing their time on a series, EP's, and the like, do not recieve such attention. Many other series include information in the infobox, and it's even in extra small print. Both sides have been heard, let's see what other have to say. LLArrow (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know actors that get entire articles detailing their "time", but EPs can get section detailing their time. Again, we don't put it for actors on the page and actors change more often than EPs change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, agree to disagree. There has been no discussion, opinion, or comment on the matter for three days; therefore it gets added until consensus can be reached to remove it. LLArrow (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats not how it works. You need consensus to add it if others are objecting. For the record I agree with the others about not including the information. Spanneraol (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
What others? There is currently only one other editor demonstrating an opposing view in this discussion. LLArrow (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I imagine that he is referring also to Alex reverting you on the Flash.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is what i was referring to. Spanneraol (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would "imagine" the same, but let's not leave any room for conjecture, shall we. Specificity is demanded. LLArrow (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is me, then, backing up Spanneraol's claims. I disagree that such content should be added to the infobox, which has the sole purpose of quickly summarizing the content of the article without specifics. Said specifics should be added to the main article in prose. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright guys, keep talking if you please, but I'm with drawing my suggestion. Might I add that I'm extremely dissatisfied with the lack of democracy and tact demonstrated on Wikipedia, and these articles specifically. There is a visible bias and iron curtain at play here; approving or disapproving of edits at every turn. These articles are seriously teetering on WP:OWN violation. I highly doubt any change or good will come of me stating the obvious (the editors in question are quite adept wigglers, of the proverbial room), but hey, at least I'll feel vindicated. Good day. LLArrow (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New genres

Since no-one else has already, I thought I'd begin the discussion on the recent genre changes of claiming that the show is a soap opera and romance. It is claimed that they are sourced within the article; however, they are only sourced as occasionally contributors ("and becoming a 'soap opera'" is criticism of the show and not declaring it as an actual genre, and romance is never declared as a genre of the show in the article), and not the main outlook of the series. Consensus should be determined before adding them to the article, not removing them, given that they were initially added then removed - discussions should have taken place then instead of six reverts later per WP:BRD. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter if the source had never added one statement about Arrow before now; we don't use that as governing criteria for inclusion. If you think it does, you should absolutely feel free to note/link the relevant policy/guideline. I am glad you initiated discussion, though. I am sure we can sort this out. As two editors have reinforced the addition of this material to the article, I think its okay to leave it in for now. Further reverting is only going to complicate matters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing to support the inclusion of those genres. A critical review saying it's turning into a soap opera doesn't actually place it into the category of "soap opera". The same for romance. Having romantic elements doesn't make it a romance. There are romantic elements in action movies, but they are classified as romances. It should be removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, all I am seeing is your disagreement of my removal of them, and literally zero basis or reason as to why it should be included. Frankly, they are completely unsourced and fan-based additions. And as I said on my talk page in reply to you, the initial edit that started this was the addition of the unsourced genres; per WP:BRD, it was a bold edit to add them, it was reverted, and you should have discussed it from the get-go. Then they should have been re-added if there was a consensus. And correction: three editors have supported it (37.248.254.21, Fnlayson and yourself), and four have rejected it (St170e, Favre1fan93, Bignole and myself). Alex|The|Whovian? 05:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not true. I only disagreed with the 'unsourced' reason for removing these two genres. Being minor or non-notable is valid justification for omitting them to me. Consensus discussions should be based on the weight of the supporting arguments, not just votes per WP:Consensus. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Except that I wasn't basing this on a vote, I was correcting Jack's statement on how the genres should stay given that two editors support it. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for clarifying. My consensus comment was supposed to a general reminder to all here. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove both genres. A genre is a defining factor of a show that, if removed, drastically changes the core of the show. Romance: While romance is involved in some respects, if it had never existed, it would not alter the cores of the show which are action and drama. It would only eliminate a few plot points. Soap Opera: Arrow is not a soap opera. If Arrow is a soap opera, then so too is every single television series that has a linear storyline that connects all of the episodes--which covers almost every series except for game shows, sketch comedy, and some cartoons. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: After the anon's edit was reverted (more oft than not, anon edits are removed bc they are usually vandalism), I thought that maybe there was some validity to the edit. So I googled up "Arrow" and "soap opera". I saw page after page of links of connections. True, most of them are fan opinions, and I avoided using any of those. The ones I did add, seemed to support the validity of the genres. After that, the reverting (I never understand why editors think a revert is EVER going to work in place of discussion) began.
Then finally, discussion. Excellent.
Now, I am operating from the premise that the show is in fact a soap opera (I watch it, and it kinda is); that premise seems supported by actual references. Romance? Not so much, I'll readily admit. What concerns me is that at least one of the discussing editors here seems to think that the addition of the genre 'detracts' from the enjoyment of the show. Clearly, it does not: teens love the show and the, well, sophomoric romances and fart-smell acting. I am not cler why we are arguing over cited references calling the show such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove both genres. As I stated in my removal of the genres (and as Alex and Bignole have laid out), these are not defining genres of the show. Yes there are elements of them (more romance than soap opera), but that doesn't mean it is that type of show. The soap opera one is more a critical opinion of an observer anyways, so that shouldn't even be used or considered moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but that's all it is, Favrefan93: an opinion. You can call a reliable source a "critical opinion of an observer" all you want but, as a reliable source, their opinion is going to have more weight than yours. As well, lots of shows are not simply one genre or another; are you worried that you might like a soap opera? Sources say it is; therefore it is. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources say it is; therefore it is. No they don't. Carrie Raisler's opinion from the article you pulled the quote from is just that: an opinion. She is the one stating that she feels the show is "using the network-appropriate soap-opera stories to do the heavy character lifting." Again, that's fine to use in the prose of the article where it is, but because she used that phrase doesn't mean that it is a genre for the show, because it isn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, Favre - you missed the point, which is this: her opinion, since it is citable and is considered a Reliable source, carries more weight than your opinion. Why aren't you cluing in on that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Because no-one's opinions get to determine the genre of a series. Favre's opinion doesn't change it. Your opinion doesn't change it. A critic's opinion doesn't change it. Only the network and its official declarations get to say what the genre is. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Wrong yet again. Sources determine the information about a series, not the PR wing of the studio or the studio itself. Anyway, we're going to have to agree to disagree. It would appear that consensus is forming that the program isn't within those genres. If more sources come forward about the show fulfilling those genres, we can resume the discussion. In the meantime, you should probably reexamine the criteria that Wikipedia utilizes to determine what gets included and what does not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I recommend you do the same. While you're at it, look up the policies on edit warring before you get yourself blocked. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove both genres from the Infobox as they are not major defining genres. Article text on these is fine as long it is properly cited and written in context to what source(s) states. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove both genres from the infobox. One or even a couple of reviewer opinions are not sufficient for such a major change. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove both. Just because there's a scene in the hospital, it doesn't become a medical show either. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's clear that the sources are engaging in hyperbole. A typical quote is "Does this have to be a soap opera to get good ratings?" That's not a statement of the show's genre. —Cryptic 03:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove both, as the soap opera comment was a pretty obvious dig at the show, not an explanation of its genre, and a show has to do more than just feature romance to fit in that genre, which is, again clearly, all that this show does. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Deadshot

The Slade Wilson character on the TV series is known as "Deadshot". I nrver read the comics, so I only guess that "Deathstroke" is correct there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:6501:3D00:2502:E346:BA24:4164 (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope... Deadshot was a separate character on the tv show from Slade Wilson/Deathstroke. Spanneraol (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arrow (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

LGBT category

I think we should include the series in the American LGBT-related television programs category based on Sara Lance and Curtis Holt being openly LGBT and that their romantic relationships with people of the same gender are explored in the series. --Rose (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My issue with this (as with many categories added) is that it is not a theme of the show. It does not matter for the sake of the show that a few of the characters are gay; there have been no episodes that focus on prejudice, encouragement, or had a mission succeed because of the characters being gay. The same goes (so far) for the other series within Arrowverse. I would, however, agree to an alternate category "Television series with LGBT characters" if there is one. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 03:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Cobra on the alternate cat, if it exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As per the description of the category I mentioned, the character(s) should be significant, which they are, and "may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device". I do not fully understand the latter. Sara's relationship with Nyssa is explored in depth and even more screen time appears to be dedicated to her brief encounters with two other women in Legends of Tomorrow (unrelated to Arrow but Favre1fan93 undid my edit there). Curtis Holt brings up the relationship with his husband multiple times in the series and is seen with him in one of the episodes. --Rose (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The characters may be significant to the series, but their sexuality is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The category description doesn't say it should be. --Rose (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Then possibly a new cat in the wording similar to what Cobra suggested (Television series with LGBT characters) needs to be created. I think it would be more than valid to create and would be able to be populated. As the current cat wording suggests, the sexuality should be a defining element to the series. For this, it is for the characters, not the series as a whole. Yet, if Category:Television series with LGBT characters was created/added, that would be perfectly valid in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You're making this up. There's not a word in the description that says the sexuality or identity should be significant. It says the characters should be, same as with the LGBT-related films category. --Rose (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I see what its saying, but as two additional users have also pointed out, the potential scope of the cat you wants to add doesn't seem correct and may need to be updated or split up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
For example, Orange is the New Black is an American LGBT-related TV program; Arrow is not. It's a superhero/crime TV program that features LGBT characters. So this may be a larger discussion, maybe with WP:LGBT than this talk page section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The category has had the current description since 2012, and based on this as well as how the category has been used, it's the de facto category for significant LGBT characters in TV with no further requirements, although with room for more than just LGBT characters. --Rose (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Try again. The category says "...and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." It hasn't really seemed like an important plot device. The category goes on to say "For television series and programming which are not specifically LGBT-themed but feature occasional LGBT characters and episodes, see Lists of television programs with LGBT characters." Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, "may". Or may not. The second part you quoted talks about that other category, not this one. --Rose (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't miss what precedes it. You make it sound like it's mandatory, telling us "There's not a word in the description that says the sexuality or identity should be significant". It does suggest that use as a significant plot device is part of it. Further, the second part tells us that if this isn't a gay themed show, it might be better off in the other categories. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I see "occasional" as the key word there, as opposed to "significant". As I said, the characters are significant, and as of right now and since 2012, the category doesn't point at any further requirements. Had the word "may" not been there, you'd have a point, but nobody has questioned and removed it so far. The main reason I put this to the talk page despite the description and the category history being very clear to me is that Arrow is protected from user-made edits right now. --Rose (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Rose, how does the mere presence of a gay character or two in the show make the show "LGBT-related" as the category is so specifically named? Queen becomes mayor in the current season, which is a major plot point (unlike the one being discussed here), yet I highly doubt anyone would add a category "fictional mayor-related television series." Instead one might create a category, "Television series with a mayor" (a bit if an absurd category, I know, but you get the idea.) — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 04:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't say "LGBT-themed", so my position still makes sense to me. You can't use the nonexistent category you came up with to make a point about something that's existed and been used for years. With my understanding of the LGBT category, it would help people find TV shows with LGBT characters (or themes) to watch or to improve them if the subject keeps them motivated. Isn't this the purpose of categories? Anyway, I just posted at WP:LGBT/N about this discussion. --Rose (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The descriptor says that if it isn't LGBT themed, it is probably more appropriate for one of the lists. Isn't ease of finding those shows exactly the purpose of those lists? Can you tell us exactly why you oppose the list route so much? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request

This specific issue is dead time to move on. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Increment the value of the |num_episodes= parameter in the {{Infobox television}} template from 95 to 96 to reflect Wednesday's episode. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Heated argument that quickly went off topic

Oppose - need to discuss first. - Have you discussed this change with the other editors, so as to gain their input? Not trying to be snarky; simply ensuring that this doesn't turn into a thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian do you really think this is controversial? It matches the data on List_of_Arrow_episodes and edit warring related to the protection does not appear to in anyway relate to the number of episodes aired. — xaosflux Talk 17:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's nothing worth discussing on this. Just update the number of episodes to match what's been aired. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I certaintly don't think its controversial, but changing parameters is a pain in the ass to undo after a bit. I think that discussing changes and forming a consensus (to avoid edit-warring later) is to be preferred, right? Unpack it for me: what does changing the parameter do for the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It reflects that another episode aired. That's all. He wants to change the number of episodes from 95 to 96. NOTHING ELSE!. Same template. Same infobox. Just changing a number. Is this what is has come to? Forcing a discussion over the most blatantly obvious edits? Guess what? We'll change it again next week too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
First of all, what is your problem with discussion? Clearly you agree that the edit should be made, so why not just say that and be done with it? Why get all pissy about it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with discussion. I've clearly engaged in discussions on this page. This needs zero discussion. It's absurd. All that is being done it adjusting the episode count, something that should be done after every new episode airs. Your statement "but changing parameters is a pain in the ass to undo after a bit." makes me question if you even understood what the request was. Unless you plan to dispute that a new episode actually aired, there is nothing to discuss and your obstruction is just being pointy. So instead of telling me to chill, maybe you should consider chilling on the wikilawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"Maybe you might want to back the fuck off, Niteshift. I'm allowed to suggest discussion and ask questions, especially when I don't understand what's being proposed. No, I didn't understand what changing the parameters might mean, but I've encountered enough minutiae to know that once done mistakenly, its hard to undo, esp. if subsequent changes use the altered parameters and esp. if they are in a locked article. So fuck your zero discussion; just because you get it doesn't mean that others do. What's your goddamn hurry?
"And since when did asking for discussion become a battle cry for you to acting unpleasantly? Chill the hell out; since enough people are fine with the edit, then my issue has been resolved - someone explained the content of the edit, and others were okay with it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again, discussion is fine. This doesn't need discussion. It's blatantly obvious, a matter of routine housekeeping. The content of the edit didn't need explained, or discussed. What was needed was you actually reading the content of the request and applying some comprehension skills. It's obvious that you're angry about the discussion about (which I supported you on BTW), saw the word "parameters", didn't read further and decided to be obstructionist. And obviously, I'm not the only one who sees it. Now, let's address your conduct. I was direct, but I sure didn't tell you to "back the fuck off" and "fuck your zero discussion". So for you to tell me to "chill the hell out" when you ratcheted things up like that, well, that's just laughable. Then you come troll my talk page too? Stop acting like a victim. The matter is resolved, meaning that you have nothing left here to do but comment on editors, not content. So put the whip away and stop beating the dead horse. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This is ludicrous, and just another case of the editor attempting to oppose me at every turn. Go to every television series article and view their history. There has been absolutely no case of a discussion being required to increment the number of episodes that has aired. We're not changing the name of the parameter, we're changing the value. From 95... to 96. And it's not being undone in any format, as you cannot "unair" an episode. It has been done every single week. The opposing editor likes to accuse me of WP:HOUND; this is the perfect example of them displaying such behaviour. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. The most uncontroversial edit you could possibly imagine, performed on thousands of television pages every single day, and he opposes it? He has never opposed it when such edits have been carried out when there was no such protection. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Tldr. I suggested discussion for a requested edit on an edit-locked page. As I didn't understand the nature of the edit, I thought discussion might be best. There is no reason to respond to me like that. I have done nothing wrong, and when people get bitery with me, I bite back. There was no need for the attitude, and you got what you dished out. Don't like it? Be nicer next time. And Alex, you've got nothing to say that I want to hear. I suggest you two grow the hell up. My youngest acts with more grace than either of you have today. We're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Got what was dished out? So you think I told you "back the fuck off" and "fuck your..."? No, you ramped it up sport. And now you want to act like it was someone else's fault. As I said, the only thing left here was to comment on editors and you did exactly that. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
So, now its a playground 'you started it' excuse? You might want to re-read this entire exchange. And the point was, my kid would have handled my initial question than you did; he's better impulse control. Anyway, the matter's done. Move the fuck on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read the exchange. This entire thing was spawned by your ignorance. You keep saying to move on, yet refuse to do exactly that. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done The requested change appears to be factual, and there are no arguments that it is in anyway incorrect. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that because the article was locked that edit requests had to be discussed, as they have elsewhere. Then the crazy dramah train pulls into town. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Well you thought wrong. And when the first editor pointed it out, you kept pressing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
No discussion was needed. If you didn't understand it, you should have read it. Honestly. Grow up. Take a break. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Loosely based upon"

This has come up, with pros and cons. On the pro side, we have multiple references that note the loose translation from comic to the series - a loose adaptation endorsed by the showrunners. On the con side, there appear to be editors who think that the descriptor somehow denigrates the series. It doesn't; it simply defines the series as having used the comics a starting point before venturing forth. And you, know, references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea you started a discussion. 4 reverts in 24 hours... that reminds me of something. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how calling it a loose interpretation is inaccurate. The series deviates from the source material quite a bit. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't "loosely based upon" and I've removed that wording. How the show deals with its comic counterparts is one thing, but it is still based upon the character and comics, no matter how much of those interpretations are to the T of the comics versions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Your statement of an opinion as an absolute fact aside, can you (without talking to me like a child) explain how the word "loosely" makes it inaccurate? There is a lot of deviation. Nobody disputes that the series is based on the comic, but when the series deviates routinely, the basis seems to be a more loose interpretation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And I've reinstated it. Respectfully, removing cited material from reliable sources to support a preferred version isn't very cool or collaborative. You can discuss it here, not edit war it in the article. If something is a loose adaptation of something else, it means that it is taking the elements of the source material to make something that isn't the same as the source material. The further away from the source material the thing is, the looser the connection. Perhaps you should take a knee and explain your motivation for removing both the 'loosely' characterization as well as several reliable sources. Since the discussion is ongoing here (and you aren't going to find anything approaching consensus by edit-warring it back in), maybe hold off on reverting for a bit. Let's discuss this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: "Based on" inherently means this object is adapting the original, not being a direct correlation of the original material. If it was, the wording would be "It is a direct adaptation of the character Green Arrow" or the like. Adding "loosely" before "based on" doesn't help further quantify this how much it is (fully) or isn't (loosely) based on the source material. And since it is only using it as a basis and is based on the comics, there is a safe assumption that there will be deviations.
@Jack Sebastian: See my response to Niteshift above. Additionally, RE Respectfully, removing cited material from reliable sources to support a preferred version isn't very cool or collaborative. Seriously? You are making it sound like I completely changed what was added. If you actually saw the diff, which apparently you didn't, I only removed one source that was not reliable (The Outhousers one) and then just did a C/E on the rest of the material to make it sound/flow better. Plus moving it below the season reception. Also not edit warring, that would be you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You are going about this in the wrong way, Favre1fan93. The edit-warring has to stop and pronto. I'm sorely tempted to report you right now for ignoring a discussion to edit-war your pet version in. You did completely change what was added by removing a the 'loosely' bit of the statement that was explicitly reinforced by several sources. So you didn't like the source? You come here and tell us, and we talk about it. That's how collaborative editing works. You shed the assumption of good faith when you pull stupid shit like that. Now, you can either self-revert, or I can report you. It's as plain as that. Clocking is ticking, son. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to cut the attacking attitude. It seems as though you are just looking to get into arguments and not discuss, seeing as you threaten the ultimatum of me reverting or you reporting. First off, since you reported me for no valid reason, as I said there, I edited the article one, outside of whatever happened before, and then reverted you one time. That isn't edit warring. Second, I don't need to discuss copy editing or the removal of unreliable sources. But if you whole point is that I removed "loosely", then you shouldn't have reverted me, undoing those valid edits, and simply readded the "loosely" word. So that is on you, not me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your definition. If I make a movie based on a real event, the adaptation can be very true to the source (such as Apollo 13 or Tora Tora Tora) or loosely based on the source (such as Braveheart). Both Apollo 13 and Braveheart can say "based on", but the amount of movie that is actually based on the event and the amount based on what the producer thought would make a good movie are drastically different. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I still don't feel we need a quantifier before in this instance. Yes there are differences in the show from the comics, but at its base, the core elements of the character and story is generally there. If this was say, for example, a TV show meant to be an adaption of DC Comics' Green Arrow, but the character isn't called "Oliver Queen" and the setting was the far future, or the like, then I could see including "loosely". But not in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Both may have an Oliver Queen, but Oliver Queen isn't the only character. Braveheart had William Wallace, but the movie version was much different than the historical one the movie was loosely based on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that we do. There are significant differences between the series and the comics. The showrunners themselves have noted that they aren't going to follow the comics that closely. Granted, the adaptation isn't as drastic as, say Contantine, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Wanted, but the differences are notable. There is the matter of Thea. Then there is the odd origina story that departs markedly from the comics. Then there is the whole killing thing. Then there is the alternative backstories for virtually every single one of the villain used in the series. Then there is the costume, and the missing forked beard. And Dinah Lance - oops, its Laurel Lance now, and oops, she's dead.
These are marked departures from the comic books that consistently loosen the connections between the two versions, and that - according to the showrunners - is be specific design.
Plus, there is, you know, references in support of the characterization. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are a couple of reliable sources that use that characterization and I think that's getting overlooked. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to add another sentence after the current "It is based on..." more along the lines of this" "Arrow features loose adaptions of the comics characters in the series, particularly with Thea Queen." That is directly sourced by the added material, and would be a better way to present the info IMO, if we need "loose" somewhere in the lead, which I still feel we really don't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's closer to a solution (which is good), but it fails to reflect that the series Oliver Queen shares very little with the comic book version of the same character. And Thea Queen doesn't even exist inthe comics, so there's no adaptation possible there. Nor is there a Diggle, or a cadre of helpers. With the exception of Speedy (a teenaged boy) and later Dinah Lance (who in the series is dead), the series only uses the most superficial nods to the comic books.
Yes the series uses the comic books as a source, but they depart madly from that point. We have several sources that say very much the same thing, including that of the showrunners. It doesn't weaken the article to a) follow the sources and, b) tell the truth. This is a very different character. That's not a bad thing, per se - it just is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Just out of curiosity, who here actually watches the show? I think those who do watch would actually agree it is a "loose adaptation" or "loosely based on". Just change it back please. 129.78.56.154 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, the consensus now appears to be 3-1 in favor of inclusion of hte term 'loosely' with respect to the nature of the adaptation from the comic book source material and the tv series. If you are sure that we cannot sway your opinion on the matter, your alternatives are to accept the consensus as it has developed and allow the inclusion with references, or opt to open an RfC on the matter. Let us know how you would like to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
If we were saying this is a "loose" adaptation of a comic book then that would make sense, but "loosely" based on a character is redundant and has unnecessary connotations. If reliable sources really are to be included in the lead like this, then wouldn't saying something more like "based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow, though the series' interpretation has been compared more to the DC Comics character Batman". That avoids this "loosely" based on nonsense (making changes in an adaptation is not unique) and gives the readers a clear idea straight up that some specific liberties have been taken with the character instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Adamstom 97. Yes, what I think we are saying is that the series is a loose adaptation of the comic book; there are so many differences that the term doesn't apply to any one character. Is that a more acceptable solution for everyone else here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Consensus isn't the result of a vote or a poll Jack. And again with giving out ultimatums! Seriously, not good editing practices or encouraging for editors to work with you on resolving issues. Jumping right to an RfC is unnecessary as that is also a last measure resort when all discussion has failed. The conversation is still moving and progressing. Adam, that was what I was trying to get at in my wording in a response above, trying to actually avoid including "loose"/"loosely". I like the direction of your suggested wording, though am thinking, since it is in the reception section, it should be moved completely to the fourth lead paragraph, where the reception is talked about, and left completely alone from the "based on" text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agreed that talking about a RfC is very premature. I'm pretty satisfied with calling it a loose adaptation. I see no issues with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I just think that if there are problems with the "based on" statement, it couldn't hurt to stick that line in. We could then, in summarising the reception info, say "in addition to the Batman comparison..." or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There re problems with the 'based on' text without acknowledging the cited observation that its a loose adaptation. They've taken some major liberties with the source material, and that's a fact. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The idea of "loosely based" has largely stemmed from books to film, because films take lots of liberties at times with the source material. In those cases, it's a single translation that is loose, like, maybe a concept was borrowed. The reason that that doesn't apply here is that comic books typically don't have 1 hard set reality or cannon. So, to say it was "loosely based" becomes irrelevant, because all comics are loosely based on their original source material to a degree. Every time a character gets a revamp, it's something new. THink of the New 52. You could argue that that is loosely based on the original character storylines. THat's why I don't think it's best or accurate to say "loosely based" because we're not talking about one specific story that this show is based on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, Bignole, that's an inapplicable argument. Firstly, the reason that the "loosely-based" term has largely been applied in book-to-film adaptations has been that there haven't been a lot of comic book adaptations to the screen until recently. So, suggesting that therm belongs relatively exclusively with the book2film adaptation is a bit dated. And discriminatory towards the comic book medium.
Additionally, the material chosen from for this tv series is the Green Arrow material that has pretty much been consistent and continuous since the character's creation in 1941, adapting for the times. And how do I know that? Two ways: first, the showrunners have said so. Secondly, the New 52 comic book series was started in 2012...after the series premiered and is an alternate timeline created by Flashpoint. Now, if you are intimating that this is an alternate universe or an alternate timeline, we should say that.
Alternatively, we could simply say what is both obvious and cited - that the televsion series is a loose adaptation of the comic book character and series. Because it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This show is not a loose adaptation. "Loosely" implies that there are very, very drastic changes made from the source material, often to the point that there are little similarities besides the name. An example of this would the film adaptation of World War Z. Although the show does re-imagine the characters in a new setting, it is still a direct adaptation of the Green Arrow comic book franchise. DarkKnight2149 02:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, Darkknight2149 - you are using the term 'loosely' and believing it is a synomym for 'drastic'. It isn't drastic. The character is still recognizable as Green Arrow (with a hefty nod to the Batman thang), but there are notable, sizable and undeniable differences. the comparison could easily be made with World War Z, but I think you are looking at this as some sort of affront to either the series, the comic books or to geekdome everywhere. As a geek myself, I don't think that's the case. WE ARE FOLLOWING WHAT THE SHOWRUNNERS HAVE THEMSELVES SAID. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Darkknight, there are some pretty significant deviations between the comic and the show. Significant enough to recognize it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And that's just it. A loose adaptation does imply drastic changes. There are sizable differences, sure, but none drastic enough for this to be considered a "loose adaptation", especially given the changes made from the fourth season (such as him taking on the "Green Arrow" moniker and the city becoming Star City). But even before that, it wasn't a "loose adaptation". Most of the characters fill the same roles as their comic counterparts, and the same goes for many of the other key elements. Even the darker tone matches up with a variety of Green Arrow stories (he isn't always a comedic jokester). But all of that obligatory analysis aside, it takes more than a few "sizeable differences" for something to be considered a loose adaptation. As previously mentioned, much of the key elements of the comics and the character roles remain the same, even if a lot of it is changed. No adaptation is exactly like the comics. And (on a side note) if we are to consider this a "loose adaptation", are we to start taking a number of other adaptations that make a lot of changes into consideration (Tim Burton Batman films, Gotham, FANT4STIC, ETC)? I try to stay away from WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but this does seem like a can of worms that could easily be opened. DarkKnight2149 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Darkknight and Bignole have both presented the arguments I was trying to make above in better terms and examples. Thanks. I agree with what you are both saying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's go on the definition of drastic changes - John Diggle was never a comic book character in the first place (was put into the comics after the show, doesn't count). Felicity Smoak was never a Green Arrow character (she's a Firestorm character), Merlyn never had a son named Tommy, Shado was an anti-hero who raped Oliver, not the pure-hearted character they portrayed in the show. Oliver Queen is nowhere near as politically conscious as his comic book counterpart (pre-52), nor does he run Q-core (post-52). Dinah Laurel Lance is not a metahuman......I can keep going on. Sure, you can say that adaptations aren't meant to be 100% true to comics, and I agree with that. But NONE of the storylines on the show (aside from the island one, which is barely a nod to the comics as he's in and out there for 2-3 years max) are remotely comic book inspired. So no, the characters don't fill the same roles as their comic counterparts. At best, this is a LOOSE adaptation of the source material (which again, the writers pretty much don't care about). BTW, Tim Burton's Batman for all its leniency on the source material, still captures the very essence of Batman/Bruce Wayne (a man with a lot of darkness, struggling to balance two identities). Gotham still paints a nice origin story for all its rogues, with the overarching theme of why this city eventually needed a Batman. FANT4STIC....well that's definitely a loose adaptation.129.78.56.147 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
IP, those aren't really "drastic" changes per what Darkknight said above. No one here is denying there are adaptive differences, but, again as Darkknight said, saying "loose" anywhere implies drastically different portrayals. And again, all mediums outside the comics will present their own portrayals of the material. It is also worth mentioning that the opening of the series says "Based on characters appearing in DC Comics", which tells you right there that the characters are from the comics, with some originals, but how they appear in this series might not be exactly as they have appeared on a comic page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
129.78.56.147, I should also add that that sounds more like an opinionated analysis based on how you feel about how the show adapts the source material, rather than a relatively objective argument (especially when you said that the only thing keeping the Tim Burton Batman films from being a loose adaptation is that you feel it captures the spirit of the character). DarkKnight2149 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No, DK, let's not do that. Let's avoid addressing the editor and focus on the content of the post, please. Its going to keep matter a lot more civil, and that's the only way that we're going to get things done.
I think we are encountering drastic differences in how we are individually defining the terms 'adaptation and 'loose adaptation;. We cannot use the phrase frm the "based on characters appearing in DC Comics"; producers of shows can verify their product, but the cannot evaluate their product, which is why reviews exist. We are fortunate to have reviews that note the loose adaptation from comic book to series; indeed, they are even in the article. Is there the feeling that by noting the series is a loose adaptation, the series is less good? We are not making a value judgment of the series content, apart from noting that it doesn't match closely the source material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Sebastian, you bring up an interesting point - it does seem like we are defining the phrase "loose adaptation" differently. As such, I did a search for an official denotation of the term. The best I could really find comes from this official website from an American university. The university defines the term as follows "In a loose adaptation, a director may only use the original situation, story idea, or characters to create a film that bears little resemblance to the original text." The site then goes on to list a few examples. Although it was referring to film, I think the same would apply to a television series as well.
Going off that specific denotation, I don't think Arrow would qualify. The premise of an emerald archer acting as a street level vigilante is the same, the majority of the characters come straight from the comics and fulfill the same general roles (Black Canary still acted as a vigilante/potential love interest to the main character, Roy Harper still acted as a partner archer, most of the villains on the show were also villains in the comics, ETC), all of the major locations are the same (Star City, the island, Queen Industries). As far as story goes, although much of it is original (which is to be expected in any comic-based television series), Green Arrow's backstory is still a variation of his origin from the comics (being stranded on the island), and in the special features on the Season 1 DVD, it's directly stated that the first season was heavily influenced by the Year One and The Longbow Hunters storylines from the comic.
There are certainly a lot of major differences. Nobody is debating that. But looking at the core essentials (the specific characters, the general roles of the characters, the key settings, the premise, backstory, ETC), I don't think the term "loose adaptation" can accurately be applied here. DarkKnight2149 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for researching and presenting that Darkknight2149. And as I've been saying, a phrase or sentence would be fine to put in the lead discussing how the series has diverted from the comics material, but as Darkknight greatly pointed out right above me, using "loose" or "loosely" in front of the "based on" phrase is incorrect in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Okay, I am not entirely sold on jettisoning the 'loosely based upon', but I am going to keep an open mind. Offer some alternative suggestions.The Lede cannot remain the way it is currently especially when we have references that explicitly note the departures from the source material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In the context of the articles using the citations, most of the cases seem to just indicate the opinion of the person writing the article. There's even one point where it is said that Green Arrow killing criminals is a departure (because apparently he's never done that in the comic before...), as well as the appearance of Mia AKA Thea as Speedy (who also exists in the comic). One of the citations even stated in the title that it was from the opinion of a longtime comics fan.
I would be okay with stating in the Critical response section that reviews have observed a number of significant differences between the show and the source material. Perhaps we could do a section about the significant deviations between the show and the comic. But this doesn't seem to be enough to state that it's "loosely based" on Green Arrow as a fact. DarkKnight2149 21:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There will always be differences between the source material and the new media. Even 300 and Watchmen had some differences, and those were virtually shot for shot translations. The story of Green Arrow is a billionaire is stranded on an island, learns archery through various trainings, comes back to home town and acts as the local hero. That's the basic premise of Green Arrow, and that is translated here. That's not a "loose adaptation". The fine details of borrowing from Batman or some other hero don't negate that the show is directly based on Green Arrow. THe comics do not have one defined canon for him, so it is still "based". It doesn't say "adapted from", as that would indicate are more direct translation. "Based on" implies that the basic essence of the story is based on this character and their history. You can argue that a specific character is a "loose translation", as many of the villains are, but the show itself is plainly based on the story of Green Arrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I should also note that, even in the comics, Green Arrow has been borrowing from Batman since his creation. At one point, he even had an Arrow-Plane and a Arrow-mobile. So that is also nothing new when comparing Arrow to the comic. DarkKnight2149 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put on my comic nerd hat for a moment to point out that Green Arrow has killed approximately once. Inthe series, he spent most of his evenings being a serial killer - harsh truth, but if the shoe fits. Secondly, the comics Oliver Queen teaches himself on the island - not "learns archery through various trainings." There is no Thea Queen in the comics, as Oliver is an only child. Yes, the character was developed as a cookie cutter crime fighter as per Batman, and this series does try to rob as much as it possibly can from the Batman storyline (as per the intent of the showrunners).
It is an adaptation, but not a very faithful adaptation. I am open to hearing alternatives for how to term the adaptation int he Lede, since we already have references in the body of the article noting it as a loose adaptation and approximately as such by the showrunners themselves. I am also aware that WP:OSE, but I'm concentrating on this article, not another one. Let's find an alternative, because we have to note that the adaptation isn't a faithful one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Again putting on our nerd hats (which we, myself included, are probably doing more than we should to be honest), I beg to differ. Green Arrow has killed a lot, especially in the Mike Grell run on the series (one of the more famous runs that began with Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters, which the showrunners have stated to be a heavy influence on the show). Thea is implied to be an adaptation of Speedy (Mia Dearden), as her middle name is "Dearden" and she later assumed the name "Mia" (although she was not Oliver Queen's sister in the comics by any means). And the storyline of Green Arrow not being the only person stranded on the island was influenced by Green Arrow: Year One. But all that aside, I should stress that our arguments aren't motivated by some misplaced fanboyisms, although this conversation has brought up comparisons between the show and the comic for obvious reasons.
Regardless of our "nerd hat" arguments, I don't understand the logic of us absolutely having to change the word "adaptation" simply because a few sources have used the "loose adaptation" term in an informal manner. There are major differences, but not enough for this to be a genuine "loose adaptation" (per the university definition given above). Every adaptation is different from its source material, and this is an adaptation. I think it's really that simple. DarkKnight2149 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, almost every adaptation is different from the source material, but most of those don't have references that clearly state that its a loose adaptation. We do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, pretty much every adaptation is discussed in terms of its similarity to the source material, whether sources are mentioning a fan response, their belief that too much was changed, or too little, or discussing specific reasons for why changes were made. It is not that uncommon. So, if you want to add reliable sources discussing specific, major, noteworthy changes from the source material, then that seems like a great idea to me. But calling out the series as a "loose" adaptation, as if it is less like its source material than any other adaptation ever made, seems a bit ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue?

What's wrong with including Canada in location? The country is present in other articles. Not allowed in this article's infobox? Secondly, why use a redirect, when the article is "Vancouver"? Alaney2k (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Including Canada is unnecessary, especially in an infobox where there's limited space. There's no other "Vancouver, BC" in the world so Canada is not needed for disambiguation purposes and if people are really curious about Vancouver and don't already know where it is, they can, as has been pointed out before, click through to the Vancouver article.
As for why use a redirect, because at some point, the city in BC may not be the primary topic at Vancouver, but it's highly unlikely it will never not be the primary topic at Vancouver, British Columbia (or Vancouver, BC assuming that redirect also exists). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"Country" is not "Country of filming", it's "Country of Origin" and it's not a Canadian show. It's an American show, that happens to be filmed in Vancouver. Why? Because it's super cheap and almost every CW and Warner Bros production is filmed in Vancouver because of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Vancouver Location falls under "Production" section in the Infobox. Further up in the Infoxbox the Country of origin is listed as United States. Both of these seem correct here. I don't think Canada has to be listed after Vancouver, but it would be good to clarify for readers from other parts of the world, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not the job of "Arrow (TV series)" to teach people where Vancouver (a pretty well-known city anyway) is, especially not in the infobox. If they really want to know, they can click on the link and be taken straight to the info. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether the link reads "Vancouver" or "Vancouver, BC" doesn't really matter, as long as it is a single link going to the right city. Vancouver and BC should not be separate links and Canada shouldn't be linked at all, per MOSLINK. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why Canada needs to be listed. If you click "Vancouver", you're going to get Canada.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)/Archive_4&oldid=1144180180"