Talk:List of Arrow episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ratings

We need to review our sources for the ratings. Deadline has posted the 2013/2014 average ratings, and it has Arrow as 3.28 million (http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/tv-season-series-rankings-2013-full-list-2/). We don't have enough numbers to justify that average. Meaning that they are probably using the original and the DVR ratings. So, we need to make sure that we we're using is matching, otherwise we have a hard time showing that our ratings are lower than the average that Nielsen says it has.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What's your issue with the Deadline source? I'm just having a hard time reading what you are trying to say. Is the average to high or low in your opinion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The DEADLINE average is 3.28 million. If you average the episodes based on what we have on the page, our average is 2.62 million total viewers. The only way I can assume that we would be that far off would be if the total viewers included DVR+7 ratings, as opposed to just final overnight figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. So should we find another source, or adjust our heading in the table to indicate that it is include the DVR numbers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can find the source(s) that typically comes out about a week after the episode airs that provides those figures for each episode (for season 1 as well). Then, we'll match up alongside the end of the season rankings. I don't think I've seen end of season rankings that didn't include DVR numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Previously I have only seen the info from Deadline and TV By the Numbers. Zap2It used to have once, but since they merged with TBTN, the ratings info has kind of segregated to them. Futon Critic also does ratings, so they may have something. If not, we may have to work with this, and just adjust our label for the table where this would go. It wouldn't be ideal, but would be something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, that is the case. Let's see what we can find over the next week or so for the individual episodes. If it looks like we can get them, then let's swap him. If not, then we'll re-label.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, shows how much we stuck to our plan of using DVR numbers as the viewers. Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 2#Ratings. Once I figure out the regular release pattern on TV by the Numbers, it should be easy to find the info, as long as it was released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that you and I had discussed that once before, but I couldn't remember for sure. LOL. I think that part of the problem was that neither you nor I were the ones handling the ratings. I saw "final ratings" in edit summaries and never bothered to go back and check.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick search of TV by the Numbers, and the DVR articles they have don't have any numbers for Arrow. I think we are going to just have to adjust the one table heading to state it may include the DVR numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I found some DVR ratings, but they don't have Arrow listed in them (they have freakin' Beauty and the Beast and Vampire Diaries...uh). I checked season one, and it appears that that ranking is based on DVR figures as well, because I have the average being 3.21 million. So, I say let's go ahead and add the rankings and make the header: "Total Viewers (in millions)/(Inc. DVR)"; or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

I WANT TO ADD ABSENCES, IF A CHARACTER MISSES AN EPISODE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE ADDED. PLEASE LET ME EDIT!! 108.206.221.5 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Series overview table etc.

I see two big issues here. First, we're summarizing tables with a table for 2 seasons. Why exactly? These "overview tables" have never made sense to me, with maybe the exception of "The Simpsons", which has 20+ years of broadcast history. Why is it that a reader can not simply scroll down and read numbers on the episode tables to see how many there are, or check the dates in the "Air date" column? The only reason you need to point out specific dates might be for Nielsen Ratings, and they come after the episode section. Not to mention, DVD info has no business being at the top of the page. It's the least important thing on the page, and placing it at the top puts undue weight on the home release of the series. We're not here to sell a product, nor to announce that a produce is available. It's ancillary information, and shouldn't be kept at the top of the page. Additionally, Nielsen info should not be merged with DVD info. They are not related in the slightest. I understand wanting to merge information to conserve space, but you don't merge unrelated information for the sake of merging. That's just poor organization. I don't know where this movement across TV series pages began, but just because other pages are doing does not mean that it should be done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The function of this page is to provide information about the actual episodes of the series and while ratings and home media releases do have a bearing on the series, its a fairly small one in the context of this page and that information needs to be expressed as concisely as possible. Having two entire sections for information that isn't really important to the episodes themselves is too much. A series overview table is the neatest, cleanest way to summarize all of the information that is needed without being overbearing. Of course readers could just scroll down to view the information, but why should they have to scroll all the way down season one if, for example, they're just looking for when season two will be back next year? It's a simple matter of ease of access. Just because they don't make sense to you, doesn't mean they are senseless and I for one think this page is incomplete without one and I don't actually think that any of your arguments against using one are drawbacks. We should restore it immediately, if for no other reason than to teach Bignole a lesson about ownership. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Then just remove the ratings and the DVD information if they are "fairly small context". As far as your argument for "they're just looking for when season two will be back next year", the overview table doesn't tell them that. It tells them premiere and finale dates, nothing else. Given that there is a great big TABLE OF CONTENTS to the left of the series overview table, clicking "Season 2" or "Season Fill In The Blank" is pretty simple. There is no reason to dumb the page down to the page that you're creating redundancy after redundancy for no actual purpose. Especially when you're placing undue weight on DVD information by putting it at the top of the page.

What are you actually providing with a show 2 years old? You're providing an episode count, premiere and finale dates, DVD information, and Nielsen ranking. Are we being serious with this? The episodes are already counted for them, it's a simple click on the TOC and bam, you're at the boom and can see how many episodes in both the season and the series thanks to our tables. The air dates of the premiere and finales are pretty easy to see, hell the first one is in the same frame with the overview table itself. I've already spoken my piece on the DVD info, and the Nielsen rankings shouldn't be the first thing on the page either. This page is about the episodes themselves, I added the DVD and Nielsen stuff just to start the process and give the page more depth. I didn't put it in here to be the cornerstone of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, the Nielsen ratings table and home release table contain all the information that would be in a series overview table (and more!). Now that these two tables are on the page, I see no reason why a series overview is needed at this time. There just isn't enough information to summarize at the moment.Liambarrett1986 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of all of your points; I believe the information is best presented as an overview rather than with Nielsen ratings, as the information on viewership and seasons better pertains to the television show than it does to a rating system. Also, I as a reader would prefer that information front-and-centre before going into the details of the article. On the other hand, I think that the overview can be redundant if placed along with the TOC, which is why we can either de-link the overview's internal links and still keep both, or follow an article like List of The Simpsons episodes and add a compact TOC, suppress the automatically-generated one, and still have some redundancies with linking to each season. What do you all think?--ɱ (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But there are not details in this article. It's a list page that just lists the episodes. The "details" might be the plot information, but I cannot see the majority of average readers coming here (to this specific page) just to see premiere dates, DVD info, and Nielsen ratings. They're coming here for episode plots, yet we're feeding them redundancy on episode counts and dates that they're going to see in a half second anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If you say so, but I would say that readers would come to this page for all of that information. And it really doesn't hurt to put it up at the top of the page, so why not?--ɱ (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it's about professional writing and organization (something that we strive for on Wikipedia). You don't write papers where you duplicate yourself multiple times like that, and you certainly don't write people putting ancillary information at the beginning as if it's as important as everything else. You have lead that summarizes the article, then you're creating a table that summarizes again, and for a show that has 1 1/2 seasons. You're acting like it is The Simpsons with 20+ years of airing and it would be easy to get lost in what season you're looking at. It's not. The question that should always be asked is "if it's removed is it a detriment"? The answer is no, because I've never in all my years seen a reader come to an LoE page, or anywhere else and say the following: "Where is the series overview table, because I like to have it to compare dates." Never. I've seen "editors" do that. Yes, they are "readers" as well, but they are readers who edit articles and have either seen them all over the place, or personally put them there. Readers are coming for the basics, which are plot summaries, let's be honest here. Most care less about the real world content that we put into articles, and more about "what happened in Episode X". Just because you think something is "helpful" or "useful" to them doesn't mean that it either is, or that they have a desire for it. Given it's redundancy within an LoE page (I'm not talking about main page, though I'm not entire sure of the need, there is certainly a better argument for those pages), and the fact that the most important thing on this page is the episodes themselves, not the specific dates of release, it should be removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(←) Okay. I think it's worth mentioning that I find the Simpsons LoE page more navigable, because no season takes up much more than one full screen (and regardless of screen size, the Arrow seasons take up much more space). Of course, that's unavoidable, because we're not about to start giving each season its own page, but it means that this LoE page is still less navigable, and should have more properties for ease of access. Still, I think it's fine either way.--ɱ (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But, if the argument is "navigation", we have a TOC right next to the table. Condensing the TOC like The Simpsons seems unnecessary considering we have 2 seasons, and the Simpsons has like 23 seasons. That's a huge difference. People are coming here for plot summaries, not episode counts (which the tables have). It seems like people want to hold the hands of readers by simplifying pages down to the point that they are just redundancies everywhere. It would be like arguing, "We need a summary table halfway through the page, just in case a reader forgets what they read halfway up.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying people come here for plot summaries. I hate the plot summaries, they're annoying and if they have to be more than a line then the episode should have it's own small page. This is a list of episodes. I want the table, like every other show, with premiere and finale dates, and then list of episodes sorted preferably by air date. Any other information should relate specifically to identification of the episode, i.e. air date, production number, etc. Summaries and descriptions to NOT belong on a page that is a list. Just because the list is currently small does NOT mean that the page should be fleshed out with irrelevant crap.115.188.135.11 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Also, neilsen ratings don't matter, but if you want them why not make them a column of the series overview table; instead of confusing everyone with a completely different format and burying the lead at the bottom of the page?115.188.135.11 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If this page is about the episodes themselves, then putting the neilsen ratings at the bottom would not be "burying the lead". Also, a series overview table would only give you 2 ratings, the first and last of each season. If you're not coming here for the episodes, then why are you coming here? There is an overview table on the main page that will give you just the premiere and finale dates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The neilsen rating table currently only gives those ratings you mention, so not sure why your saying 'only' or even mentioning it. If you want neilsen for each episode then add a column to the episodes ??? . As I said, I want a "list of episodes sorted preferably by air date", and I don't want 5 lines of text between each air date, I want to be able easily compare one air date to the next. Because shows often skip a random week or two. Actually I'd prefer to be able to do that with any piece of information on any show, be able to compare any list item to the item above and below without being visually disrupted by a wall of text. That's what episode lists are good for. I'm not 100% against episode descriptions, but, so that the list isn't cluttered (and unusable as a list!), they should be only one line or the episode should have it's own page for description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.135.11 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally fixed this ^_^, descriptions are still too long but setting td.description to display:none in stylish works wonders. 115.188.135.11 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Season 3 color suggestion

I'm fairly new here and am just learning how everything works. I don't want to shove my opinion onto everyone else, so that's why I wanted to leave my suggestion for Season 3's color. I love "a32600", I love that it kinda complements The Flash. Take a look and let me know what you think. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The colors are generally default color schemes until the DVD box sets come out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, is there any exception to this rule? LLArrow (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally not, because we don't know what the color scheme for the show will be. It's not really our place to create a scheme because we think it would be cool.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well why hasn't season 2's color scheme changed to its DVD box set color which was revealed last week? LLArrow (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's okay if things are done immediately on here. As we have not branched out to individual season articles, we haven't been watching for a DVD cover. I didn't even know that it had happened. And upon seeing it, I don't see a distinguishing feature to grab a color from. It is pretty much the same color pallette as season 1. So in that case, the current color stays. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. You cannot tell how the DVD set looks yet. It's just the cover art.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what dictates the "default color scheme"? LLArrow (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The color that is automatically set in the template source code itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh. I'm apparently not aware of this either. There is nothing about "default" codes that I can see at Template:Episode list. Is it somewhere else Bignole? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I thought we were using the episode table template, which has a default color scheme. I forgot that we're using the actual coding for the page and we set the color. If you don't put a color in, it defaults to gray.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. So, still in that case LLArrow, we want to use a little "common sense" (using this loosely) with the colors until we get something better to pull from (ie a season poster or the DVD box art). A neutral color that complies with WP:COLOR and hasn't been used on the page works. As well, we should consider, slightly, since these two shows are going to be airing together (Flash and Arrow), we don't want the colors to be too similar, as Flash's will be a red/maroon most likely. While not something to follow, it is something to do to be considerate to readers who will most likely be interested in both shows and going back and forth between the tables. I generally go to another established show's LoE page, find a color there that doesn't match what has been used here, and just make that the new season color. The color is not really something to fret about, unless it has to do with contrast issues. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fretting over it, I just have a preference when it comes to colors that are so prevalent in an article. I would've liked to see each season be a varied shade of green, for obvious reasons. LLArrow (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you were, but, even still, doing the colors all one shade is not proper either. There should be a wide diversity to help distinquish each of the seasons. If we have three green colors, that can get very confusing, even if they are different shade. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't we do something like Fringe? It basically has different variations of blue for all of its seasons. LLArrow (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, yellow isn't a variation of blue. Neither is grey. They actually only have 2 blue colors in 5 seasons of that show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, all I'm trying to do is make a fun, enjoyable experience when fans of Arrow view this article. I speak for a lot of Green Arrow fans when I say I would love if all of the seasons' colors were a shade of green. Couldn't we put it to a vote or something? LLArrow (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And now we are back to WP:DEW. Why would the colors enhance a readers enjoyment of the show? I highly doubt they would suddenly like or dislike the show because the episode table color on Wikipedia is or isn't to their liking. As stated, we have guidelines for how to choose the color: from promotional posters and then ultimately the DVD box art. And if distinct colors can't be chosen, then they are just arbitrary, ensuring contrast is followed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are being completely overly dramatic and flat out lying when you say I'm edit warring. I have not tried to change the color of anything on this article, I diplomatically came to the talk page to discuss it. I'm going to drop the whole thing as this appears to be accomplishing nothing. Wikipedia's rules are unnecessarily regimented and unfun. I wish people had the interest of the fans of this terrific show in mind and not be so concerned with following a bunch of made-up malarkey that some imbecile/imbeciles dreamt up in their basements. LLArrow (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not making it clear that I didn't mean you to be edit warring – you're not. It's the concept of the essay, to not make a big deal about the colors that I was going for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate your apology. LLArrow (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Add absent characters in episodes. Nightwing1345 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to be more specific with your request.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he means he wants below the seasons-

• Y was absent for X episodes. Do not revert (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't track that. It's irrelevant data when you're looking at the characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

seperate page for season 3

there is a seperate page for arrow season 2 with detail of cost, plot, guest, etc.......can we do the same for season 3 we do have enough info now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.164.58 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Page for season 2 was created at improper title, and has since been redirected per MOS:TV#Multiple pages. Season 3 article should not exist either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Color Scheme

Why are we doing "Red" as the color scheme for season three? It certainly isn't a default color for the template, nor is it connected in anyway to the series itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's red because red isn't blue. Want a colour that conforms to Wikipolicy? Fair enough. But does it have to be one that that is basically identical to a colour that's already in use? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, we've only ever really made different color schemes that match the seasons DVD box art. Otherwise, we shouldn't be creating our own color scheme. I mean, blue is better than red in the sense that red is in no way part of this show. It looks like it should be over at The Flash. So, at best if it's not a default color, then it should all really be the same green since they aren't changing colors for each of the DVD box sets.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we don't know what a potential DVD color will be, we should just choose one. I do agree, that yes, maybe red shouldn't be used, but that doesn't mean it should be blue either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be blue (blue just seemed better than red). Given that season two didn't change color schemes, it appears that we're going to end up with the same color scheme across all seasons. At the very least, maybe various shades of green.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think various "greens" can get tricky. We should be as different as possible IMO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you go different as possible, then you have to remove the idea of a scheme and just go without basic colors. To me, that defeats the purpose of us converting the first season to the green that it is now (because of the DVD release). We'll basically be abandoning what we were doing. We could alternate between black and green (which are the colors primarily used with the character on the show. Black is also in compliance with the WCAG color rating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I had meant different with each new season, not changing what we already have. But each season should be a different shade, even if it is the same color I guess. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We certainly need to figure something out. I don't think "red" is the best decision. It appears to be made because of The Flash starting this season, and not because of this show as an independent entity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Flash has nothing to do with it. I chose the red because you had a problem with the yellow I originally chose. I just chose a colour that fit the WCAG thing. -- 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You weren't the one that originally put red up there. The yellow you put didn't meet the WCAG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blood Rush

Shouldn't it be a section about the show's tie-in webisodes on the episodes section, or at least a mention? Every other show that has them, has a section/mention about it. If there is no further discussion about this, I may add it myself soon. Thanks. Artmanha (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

They're already mentioned at Arrow (TV series)#Blood Rush. No point in duplicating ourselves across pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be transferred to the episodes section then, rather than keeping it on the show's main section. Following the standards of other show's pages on Wikipedia. Artmanha (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are not "standards". Other pages just happen to have them there. It comes down to marketing gimmicks, and not actual episodes or specials. Marketing is typically discussed on the main page of a show. We never included the Chloe Chronicles on the List of Smallville episodes because they are not actual episodes, they were marketing strategies using characters that people know from the show. They don't impact the show directly in anyway, because they are never mentioned. It would be like including digital comics on this page as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. If the Blood Rush episodes were not for marketing purposes and actually had an impact on the episodes, I would say include them. But they are marketing shorts, meant to use the characters established in the show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Eventhough I get your point, I don't agree with you. Regardless of not being cited on the show, the Blood Rush webisodes are a part of the continuity of it, and the tie-in digital comics, not. The comics are only for marketing purposes and have nothing to do with the show itself (meaning that nothing happening there will affect the show in any way). My point is that is should be CITED not to put there the same section of the main article, it should be the same way the "Year One" special, which isn't a part of the show, is cited there. Thank you for your comprehension. Artmanha (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How are the comics only for marketing, but "Blood Rush" isn't? It's entire premise was to sell BOSE speakers. The Digital Comic has as much tie-in to the show as the webisodes do, but neither directly impacted the show. There is never a reference in the show to anything that happens in any of that stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, the webisodes are a part of the continuity of the series, and the comics not. I still defend the idea of putting a line like: "During the original airing of the first season, a six-episode webseries called "Blood Rush" was released to promote BOSE, one of the show's sponsors" or something similar, the way it's done on Wikipedia's TV series pages. Artmanha (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You may not view it that way, but the creative team does: (From the main page, per an interview) "The comic was regarded by the production crew as sharing the same canon as the series, with Kreisberg commenting, "[For] anyone who grabs a copy: Hold onto it and as the series progresses, you'll appreciate it more and more." and "We're going to see what's happened to Detective Lance after he collapsed in the season [two] finale. A good chunk of the burning questions left over will get answered in the tie-in comic. Particularly towards the latter half of the series, we're going to start introducing characters [in the comic] who you'll see in Season 3." -- So, it is connected as much as the webisodes are. Our point is that neither directly impacts the show. Meaning, if you didn't watch the webisodes or read the digital comic you don't miss anything, as there is never an event that takes place in those formats that is later referenced in the show and thus leaves someone going, "Gee I wish I had watched/read that so I know what they are talking about".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I see your point of view, thank you for your patience with me. Artmanha (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I know people see Comics as canon, and even though producers confirm this. I still dont see anything that isn't shown on-screen as canon. Because its not like if you miss or haven't seen them, that you miss much. Unless the TV series physically mentions stuff out of the comics. I see it nothing more than the comics is just a fun side tie-in for the show and for Comic Book fans to follow Arrow in comic form. Just like tv series continuing the shows after it ended in comic form, people who never read them and only saw the tv series, it doesn't alter how the show ended. Like whenever say the Buffy comics ends, are we suppose to say the final episode or story of the series is what the final issue of the comic or still the last episode of the tv series. But back to the topic, I do regard Blood Rush as canon since its actual footage and live story than comic books, since to me anything that isn't a book or comic to me is regarded as canon, but I guess its up to whatever us here believes, I know some shows have regarded webisodes are canon and kept them on the list of episodes tables, so I guess the fans make the last call. Buffyfan123 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And that there lies the problem. I am a fan, and Favre is a fan, but we try not to allow our fandom guide our decision making for what happens to the pages here. That happens way too much on TV and Film pages. "Fans" think, "this is important" because they understand it on a different level, and then think it should be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2014

I want to add how many episodes each actor's missed, i think it's important enough to add and wish that people would stop deleting them. Please do something! 108.206.221.5 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it important to add? It's deleted because the consensus is that it is not important. So, if you can provide a valid reason for why it is encyclopedic, then we can look about adding it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

I WANT TO ADD HOW MANY EPISODES EACH CHARACTER HAS BEEN AND WERE ABSENT FOR, SO PLEASE GET RID OF THE PROTECTION! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! ESPECIALLY BEFORE SEASON 3 PREMIERES THIS OCTOBER! 108.206.221.5 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your request was already denied above. Listing which episodes certain actors have missed is a job for characters page, not this one. Trivial notes like that do not belong in episode summaries and, since there aren't any episode pages, there would be nowhere else for them to go even if they were relevant. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014

I want to add how many episodes each person has appeared or been absent in!! 108.206.221.5 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done Previously refused more than once. See above for reasoning. Unless you can provide compelling rationale for your requested changes, they will continue to be denied, no matter how many times you ask. Thank you and have a pleasant weekend. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 21:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Series Overview Table -- Season 3

This query might have already been asked and adequately answered, but why isn't season 3 in the series overview table? I realize that keeping it off until it airs has its logic and temperance, but I believe that an upcoming season of any series should be placed in the table as soon as the premiere date is made available. Enlightenment is appreciated, LLArrow (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Season articles

I know it's a tremendous undertaking, but individual season articles would allow for a much cleaner layout on this article. I'd do it myself, if I had the time. However, I'm more than willing to assist. LLArrow (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They're not really necessary when we're just entering season three (especially per WP:MOSTV, which suggests after 4 seasons). This page isn't reaching size guidelines for splitting either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be ideal to have a lot of sourceable material to populate the articles, beyond just the cast list, and episodes table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points. The page just feels very crowded. Oh well, keep on keepin' on. LLArrow (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it will get crowded, but I think we should do one when it gets to its fourth season. But The season pages needs more information, including a season overview, some season production details, and stuff. It will require work. I say wait until the next hiatus between season 3 and 4 for another decision. Buffyfan123 (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop wikilinking characters in the series with those from the comic books

...unless you have a reliable source that connects them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless the producers state that a character, with the same name and story as the comic book version, is NOT that character, I believe the person should be linked to their appropriate articles. Afterall, there are very few mediums in which these characters get alluded to, we need to note these allusions. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't work that way. Unless reliable sources explicitly link the characters in the series to the comic books, doing so in the article constitutes original research. I've only started watching the series in the past week and many of the wikilinked characters seem to have tenuous connections at best. In at least one case, the comic book character bears virtually no resemblance to the series character, other than by name. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to be that obstinate about it, then here is the solution. We'll just start linking to the character page and then from the character page we'll link to the comic page. I mean, it's only cumbersome to the reader that has to get dragged around Wikipedia for no obvious reason, but hey it solves the problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It would make more sense to link to the relevant entry in List of Arrow characters, since that at least talks about the character in this series. Deadshot describes the character as "most frequently portrayed as using a pair of silenced, wrist-mounted guns" but so far (I've only watched season 1) he seems most frequently seen as a sniper. Royal Flush Gang describes Derek Reston as "a superstrong android", which he is not in this series, and the gang is not a family as it is portrayed in this series. Nor is the family actually identified as the "Royal Flush Gang" in this series; this link is apparently based purely on the masks that they wear. All of the comic articles seem largely inconsistent with this series, so why link to them and not List of Arrow characters? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of guest stars do not have the relevant info to give to a reader. Recurring characters, yes, because we're going to chronicle them better (though, at the moment, the character page is nothing but plot info), but simple guest characters are not worth more than a basic listing on that page. The fact that they are not identical to the comics is irrelevant, given that what a character in the comics was like 40 years ago typically does not match up exactly to who they are in today's comics. Yet, they still get listed there. Characters evolve. If we were talking about a real stretch (e.g., a character that shares a first name with a comic character, and minimal similar traits, but nothing else) then I would be with you. But a character who's name is "Farooq", has the power to control electricity, and is nicknamed "Blackout" by a character in the show...I think it's safe to link to his section. Or, in the case of Arrow, the character of Katana matches up in all ways but an enchanted sword...given that, I don't think there is a reason to not link her to the actual character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bignole is 100% correct. These characters (on Arrow) are versions of their comic book counterparts. Many people who are unfamiliar with comic book lore, that watch this TV series, come to Wikipedia in search of further information regarding these characters. Therefore, it's only sensible that we make their search as easy and methodical as we possibly can by linking to articles about the character(s) that interest them. Linking to List of Arrow characters is somewhat redundant, given the fact that the majority of people who read this article watch the show, and are familiar with its plots and characters. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why we should treat the characters in this series any different to characters in any other series. If there are reliable sources that link guest stars to the comic characters then a link to the comic character article may be appropriate, provided the source is included in this article. However, regular and recurring characters should all be included in List of Arrow characters and the links should go there. If the only link to the comic character is the name, we cannot assume the character in this series is the same as the comic character. To do so is original research, which is not permitted. We cannot ignore Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. That the characters in this series are not identical to the comics is most certainly not irrelevant. That's the very reason we need sources. We can't assume. LLArrow, when you say "Many people who are unfamiliar with comic book lore, that watch this TV series, come to Wikipedia in search of further information regarding these characters", you're talking about me. I followed the links and became thoroughly confused because the linked articles don't describe the characters in this article. If "the majority of people who read this article watch the show, and are familiar with its plots and characters" as you claim, then linking to the comic characters articles is also redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For some characters, where appropriate, we say "Based on the DC Comics character X." For those where we don't use that, maybe we should be linking to the "In other media" sections on the comic counterpart articles. That way, they know it is not necessarily the same character, but they can then read about the comic character to which the Arrow version was based on (either very minimally, or in full). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, linking to the "In other media" section is a fantastic notion Favre1fan93. Or, a step further, to the "Television#Live-action" section when applicable. That would certainly cut down on the aforementioned confusion. I would be glad to lend a hand to the transformation; not just here, but on other articles that have this issue. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The "In other media" sections are generally unsourced original research. For example, the summary for "City of Heroes" says "is rescued by an unknown blonde female vigilante". Black Canary doesn't contain a single source supporting Sara Lance as Black Canary. We should only be linking to sections if reliable sources support the claims made in those section. We should only add "Based on the DC Comics character X" if there is a reliable source that supports the claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Most often, there is a verifiable source for these rolls, they are just neglected to be included with the appropriate articles. For exapmle here is the confirmation of Lotz/Sara Lance portraying Black Canary. P.S. Please refrain from editing my comments. There must be resets to the column. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to outdent every time you post. It makes it awkward to follow the thread. We indent to avoid that. According to the articles, another actress portrayed the "unknown blonde female vigilante" in the season 2 premiere, when we didn't know who she was. There should be no link to the "Black Canary", or any other character, until the episode where this is revealed. Summaries are supposed to summarise that episode and if the character is not known in the episode, it shouldn't be mentioned. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I in no way intend to be rude or antagonistic, but you could make these changes you speak of. That's what's so great/awful about Wikipedia, anyone is welcome to edit it. As far as I know, Lotz did appear as Sara Lance momentarily in "City of Heroes", and is credited in the closing titles. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculative air dates

Some editors make the common mistake of adding a future episode date from The Futon Critic that is labled, "TBA", along with a difinitive date. For example, currently Futon list an untitled episode airing January 21, 2015 and January 28, 2015. While it is highly likely that those two episodes are #56/310 and #57/311, the site gives zero indication of that, therefore it is speculation. It does not matter how big the leap, it's still a leap. If anyone has any verifiable sources stating the air dates, along with their corresponding episodic numbers, please provide them. Until then, the episodes in question must remain without a date. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Season episode count

I recently added the information that season three of the series will consist of 23 instalments, to a quick revertion. The editor stating that the information is not for verifiable estimations, but for a finished product. I disagree, if the information exist, it has relevance to the article, and can be properly cited, it should be included. I have not seen any guidelines on this matter, and don't believe they exist. Other series Episode List pages add a seasons verified estimation of episodes, frequently. My source is The Futon Critic, which has always been accepted as a suffiecent source. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason for revert was "this isn't for the potential of episodes, it's for what has actually happened" - I do believe that this is only for the main page of the TV series for the number of episodes that have aired in the Infobox, and for the "As of DATE, NUMBER episodes of Arrow have aired". Every TV article I've monitored and used has always added the number of episodes in a season into the Series Overview table was soon as it could be referenced. Nothing in WP:TVOVERVIEW states otherwise. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion from TVOVERVIEW did talk about not including anything in there that has not actually happened. The overview table is for what has happened, not what will happen. It's the same reason why we don't update the section headers when episodes have not actually aired in that year. Just because they have ordered a full season does not mean that a full season has or will air. We've have several shows this year that have ordered more episodes than they ultimately produced or aired.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

However, it's referenceable material. Why do we list future episodes, if they have the possibility of not airing? It's exactly the same case. In my opinion, we should be adding it if we can reference it, and if something else occurs that we can reference, modify it accordingly. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Being verifiable does not mean that it automatically needs to be included. It says this at the policy for verifiability. That said. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article. I'm saying that it is inappropriate to include it in a table that is meant to summarize the show where it is (not where it will be). Episode tables are not series overview tables. One is based on what a show is currently doing, and the other is based on historical events that have occurred. Again, this is why we don't change the section headers, it's why we don't just automatically add 23 episodes to an episode count. You cannot have a table that says that season 3 has airead 23 episodes when in fact it has not. This is something that can be a single line in the lead at the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we add unaired episodes to the counter, located in the header. I see the points in both arguments, but ultimately I believe the article is better with the information, than without it. I encourage other editors to weigh in. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the overview table. The overview isn't for housing future events, especially since you cannot predict that they will happen and the table itself isn't designed to be clear that they are potentials. Hence, the fact that 23 episodes were ordered is best suited for the lead. That said, no sources has actually stated that the network ordered 23 episodes this season. The FutonCritic is merely reporting 23 episodes based on the fact that the first 2 seasons had 23 episodes. They are not showing any evidence that the CW said there will be 23 episodes. It even includes "projected" dates. So, in the end, the source isn't a reliable one when it comes to the end of season episode count, as it isn't quoting any source material for that number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Futon Critic is a highly reputable source/site, used all over Wikipedia. Projections have never been used as dates, they are mere fodder. Previously the site had reported that 23 episodes was a projection/assumption; as of now it clearly states 23 episodes will be produced. The site is the source material. It is one of the most nonsensical sites on the internet, dealing nearly entirely in network press releases and absolutes. Not sure most people will notice the info being anywhere but the overview table, but I suppose it's better than omitting it. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"The FutonCritic is merely reporting 23 episodes based on the fact that the first 2 seasons had 23 episodes." Do you have a source for that? FutonCritic normally reports episode counts as "???" when it's unknown.[1][2] It doesn't make up numbers. It only reports numbers when it has a source, usually from the network concerned. Projected dates are included for most series and these have no relevance to the final episode count. These are just based on press releases from the networks. As for whether or not it should be in the overview table, I don't think we ever discussed the criteria for inclusion. If it's verifiable, there's really no reason why it shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the FutonCritic didn't just make an assumptions? There has been no press release stating it will be 23 episodes. There is nothing on the FutonCritic's page that indicates where they got that information. You wouldn't use a source (no matter how reliable) that says, "According to an anonymous source...", because it's not verifiable. Again, we're not changing the year in the section header. Why would everything else in the overview table be listed from a historical perspective, except the episode count? We aren't including dates for premieres and finales until they actually happen. Why would we include a total ep count when it hasn't finished airing yet? Per WP:V, being verifiable does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion, and you need to be consistent in how the overview table is intended to be used (not how people want to choose to use it because they don't care).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"We aren't including dates for premieres and finales until they actually happen." Since when? As soon as a premiere date or finale date can be referenced, it's always added to the Series Overview table, always has been for all TV series. WP:TVUPCOMING gives some insight into this. An example, dated Sep 23, before the season premiered. This was not removed. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bignole, you should know by know that we don't have normally evidence that any reliable source doesn't make assumptions at some time. Based on past history though, it's extremely unlikely in this case. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If it's verifiably sourced to a reliable source then that's the threshold and, in this case, the threshold is met. It's also impossible to prove a negative. That you haven't seen a press release doesn't mean that there has been no confirmation of the season episode count and we have one very reliable source that has published a count. We don't include years in section headings or the table until episodes have aired as a safety net. That issue started because people were adding "-15" when no episodes had been scheduled to air, which is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It was a toss-up as to whether we allowed inclusion of years once episodes had been scheduled and we decided that because episodes can be rescheduled that it was best to avoid adding a new year until the episode aired. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to report something that is almost certain to happen. Arrow is a series with reasonable ratings that has not been cancelled and there has not even been any speculation that this will happen so production of 23 episodes is almost certain. Therefore there's no reason why it can't be concluded. The other option is to report the number of episodes that have actually aired. That would mean adding "9" to the field instead of 23. There should be no argument against that as it's consistent WP:TVUPCOMING, WP:TVOVERVIEW and the instructions for {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're still basing this on a website that is arbitrarily listing a number, with no statement as to where it came from. It isn't abnormal for a show to have 23 episodes or 22 episodes in any given season. Smallville has had 21, 22, and 23 (removing the season 7 year that had 20 eps because of the Writer's Strike). You're pulling a number that has nothing attached to it to say that it was confirmed by anyone. It's nothing better than a rumor. As for the idea that "ALl TV series" have operated this way, they haven't. Maybe the ones you've worked on, but not the ones that I have. TVUPCOMING is about announcing verifiable information in an article. It does not talk about presenting future, potential information in a manner that suggests that it has already taken place. That is what you're doing when you put it in the overview table. You're making it appear that 23 episodes have already aired. How can you argue that a reader is going to get confused by include the "random" future episodes in an episode table (e.g., episode 10, then episode 16), yet they wouldn't get confused by including "23" as the episodes for a season that has not finished airing?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be taking the general readers intelligence for granted somewhat. People familiar with Wikipedia know what citations are, and that they exist for future depicting reasons, amongst other things. I'm going to re-add the info, along with the source. If more disagree, then we shall revaluate. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Were there not sources attached to those episodes? Could readers not look at them and see when those episodes were? It seems more like you're cherry picking when and how you want to include projected information about TV series. In this case it's fine to include, in the other we need to "wait for outstanding episodes". The logic behind that is mind-boggling. It's certainly nice to see that you operate on such consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to the current goings on over at The Flash (2014 TV series) I'm not sure where your point lies. My issue there has everything to do with lack of info and patience. This is a completely different, and unrelated matter. Might I remind you, that seldom is ever accomplished by accusing other editors of misdoings and being less than proper. Can't we all just work nice?. LLArrow (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring with you, so I am "working nice". I didn't accuse you of misdoings, I said that your argument here is not consistent with the argument you presented there. Both contains information that is "sourced", and both are future events. You contended over there that, "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." That you "completely disagree that it is "obvious" to a reader, and that putting it in the table would be "logistically inaccurate". When pointed out that readers could see it for themselves and know what it was implying, you said cited your own confusion as proof that they could not. I'm arguing the exact same thing here, that putting "23" in a section that identifies how many episodes "aired" in a season would be inaccurate, because the season is still airing. You just stated here that, "I think you may be taking the general readers intelligence for granted somewhat. People familiar with Wikipedia know what citations are, and that they exist for future depicting reasons, amongst other things.." You have swapped your stance on this page, and are now arguing that since it is verifiable it should be in the table period. To me, that is an inconsistent argument for a very similar situation, and that is what makes it difficult to "work nice". If you were being consistent, then I would get it. Instead, it comes across as "well, for this page this is what I like so deal with it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"You're still basing this on a website that is arbitrarily listing a number, with no statement as to where it came from." - Realistically, how many reliable sources list every source for every factoid that they provide? Not many, if any I'd expect. If they did, then we wouldn't need secondary sources at all. We could go straight to the primary source.

"You're making it appear that 23 episodes have already aired" - Not at all. We're saying that a reliable source said there are 23 episodes in this season. If there was no citation attached to the figure then that would be saying that 23 episodes have aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

AussieLegend I agree. Bignole I see them as two completely different issues, and fail to see how you don't. Flash is all about having a practical visual lie on screen; here it's about a very informative piece of information being omitted. If I allowed my feathers to get ruffled whenever an editor has done something that I totally disagree with, I'd probably would have had a heart attack by now. I get that this place can be as frustrating as all get out, but we have got to learn to agree to disagree, and move on. Life really is too short guys. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Aussie, we typically use sources that say, "According to...." or "X reports", or fill in the blank. When it comes to "future" based information (and I stress the concept of future), we don't just pick line items from a website and say that they were reliably reported. If you were talking about something that had already taken place, then I would agree with you. I don't need to see that level of verifiability for something that has passed. For future items, it is important. And yes, it does imply that 23 have aired when you put it in the table, because we have no finale date. It looks like you have an episode count before you've identified when the season is going to end. It's guesswork. To clarify further, reliability of a sources as a whole does not mean that everything they report is reliable. We allow certain information to be used from IMDb, but most of it we don't. We allow The Hollywood Reporter, but if they report "An anonymous source reported that the rumor is...." then we wouldn't accept that because it's not verifiable.

LLArrow, you're trying to hyperfocus on points to argue that your statements are completely different on the 2 pages. I've already pulled your quotes from the Flash page, so I won't waste my time again. Suffice to say, it's clear from your statements that you are arguing both sides of the coin on two different pages. You may want it to appear that it is merely a visual issue on the Flash, but that was not what you were arguing (at least, that is now what is supported by the words you were leaving on the talk page...see the several quotes texts above).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"we typically use sources that say, "According to...." or "X reports"," - That's not a criteria for inclusion of content from a source, or determining that content from a source is reliable. If it were, then {{cite web}} would be used on only 688 pages, instead of 1,832,688. I don't believe that your claim is valid anyway. Sources for episodes are generally from tables that don't report where the information came from.

"it does imply that 23 have aired when you put it in the table, because we have no finale date" - I disagree, for the reasons already stated. If there is a source then it merely means that a reliable source has reported that there are 23 episodes in the season, regardless of the "last aired" date.

"We allow certain information to be used from IMDb, but most of it we don't." - Imdb has content that is user generated and content that we know is not user generated. We allow content from the part of imdb that we know is not user generated. The Futon Critic has no user generated content. There's the difference.

"if they report "An anonymous source reported that the rumor is...." then we wouldn't accept that" - Presence of "anonymous" and "rumor" is a clear acknowledgement that the content is not reliable. There is no such acknowledgement in the Futon Critic source, so you can't assume that it's not reliable. If the episode count were 230, then there might be reason to suspect the count as being dubious but that's not the case. Of course, such a discrepancy isn't always wrong. Take "Anger Management" for example, where the first season had 10 episodes and the second has 90. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody summarise exactly what the issue here is. There is just a lot of preceeding content to wade through. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source reports that the current season will have 23 episodes. Bignole does not believe this should be included in the articleseries overview table. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bignole I have explained my reasoning in detail, saying anything further would be repetitive, as are your words. For the record, I never accused you of edit warring, not sure why you would presume that. This issue is turning more and more tedious. Consider me indifferent at this point. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Aussie, please don't misrepresent what I've said. I NEVER said that it shouldn't be in the article. What I have said is that 1) the source is a website that is listing 23 as the number of episodes, they did not report anything and 2) that it should not be in the series overview table. I did NOT say it shouldn't be in the article and I have suggested another location for it until the season is over.

LLArrow, I did not say that you did. I said that I am not edit warring over this issue, thus I am "working nice" with you. Would be better if I said, "I'm not edit warring, or personally attacking you, or making insulting comments, so I am 'working nice'"? I was merely trying to show that your desire to work nice was taking place. Being in disagreement over how information should be placed in an article and whether it is or is not appropriate does not detract from us working together on this. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I have corrected my post. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that, and I am very grateful for the many meaningful contributions you have made to Wikipedia throughout your editing life. You can be tad brazen at times, but I know that your intentions are admirable. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So...am I right in thinking that this is over Futon listing the number of episodes for the season as 23. If the reliability of this is in dispute, I would like to point out that we use any air dates and titles that they put up, without knowing from where that info comes from. If the site is trusted for those, then it should be trusted for this as well. Also, the series overview table is not like an infobox, where only those episodes that have aired are counted. In my experience, as soon as we have a number from a reliable source, we add it to the series overview table, with a reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You would only count the episodes that have aired. Whether you're doing it up front (as they want) or after they air. If the FutonCritic lists "23" episodes because that is what has aired in the past, but 21 episodes air then we wouldn't say "23" just because the FutonCritic had that listed. My point is that there is nothing that says where that figure comes from. As for the air dates, TheFutonCritic is typically operating from the press releases of the ep summaries. Otherwise, they're marking them as "predicted". To me, this comes down to how are we treating the series overview table. IMO, it is meant to summaries the show's broadcast history. You cannot summarize the future history of a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter that Futon Critic doesn't say where the number has come from. The site has consistently shown itself to be reliable. As you've said, it typically operates from the press releases, so it's reasonable to expect that the episode count is also from a press release or other appropriate source. I haven't seen a case yet where Futon Critic has made up numbers. The instructions for {{Infobox television}} for the num_episodes parameter say that the "parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled." The wording for num_seasons and num_series is similar. We provide for the possibility that a reliable source may exist that gives a greater number of seasons or episodes than the number that have aired. The series overview table is no different. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an assumption to say that "it probably came from a press release". If it had, we'd see it elsewhere. We see the episode releases in other locations. The key words are "greater number has been produced", we don't include the end of season ep count (even with reliable sourcing) in the infobox, because they haven't all been produced. They haven't produced 23 episodes here, they're still in the middle of writing and filming. You're including the presumption that it will have 23 episodes, when no one else has reported that (Technically, theFutonCritic hasn't "reported" anything either, it's just listed on the show's page). The CW hasn't reported that. They've reported how many Flash episodes they are planning to produce. Remember, there's no rush to include such information when it doesn't lend much information to the reader as a whole, but creates the possibility of confusion when you think that 23 episodes have aired. In-line citations don't create explanation, they link to sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

When The Flash was confirmed for a full season order of 23 episodes, thats when I knew Arrow had to have the same order. Since both shows have crossovers, and all. I believe both shows will always have to have the same number of episodes so both shows are in-line with each-other in future seasons.

However we shouldn't assume it will stay this way, even for future seasons, they could reduce the order to 22 episodes at anytime. Even if it gets 23 episodes, they can easily cut it down or even add an extra episode at anytime. Look at Lost, they added an extra hour/episode to season 1 so close to production ending. So in future we should not truly believe the episode total will remain the same. Buffyfan123 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been "Malcolm" or "Malcolm Merlyn"; I don't understand the sudden shift to "Merlyn"

Until the two most recent episodes, the practice on this page was to refer to "Malcolm" or "Malcolm Merlyn"—this was the case in the first and second and even early third season episode Short Summary entries. This month, it suddenly changed to using "Merlyn". When editors attempt to be enforce the long-established consistency, they're being reverted, recently with reference to "experienced editors" as a justification.

If we're going to go against long-established practice, then it should be by consensus. With very few exceptions, characters are typically referred to by their first names rather than their last names, though sometimes both names are used. Diggle is the only main character isn't, though Quentin can be referred to by title (e.g., Detective Lance). I don't understand why Malcolm should be changed now, and barring a pressing reason, don't believe he should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That practice was because in season one there was another "Merlyn", so we needed to make sure that it was clear that it was Malcolm. The character is largely referred to as "Merlyn" on the show now, even Thea calls him that. Yes, they say "Malcolm" to, but most often he is referred to by last name. We identify characters primarily by how they are identified in the show, it's the same reason we don't call Laurel "Dinah", even though that is her first name in that universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say, he is still being called Malcolm, if not as often, and that is still his name. There hasn't been a major change in the character, enough to justify a sudden switch. (Thea's not a good example, since he's her biological father, and her feelings are both intense and mercurial.) While we don't have Moira any more to ground him as Malcolm—no more folks from his own generation—I honestly don't see why this should happen. If Tommy's role next episode is important enough, you'll again be facing the "which Merlyn" issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they are called in the episode, for our summaries we use their full names initially, and then their surnames subsequently, except for when they could still be mixed up with someone else (i.e. Tommy Merlyn and Malcolm Merlyn) but since it is clear at this point that the character in question is not Tommy, we don't need to specify that it is Malcolm, so we solely use Merlyn. I haven't gotten around to checking if this has been upheld consistently throughout the page, but even if it hasn't that is no excuse to continue with sloppy habits. If you find inconsistencies and take issue with them, then correct the mistakes, don't "correct" what has already been done right. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Bignole and adam. Another justifiable reason to refer to Malcolm as Merlyn is the fact that he is based on the DC Comic villain of the same name. It also appears that the series is making an obvious statement by calling Malcolm, "Merlyn", in nearly every instance, as alluded to above. Of course if other characters appear in prominence on an upcoming episode, further differentiation will be implemented, I trust. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

adamstom97, since when is the methodology for our summaries we use their full names initially, and then their surnames subsequently? Felicity has never been "Smoak", Roy has never been "Harper", Slade has never been "Wilson". I have to ask whether you even bother to read the page's summaries. Only in the last three episodes summaries is he called "Merlyn" alone, and up until then—prior to January 28—there were 11 uses of "Malcolm Merlyn", 41 uses of "Malcolm" alone, and no instances of "Merlyn" alone in the first 56 episode summaries. Not one. There's one "Merlyn Global" and two of "Tommy Merlyn", but otherwise "Merlyn" is always paired with "Malcolm". It's why I made the change back: consistency was clearly for "Malcolm". Incidentally, Bignole, LLArrow, I just watched "Canaries" again, and Thea uses "Malcolm" several times vs. once each for "Malcolm Merlyn" and "Merlyn". Oliver also uses "Malcolm". I think Roy uses "Merlyn", and Chase might have (he did in "Midnight City"), but the majority is clearly with "Malcolm". So there is no "obvious statement" in the series, and I believe we should not take usage in other media, such as comic books, as a precedent for this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that this is how it is done here, in fact I said that I didn't know how it is done here, what I said is that this is how it should be done. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fanboy compendium, and as I also said, if you are troubled by any inconsistencies, fix them (meaning change all first names, except where paired with surnames, to surnames themselves). It doesn't matter what the characters call each other in the show, what matters is their actual names, especially since summaries this short (preferably around 200 words, but I don't know what you guys have been using here) shouldn't include any actual dialogue from the episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Bignole, but I was not merely referring to "Canaries", but rather the entire third season. As for your dismissal of comic book media, I could not disagree more. It has warranted a place at the proverbial table since the Pilot episode and will throughout the rest of the series, because every fabric of its DNA is coated in DC's blood. Like it, or not. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you believe I've dismissed comic book media. While it absolutely informs the show and was the source for it, the show's creators have specifically said that they are putting their own twist on it, and some aspects of (for example) characters may be very different, or change quite dramatically. Felicity is a prime example, and Diggle has had the reverse effect. (On The Flash, neither Caitlin nor Cisco may ever have or use super powers, unlike their comic book namesakes.) I think this show has set its own precedents, deliberately so, and we should respect those when feasible rather than fall back on the comics. Incidentally, I've looked through the manual of style, and can't find where it says that fictional characters should be referred to by their surnames rather than their given names. Or is the assumption that they should be treated the same as real people, where surnames are the norm? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that every single decision should be weighed by the comic book source material, I'm only speaking to cases in which characters are directly related. However, for the sake of argument, Arrow presents far more similarities to its comic book origins than not. Add to the fact that DC is credited at the beginning of each episode, and you have an irrefutable truth. Your mention of utter Flash speculation/hypotheticals is both bewildering and ridiculously unrelated. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Table width

I recently removed the adjusted width of the episode tables, due to not understanding their purpose. I was met with a revert; explaining that they are to keep the Written by column from expanding to excess. That was one of the reasons for my removal. On my screen, the "Pilot", "Honor thy Father", and several others are currently at four lines. The lines decreased to two after I removed the adjustments. I'm curious as to what everyone else sees.? Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just at two lines for when there is story and teleplay credits. One everywhere else. I'm on a 15" Macbook Pro. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind seeing what you have with the adjustments removed?. LLArrow (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really much of a difference line wise, though I do know that having widths keeps the tables uniform season to season. (ie, the columns line up nicely together.) Without them for example, the title column is smaller in season 2 than season 1, thus making the alignment uneven. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I didn't realize symmetry was such a desired feat on Wikipedia. It doesn't bother me to have the columns out of alignment in the least. I much prefer a decrease in lines; but that's just my opinion. LLArrow (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying they keep them from expanding. They keep them from the opposite, contracting. When you removed the width setting you made each cell equal and when there are story and writing credits it was making some writer cells 4 and 5 lines long. People's names were half on one line and half on another line.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. For me, writer's last names (e.g. Guggenheim and Godfree) are on a completely different line with the adjustments. On a 16" Toshiba. LLArrow (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is also a resolution issue. I'm on my work laptop, which is small, but they are all separated by a single line and now bleeding into additional lines with the last names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Be whatever it may, I want to let it be known that I am proposing that we strike the adjustments. As I believe they casue more dismay than good. LLArrow (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how they are causing more dismay than good. I've never seen them cause problems before, because 30% on one screen is still 30% on another screen. Even a small screen would have 30% of that screen. If you remove the adjustments it tries to make each cell and equal size, and numbers don't need the same amount of space as full names of writers/directors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, my motives are selfish ones. I want them removed because it's not optimal from my POV. The only way it will happen is with consensus, but I do understand and respect those against it. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your resolution set to, and what browser do you use?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution at 1366 x 768; and Chrome. LLArrow (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I have the same resolution setting on my work laptop (which has about a 13" screen), and when I go through Chrome (I usually us IE), everything looks fine on my screen. I get, at most, 2 lines for the writers and no one's last name is split from their first. Now, to be fair, in Chrome with the adjustments removed it still looks like it does with the adjustments. I think that is the difference between IE and Chrome, in that Chrome will automatically adjust the cell size, whereas IE doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My resolution is 1280x800 and it looks fine using Firefox. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The lines have now narrowed back down to two. Weird. LLArrow (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted LLArrow's most recent changes[3] as they're not practical. In particular, the values for "Production code" and "US viewers" simply won't work. There is a limit as to how narrow you can make a column. Columns can't be narrower than the text in the column. If the text in the column represents, say 8% of the width, setting the column width to 4% doesn't achieve that result. Instead the column shrinks to 8% and then the other columns become sizes that are unintended. That's what happened when "Production code" and "US viewers" were set to 4%. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After a bit of testing I've discovered that the practical lower limits of certain columns are as follows:

• No. in series - 4%
• No. in season - 4%
• Directed by - 10%
• Original air date - 11%
• Production code - 7%
• U.S. viewers - 9%

However, that leaves zero padding in the cells. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What was the writing credit limit?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bother checking that as the column contains so much information that the lower limit would never be reached and, ultimately, there needs to be a compromise between it and "Title". I've made a minor column width tweak that may solve the issue for everyone.[4] If it doesn't, feel free to revert. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Worth a mention?

Is it worth mentioning (probably in the lead) that HIVE is going to be one of the "big bads" of season 4, according to David Ramsey? source - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. The lead isn't supposed to be for housing new information, but summary of other information. I think we leave it on the talk page for the time being. There isn't a really logical place for it, and I don't think the lead is the best place to present/house future information. I generally don't like the "the next season will premiere on", but that's largely a minimalist bit of information. It's not a plot point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've added it to the H.I.V.E. article already, which is the best place for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)