Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Sources

Note to editors: GreenArrowtv.com is not a reliable source, please do not add any information from that website or any other that is unverifiable. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability. LiamNolan24 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? See comments below. With the exception of one episode title that changed, which came from the series producers, nothing on the site is disputable. 108.219.213.206 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely wise to read all-parts of WP:IRS and Wikipedia:Verifiability. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check this page, where a specific instance involving the same person's websites came up: [[1]] (Search for "Kryptonsite" on the page). GreenArrowTV appears to be in the same situation, and again, their information has been seen as reliable. I'm not asking to open the floodgates to all "fan sites;" but when there are unique interviews and details not reported elsewhere, I think it should be considered. 108.219.213.206 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, exclusive content from the site would be viewed a acceptable. You just cannot use it when the information is fourth party. Cheers LiamNolan24 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

GreenArrowTV.com

Wikipedia's standards for external links for a "fan site" say that

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

GreenArrowTV is written by the author of the Smallville official companion books and has contained official interviews with show cast and creators. If that's where the information comes from, including character information, episode titles (which are routinely broken on THAT site), I really think it should be an allowable resource here. It is also not so much a "fan site" as it is an offshoot of the larger KSiteTV.com. What would happen when an originated interview at GreenArrowTV is quoted here? Would that not be allowed?

I don't think it is right to link to an article that QUOTES GreenArrowTV as a source but not include the original source. 108.219.213.206 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a fourth party site, reliable sources are third party sites. See above. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear how GreenArrowTV.com is a "fourth party site" in this case. There's a fairly even distribution of news that's first reported and quotable interviews done by that site, which would make it a third party site. The manual specifically says sites like these are reliable if their sources are reliable, and the webmaster of GreenArrowTV is specifically pointed out to be a reliable source on that very manual. 68.57.144.174 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Any fan site (i.e. GreenArrowTV.com) is in most cases not a reliable source, with the exception of exclusives. LiamNolan24 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a new show. Like a few other shows (Battlestar Galactica comes to mind), a few people seem to have hijacked the site. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference site, not a fan site. The diatribes on this site probably exceed the length of the scripts. Please, I realize you are addicted to this show but please let reason prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.35.31 (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

UK Premiere

I can't find an online source, however I just saw an advert on TV advertising the UK premiere on Sky One on October 8th. This is before the US premiere so I was wondering ift he page should be edited to reflect the earlier air date for the episodes (or at leat the first episode). 94.175.19.195 (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

International broadcast

Something needs to be done with this section, as WP:MOSTV#Broadcast advises that you shouldn't simply create a catch-all list of tv channels and dates. To quote:

When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form. Special mentions can be used where a show does something noteworthy for a country/international channel, and are best addressed in the appropriate sections (e.g., Stargate Universe airing the final three episodes of the first season a month before they aired in the U.S. would be added to the "Broadcast" section while The Simpsons breaking the viewership records for ProSieben in Germany on MM DD, YYYY would be addressed in the "Reception" section). This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and also address broadcasting in the country of origin. All information must be verifiable by reliable sources.

As it stands right now, it's just a directory basically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Written by credit

Alright, since someone just prefers to blindly revert and not bother to discuss anything, I'll put this here. The "written by" credit goes to writers of the episode. "Story by" does not mean that you wrote anything, it means that you came up with an idea for an episode and someone else wrote. Unless there is a source that says these people actually WROTE something, then they need to be removed from the episode table. Restructuring within the table to say "story by" and "teleplay by" doesn't change the fact that they did not write anything, and that column is meant for writers. The same issue happened with Christopher Nolan, regarding Man of Steel. He helped develop the story, but he wrote nothing. Goyer wrote the script and he gets the writing credit. So, unless there is a source that says these individuals actually wrote something, I say they need to be removed from the episode table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel, if the names are written on an official document, it should be on Wikipedia. Let's just leave it as is until the episode airs. It's certainly not hurting anything by being there. LiamNolan24 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The producers' names are on official documents (Lots of them), but they don't have a space on the episode table. Are you arguing that we should add them to the table as well? What does it matter about whose name is on the document, the fact remains that they did NOT wrte anything. You're including them as if they did. We don't include second unit directors in the "Directed by" cells, and they contribute a significant amount to production. The table says "Written by" and is meant for those that actually did writing. The names you want to add have not shown that they wrote anything, just came up with the story concept (the degree of which we don't even know). I also don't agree with the argument of "It's not huring anything", because I can argue it doesn't "hurt anything" by removing them either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in television writing (and screenwriting in general) "story by" credit is not just given arbitrarily to someone who came up with the idea. It can also indicate the amount of work one writer gave to a particular script. Episode seven, for example, AK gets story credit while GJ and MG get the teleplay credit. This could indicate that AK came up with the idea and then did no writing, but it could also mean that he did as much work as write an entire draft before handing the episode off to the other two. Just because he only gets story credit does not necessarily mean he did no actual writing. The way writers are finally credited on episodes is dictated by the WGA; they obviously deemed that Kreisberg did enough writing on episode seven to warrant some kind of credit. They found his involvement noteworthy and I fail to see why the article shouldn't reflect that. Same with Berlanti on the first three: he co-created the show so it's obvious that he had a pretty intense level of involvement, even if he only received story credit. It's valuable information either way you slice it, as far as I'm concerned. Leaving it out makes no sense when there are other editors (myself and LiamNolan24 included) who believe it merits a place in the article. Hundreds of other people and dozens of other editors have visited the page, seen the story/teleplay credits and not been bothered by it. The only one who seems to have a problem with it being there is you. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that they could not have written something, I merely stated that there is no indication that they DID write anything. My problem with it is that it's in a place designated for writers (whether that is someone that wrote a draft, or someone who wrote the finalized script). The fact that other people have not removed it is irrelevant, because I've seen plenty on this page that shouldn't be here that was never removed. Not being removed previously does not negate the fact that it shouldn't be there in the first place. The message you're sending is that they had a hand in the writing of the episode, and there is NO source that says they had any hand in that. It says "story by". Most articles do not include the "story by" credit on the general episode tables. That does not mean that there could not be a place for it, just not in the episode table which is designed to identify the actual writers of the show. Given that you can also not identify the level of involvement to warrant the "story by" credit then you don't even know if you're placing undue weight on the credit to begin with. If they came up with the idea for a theme for the episode (e.g., episode focuses on drug addiction), then they had almost no hand in writing the episode or craftin any part of it. They could still get "story by" credit if it was deemed appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SchrutedIt08's take 100%. I fail to see how you, User:Bignole, are contributing in as positive way to this article. All you have done so far is change things to your liking and removed sourced info. As for your ludacris rational, whoever the official script (which are used as sources on practically every episode) states as writer(s), will be echoed here. LiamNolan24 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then the official script only identified 2 people as "writers" of those episodes. Thus, those with "story by" should be removed because they are not identified as writers by the script. They were identified as having contributed to the concept of the episode, not actually writing anything. I do love how you attribute "positive" with "adding" though. It's nice to see how people assume that just because someone cleans up a page of unnecessary, irrelevant, or misplaced information they are somehow not doing something "positive" to the article. I guess that's more a flaw in you logic than my editing though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am done arguing with you and your sickeningly perplexing logic. I am a member of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), and know how writers are to be credited. Editors that agree with me please, let's get consensus. LiamNolan24 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, everyone's an expert or a professional in every field that they are arguing about. If you're part of the WGA, then that means you understand that "story by" does NOT mean that you HAVE to have written a script. I'm not saying that those individuals didn't, just simply that "story by" does not mean that they automatically did. They could have jotted on a piece of paper a basic theme or narrative and given it to the actual writers to develop a script. That's not truly "writing" anything; if I wrote a note that had a basic theme or character outline for an episode that does not mean that I wrote the episode. The "Written by" (which is the title of the table category) and "Story by" credits are nowhere near the same thing. As a WGA member you would know that, since the crediting requirements are completely different. If they had actually written a script then they would be in the "Written by" crediting (which means they wrote both a story and a script). They aren't, they are simply "story by" because they came up with the idea. They had no hand in the actual script (as that would have given them a different credit altogether).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the episode list template, only the primary writer(s) of the episodes are needed. However, I am one who does not mind seeing the additional "Story by:" credits, as these also appear in the opening credits of the episodes and also in movies. Who KNOWS why the people who come up with the stories (read: ideas) did not write the full scripts? That being said, if the episodes themselves list both types of credits, they belong here. Bottom line. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They are required to give credit for ideas to the people that create them, but it's inaccurate to say that they are writers. The section says "Written by", not "Story by". When our own template says "primary writers" that means that the "story by" people don't get included. Just like second unit directors are not the "primary directors", and don't get credit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated, the episodes list/will list both script- and story-writers in the opening credits, so they belong here. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But you haven't actually identified the WHY behind that thought. It's a blanket thought that "it's there, so it should be here". You acknowledge that the template itself says "only primary writers", and you acknowledge that the ones that get "story by" credit haven't actually written a script of any form (otherwise they would have a different credit). So, why should they be included with the actual writers?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very ignorant, when it comes to screenwriting. The "Story" writer (in most cases) writes an outline of what general direction the episode or movie will take throughout its run-time. Their depth of involvement always varies case to case, but they are just as, if not more, instrumental in the shaping of a film/TV show as a "Teleplay" writer. I recommend taking the time to research a field of work you are going to dictate "facts" about. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the need to respond to your personal attack, what have I said from the beginning, that they did not actually write any script (which you just agreed with by your statement). They are not "writers". Outlining and jotting down notes about what an episode subject could be does not make them writers. The category is "Written by", not "Contributions by". If they had written a script, even one that was not ultimately used, they would have a completely different credit given to them. They haven't written a script, thus they are not writers. Producers contribute a lot to the creative input of an episode or a movie as well, but I wouldn't include them with either the director or the writer, because they didn't direct or write any script. It's interesting that the very template you use specifically says, "PRIMARY writers". Last time I check, you couldn't even confuse a "story by" credit as the "primary" version of anything. Christopher Nolan developed the story for Man of Steel, and he is producing the movie so one could argue that he is very instrumental in the creation of that film. Guess where you don't see his name? In the "WRITTEN BY" field, because he had not actual hand in the writing of the script. Additionally, you again agree with my original point that the level of involvement caries per instance, thus someone could simply outline a theme regarding an episode just revolving around a high school prom and get story by credit. How would something like that be noteworthy enough to attribute "Written by" status to them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First off, my previous statement nowhere nears a personal attack. I'd like to see you justify me being blocked from using Wikipedia. You really should grow a thicker layer of skin if you're to play with fire. The reason it IS "noteworthy" is because the network and studio say it is. If The CW and Warner Bros. put someone's name on an official script title page (which are used as sources on this articles Episodes section for nearly every citation), it is automatically justifiable adding their name to Wikipedia's "Written By" field. Bringing Man of Steel's unique situation up for comparison in this article goes completely against your previous point of "you again agree with my original point that the level of involvement caries per instance", in this instance the Story writers AND the Teleplay writers get credit where credit's due. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The producers of the show and the network obviously found the "story by" writers' contributions substantial enough for them to be given credit. Your entire argument is based on the fact that we don't know exactly what that contribution was. Why are you arguing so hard for something you can neither prove/disprove? This is a TV show, not Christianity. The story writer's names are on the scripts, their names are in the press releases, their names are in the episode credits. Their names should be included here. This discussion has gone on too long, so I suggest we wrap this up. I say we keep the story/teleplay credits. Pretty sure LiamNolan24 will agree with me, and with CAWylie's statement (as seen above) that's three against one in favour of keeping them. Can we move on now? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you've read the policy, then you'll know that it was a personal attack against me. As for thick skin, mine is just fine, but that doesn't mean that I won't call you out for the uncivil way in which you communicate with fellow editors that you disagree with (which you appear to have a habit of doing). It is interesting how you automatically assumed I was trying to get you blocked, seems a little like paranoia. As for the content, just because they are mandated by law to give credit to any used material does not make it automatically noteworthy. It's called copyright, and they have to do that no matter what. That's just not even logical to assume that if The CW or WB put it on a script title page that it is somehow noteworthy. You're assuming that they actually have a choice not to give someone credit for their idea, even if said idea was insignificant in the grand scheme of the episode. Man of Steel in no way counters my argument about "level of involvement". The point was that he has a significant level of involvement, and we still do NOT include him as a writer. I wasn't arguing that the level of involvement determines if they should be included, merely that you can rarely determine the level of involvement and as such it can be something as simple as outlining an entire film from start to finish, or as small as creating a specific character for an episode. Neither involves actually writing a script, which is what the section is for. Even the template itself outlines that when describing who is included in the "WRITTEN BY" field. That would be the actual writers of the script. No one has actually provided an argument for why we need to ignore the template's direction to only include the primary writers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes we can SchrutedIt08, thank GOODNESS! LiamNolan24 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved on as of 20121007021037. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW! This has gotten way out of hand! I for one agree that the message to  BIGNOLE  is borderline personal attack which as per wiki policy is not acceptable! Whilst I agree that this is unacceptable, I am sure that things were said in the heat of things. It is general wiki consensus (I think its also policy but I am not entirely sure where, perhaps a more experienced user could provide a link) to put credited peoples in order of their appearance in the credits. Basically, if its in the credits it can go in the wiki article. If it should be included remains to be seen and I guess is at the editors discretion. Alternatively, Because having a "story by" part would increase the amount of data on the page, especially for a whole season, why dont we have a "story by section" on the page? MisterShiney (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Production code

Where is this production code coming from, because I cannot find a source on the page for it. At least, the source is not obvious that it is being used to cite a production code.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the production code is displayed at the end of the credits after each episode. Its the same for every TV series. MisterShiney (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I had asked SchrutedIt08 about the edit because 29687B doesn't exactly match the 296818 one sees if she buys it on iTunes. SchrutedIt08 said he got it from epguides.com. And they get the data from TVRage these days. In the clean credits on the iTunes release it is quite clearly 296818 but perhaps it came from reading The CW network-styled end credits where it wasn't quite so legible and the person wasn't familiar with WB's production numbering and thought nothing amiss about a letter for the 6th character. And that error spread across a few sites.
MisterShiney, it isn't the same for every tv series. Only NewsCorp and WB include the pc in their credits; ABC, Sony, CBS, Muse, Universal, Shaw, Red, Bell, Kudos, rté, and BBC don't. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said I believe :) 212.183.128.98 (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Thats me! lol. Sorry was on my phone at the time. But yeah, as far as I was aware that is where they are seen usually. MisterShiney (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of specific ratings for the show. User:Qa003qa003 believes that we should be adding 18-49 ratings and shares, in addition to the total viewers that we already include (see here). Although I agree that rating shares can be important, they are only important IF a show is cancelled because of them. Before that, they are figures that are not easily understandable by the average reader (nor the average editor). I don't think we should have to send readers to another page just to explain to them how the ratings share is calculated, and what it actually means, just so they can see those figures on this page (or any other page). If it is relevant, then it should be included, but unless a show is cancelled because of them they really aren't as relevant to a reader as the total number of viewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that is valuable information to include, in a chart format such as that one. But it is unnecessary to include it on the episodes table.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes it valuable to a reader? Especially if a reader does not understand how it is even calculated (you have to have other figures, like the total numbers that the CW services, which we don't have).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

For every reader that doesn't what they mean, there is another that does. I, for example, like to read maEdit sny Tv show articles just to see ratings such as those. And If I didn't indent, it was for a reason, so don't edit other people's comments.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you have not stated what it is valuable to the reader. Total viewers is easy to understand when it comes to value, because the reader can see how many people watched the show. But when readers don't understand the idea of a "share" that limits the valuableness of the information. As for "editing your comments", you might want to read Wikipedia:Indentation when it comes to indenting your responses. It's about keeping the flow of communication "easy" to read, not about being an ass and controlling things for the sake of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If readers are confused by them, they don't have to read it, I'm sure many readers don't understand what total viewers are either, but that doesn't mean we should remove them. I recommend Wikipedia to many people who ask me how shows are doing in the ratings. Just because you don't think readers will understand them, doesn't mean they all won't. Many, many shows include them, if is no valid reason why we shouldn't here.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You are being really rude and immature. You can make your point without calling me an ass. It is clear that you aren't competent enough to have a discussion with.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

First, let me clarify. I did not call YOU an ass. I was stating that I was not being an ass by trying to "control" your comments and put in an indentation, I was merely following the guide for converation structure. That was not a comment about you being an ass, but more if you were assuming that I was merely being one by editing your comment. That said, I cannot see any reader not understanding the idea of "total viewers". That's a pretty simple figure. "Shares" on the other hand are not simple figures and require a lot of different calculations to get and most people don't understand what they truly mean in the first place. "Many shows include them" is because there are about 2 different editors adding them to every page, Qa003qa003 being one of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, i thought you were calling me an ass for telling that I didn't appreciate you intending my comment. But I don't you can speak for every reader of Wikipedia, some will understand, some won't. Those that do will appreciate the information, and those that don't, do not have to read. It's very simple.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't "speak for every reader", I'm merely going by my experience when those figures had been included in the past on other pages. That said, I'm open to whatever consensus the other editors for this page want to do. I am completely against a "Ratings table" that duplicates the episode table though, especially when we're 1 episode into a series. For as long as the episode table exists we shouldn't duplicate information. That's completely ridiculous to me. Once it is gone, then we need to talk about an overall table that looks at seasonal information (in other wods, we don't want a table on this page for 50 episodes down the line, if the show remains in progress). I just don't think we should have a completely separate table that displays at least 3 sets of data from the episode table, which is immediately above it and within eyeline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My English is not good, but I think that the ratings Time slot rank or worthy of some, share complex can not to.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly. I for one, do not know/understand what Nielsen Ratings are or how they work/worked out. The average reader, will not know or understand what they are either. So the question has to be asked...Why include them? As such, I for one am against including such information.

Also, Information like that has no need to be repeated. Ratings should be put next to their episodes and there is no need to include a separate table. MisterShiney ✉ 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

TV Ratings....

Ok So AdamDeanHall seems to have a bit of an issue with other users putting up the initial ratings from TV By the Numbers. Citing it as "Bogus" and only "final" ratings are permitted. So my questions what counts as final and why are the ratings that are put up on the above site "Bogus?" If this is considered an unreliable source, then what is a reliable source for ratings? Is there even a reliable source? If someone could help me out here that would be appreciated. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Final ratings are much more accurate than initial ratings. I don't how they are, or any more details on it, but final ratings won't change around as much. I don't see a problem with putting up initial ratings, and then switching them for finals, when they become available. It's the most accurate data available at he time, so why shouldn't we include it?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Especially when the above said user put them up in Chicago Fire (TV series). I just find it a bit confusing. In fact, I find most of that editors edit summaries confusing in general...is that just me? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial ratings are just fine. The final ratings are after they look at those people that watched it on their DVRs within that time period. It's typically not a huge difference. It's fine to include the initial and just update when the finals come out. I have more of an issue with those "shares" that want to keep getting put in. Most people don't know what that means. Not the mention the fact that those tables duplicate the episode tables, and would become rather enormous when you're trying to list say 100 shows together (or god forbid, a show like Smallville or Law & Order or The Simpsons where you have hundreds of episodes).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Location of Starling City according to its cityscape?

From time to time, a panorama of Starling City is shown, e.g. cityscape image. I cannot determine if that's a CGI construction, or a real city. Does anyone recognise this cityscape? Ronbarak (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, as per Talk page guidelines I moved your section to the bottom on the talk page. In reply to your question, there was an edit the other day that said it was the Philadelphia skyline. I don't know how reliable that is though..... MisterShiney ✉ 09:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Character aliases

The names "Arrow" and "The Huntress" have been removed multiple times, both by myself and by other editors. At the same time, they have been restored. The disagreement appears to be based on what source is legitimate enough to dictate a name. The only place you really find "Arrow" is on TheCW website, which is not run by the writers or anyone in the studio itself. The show does not call Oliver "Arrow", or anything of the sort. There has never been any official naming of the character. So, to point to that website as a reason to have a name that is never used on the show would be inappropriate, because it's attributing a name to a character that has never been called that. It's also misinforming the reader that said name is actually used on the show. The same is true for The Huntress. She's never called that on the show, and only labeled that in promotional materials, which are designed to bring in audience members. There is nothing that says that the actress is actually credited by that name. This is an issue that happened with Smallville and The Dark Knight. Smallville would often have DC characters appear and promos would name them by their comic names (e.g. Clark meets The Flash), but the show itself never would and the actors were not actually credited by the comic aliases. With The Dark Knight, a few promotional materials did label Harvey Dent as "Two-Face", but he is not credited as such in the film, nor does it call him that. So it's inaccurate for us to credit characters by names they have never used, and are not credited by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is nothing wrong with linking them to their comic pages on Wikipedi (as is currently done), but until such a time as their hero alias' are revealed then they shouldn't be revealed. MisterShiney ✉ 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with linking, because we know who the characters are supposed to represent. The show just doesn't call them those names (though, I had a half a smile when Meryln suggested the name "Green Arrow").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into a forum, I did smile cheekily when I heard that and my girlfriend got confused and asked me what was so funny. She didnt get it as she thought that was what the guy was called anyways lol. MisterShiney ✉ 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy

Any reason this is being reverted what with it being a reference at Speedy (comics) and thus a potential sidekick...? MisterShiney ✉ 07:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an in-joke reference to Speedy, the sidekick, and not an insinuation that she would be his side-kick. To assume that would be original research. It's only ever been used as an affectionate nickname, and we wouldn't put "Tommy 'Boo Bear' Merlyn" if people were calling him that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted a little clarification. MisterShiney ✉ 13:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Justin Hartley

No one bothered to post information as to why Justin Hartley was not cast in the main role. He did originally play the role in Smallville's storyline.

http://screenrant.com/green-arrow-tv-show-cw-smallville-aco-147066/

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/07/30/arrow-cast/

Majinsnake (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)majinsnake

Probably because it wasn't revelant in the sense that the show isn't connected to Smallville. That would be like asking, "Why wasn't Tom Welling cast as Superman in the new Man of Steel"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Starling City

Is it interesting for anyone that Starlig City overview is actually Minato city in Tokyo? https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=35.664742,139.757769&spn=0.005295,0.011689&ctz=-540&t=f&z=18&ecpose=35.6662999,139.76737959,236.66,-101.28,75.23,0 --Rambalac (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Recurring guests and/or regular guests with multiple appearances

There has been additions to the page to include certain characters that have appeared more than once on the show as "recurring guests". Recurring guests are not simply ones that appear multiple times, as you can contract an actor for specific number of appearances for a particular story-arc. Most recurring guests don't start out as part of any specific storyline. But, just to remove the subjectivity out of it, lets just go by what the sources say, as you'll notice that so far the sources have indicated "recurring role" or "multi-episode arc" for actors when they are announced. Given that the sources seem to think it is necessary to clarify a difference in status, so should we. In this case, Manu Bennett is stated to be contracted for "multiple episodes", and not identified as a "recurring guest". Thus is true for the others that are not actually listed in that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about the difference between 'recurring' and appears in 'multiple episodes'. I've always thought the parameter for recurring was just to be in more than one episode. but I can how if a character only appeared in two or so episodes, because their contained storyline spilled into several episodes. But some characters have been in several episodes, and aren't listed because...?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a contractual issue. Manu's character is meant to be contained (at least at this time, as we have no source stating otherwise) to a very specific storyline that deals with the island. They are specifically writing for the inclusion of that character, as it is important to the overall storyline from the show. Unlike Felcity, who until recently, filled a role that appeared every so often with no real importance in any storyline itself. What I mean by that is her role could have been filled by any other character they chose. Slade's role cannot, as they've established him as having a set story-arc that they are playing out. That's why Roy Harper is listed as a 'recurring guest' (and the fact that his source says recurring guest), because he has no set storyline right now, he just exists and will appear from time to time. Episode appearance is only one facet of defining someone as a "recurring guest". When sources say "multi-episode arc" or "recurring guest", they are talking about how it is defined in the actor's contract. Recurring guests typically do not have set number of episodes. I imagine that Manu has a set number of episodes he is contract for, just like the actress who plays Det. McKenna, or any of the others listed in that section. That doesn't mean it cannot change into a recurring guest role later, only that at this time he isn't considered one, which is evidenced by the sources not saying he's a recurring guest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Non English Words..?

I know I havnt been around long, is there a reason for the bots putting in non English words? MisterShiney (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you looking at?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The History of the Article changes like this: 23:00,

13 October 2012‎ EmausBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,837 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (r2.7.2+) (Robot: Modifying hi:ऐरो (टीवी शृंखला)) (undo) MisterShiney (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If this is what you're referring to (or this), that's actually just a link to another language wiki. It's the Netherland's version of the Arrow page. See here. There are ones for Italian, French, Portugues, etc. The specific edit you pointed out was actually a correction made by the bot to take the link to the correct page. I'm not sure which language that one is, but if you look to the left in the quick links boxes, you'll see "languages". Those are all those links you're seeing within the article itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. MisterShiney (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It starts with "hi:" and that's the ISO 639-1 code for Hindi, a language spoken in India. Teysz Kamieński _(talk)</font> 21:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Manu Bennet

He appeared in 7 episodes already, and will appear for the rest of the sea on. This is recurring by anyone's definition. Recurring means more appears in more than one or two episodes. I've never heard of any other television articles needing a source to specifically spell out if a character is recurring. It is ridiculous that he is not included under 'recurring'.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recurring characters tend not to be part of any specific storyline, and Manu's character is part of a very specific storyline. Appearing in multiple episodes does not automatically mean they are "recurring". Contracts may be written up as 'recurring' or as 'multi-episode arcs'. The former is when they don't necessarily know when they will use the character, but the contractual obligation is there. The latter is where you know how and when you're using the character. Difference: Barrowman's Malcolm Meryln is recurring because he appears from time to time and doesn't necessarily contribute to any specific plot on a significant scale. Manu's Slade appears with a very specific plot, to explain Oliver's island training, etc. The sources for Manu say "multi-episode arc", notice the sources for the other characters specifically say "recurring character".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Manu has been in more episodes than the Huntress or Walter and has specifically been mentioned as being promoted to series regular in season 2 from recurring in season 1 [2]... thus he should be included. No rational reason not to include him. Spanneraol (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First, his original source for announcing his casting said explicitely, "Multi-episode arc", not "recurring" guest. The fact that the writer decided to classify it as "recurring" doesn't change the fact that he was announced as only "multi-episode arc". Do not confuse appearing in many episodes as being "recurring". His appearance has been specifically done as part of a large storyline, not randomized appearances that are not directly related to the overall plot (e.g., Felicity, Yao Fei, Helena, etc.). Go look up the definition of "recurring guest", it's more than simply "appearing in multiple episodes".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says he is being promoted from recurring status (in season 1) to series regular in season 2. Appearing in many episodes is actually the definition of "recurring"... so i don't know what definition you are referring to. Recurring status has no bearing on what storylines you appear in.. just that you appear in multiple episodes... that is the definition.. If you want to instead add him to the series regular list thats fine, but removing the name entirely doesn't make sense. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Go read his original casting announcement that does not say "recurring". Also, go read up on the definition of "recurring guest". It is more than simply number of episodes. His name isn't removed "entirely", because he's mentioned in the production section, alongside the other characters that were not announced as "recurring" guests. Again, the fact that some writer recently said "recurring" doesn't mean that (1) that was how he was contracted (2) that was what he really was, or (3) that they know how "recurring" is actually defined. It is NOT simply the number of episodes you appear in. Read the definition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to help you out, here is the original source, which is from Entertainment Weekly...a much more reputable source than "Screencrush".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What definition are you talking about? The only requirement for recurring is a certain number of episodes. You have a point if they have appeared in two episodes, but at this point, there is no reason at all to include him.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The same question applies: What definition are you talking about where only the number of episodes determines recurring status? If it's a matter of episode count, then exactly how many episodes are we talking about? Two episodes, three, four, etc? What is enough then? This is why it's about more than simply episode count, which is arbitrary. In the show, Slade is part of a very specific storyline, he's not simply some character that appears from time to time (ala, Felicity or Roy), but he has a very specific storyline. He's more than a special guest, and probably more than simply a "recurring" guest, because of how he is being used. This also has to do with how his contract is written. If Manu is cntracted for multiple episodes, that's different than being contracted as a recurring guest where your episode count is not necessarily identified from the start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bignole, maybe Caringtyoe is thinking that the term recurring is a slight differentiation that you are making up on the spot. Is there a Wikiproject Television guideline or MOS point which makes the differentiation that would allow the user can to see the origin point of your argument? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the suggestion that I'm "making it up on the spot" (which is rather insulting to say the least), you have the original source that again says merely "multiple episodes". Recurring character discussing recurring guests as being one episode guests that become popular and start appearing more often. That is not the case with Slade. His character was written with a specific storyline in mind, that of how Oliver was trained on the island. We're not talking about a character that just appears from time to time, but one that was written for a specific purpose. The number of episodes is irrelevant to the fact that he didn't start out as a special guest that was brought back because of popularity, or to fill in gaps. Here, Alex Epstein discusses "recurring guests". You'll note that the number of episodes they appear in does not matter by itself, it's about the role they play in conjunction with appearing in multiple episodes. If you note Epstein's description, Manu's character does not fit with the definition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bignole, the item is "recurring cast" not "recurring guest"... and the recurring character link you mention says "Recurring characters often play major roles in one or more episode, sometimes being the main focus. " And he has certainly qualified for that.. From your other source "recurring characters are characters who keep coming back but who don't have to be in every episode" he meets that description too.. so both sources you provided he meets.. And just google "Manu Bennett Arrow recurring" and you get tons of sources.. tons that mention him as recurring.. I don't understand your point.. it doesn't matter what storyline he's involved in.. he has had major roles in several episodes. Do you know the definition of "recurring"? He's part of the cast and he's recurred... where is the debate? It is very clear. Spanneraol (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I love how you ignore open debates and just choose to keep reverting back to your choice regardless of WP:BRD. That said, Manu does not "keep coming back", because he never left. He's been in every episode since he first appeared, because he has a set storyline. This is not a recurring guest, it's a guest with a set storyline that would either ultimately end #or be picked up as a regular role for next season and expanded upon#. You seem to not be able to escape the idea of number of appearances is only one aspect of what makes a character "recurring". Notice how when the casting was announced, no one says "recurring role" #you'll also note that other cast members do clearly have that distinguishing feature of being classified as "recurring" from the start#: Multi-episode arc, appearing in multiple episodes, multiple episodes, multi-episode arc. His character is part of a specific story-arc, that removes him from typical "recurring" status, because he has a set story. Unlike the other recurring guests who do not have set stories. They appear in episodes and are a major part of the story of that episode, but not part of an over-arching arc for the season like Manu's characters. The fact that they did not announce him as a "recurring guest" from the start, but a character who will be part of a multi-episode arc, says that he should not be considered as part of the "recurring guests" like the other #whose casting announcements showed that they were recurring#. It's ironic that someone who clamors for reliable sources to prove something is ignoring that now. Again, the fact that someone uses the term "recur" when it was announced that he was promoted to series regular is based on them juse saying he's appeared a lot and is thus recurring.....yet, again, that term was not used to describe him when he was cast. Given that the other characters specifically got that identifier when they were cast, and not Manu, clearly there was a reason behind and and they knew from the start #hence the source comments# that he would be on the show for many episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"mult-episode arc" and "recurring" are the same thing... recurring simply means to re occur... to occur more than once... Several sources refer to him as recurring. Your own sources as to what recurring cast means says as such. Additional links SPARTACUS' Manu Bennett Lands Recurring Role on ARROW just landed a recurring role two recurring characters has landed a major recurring role Recurring Role... and more... the language means the same thing. You are making a distinction that doesn't exist. Far more sources refer to him as recurring than do Joanna de la Vega, whose source seems to be her twitter page. yet you seem intent on removing his name for some reason. There are really only 3 designations for cast members "Series Regular" (appears in the main titles), "Recurring" (appears in multiple episodes but is not in the main titles) and "guest star" (usually only appears in one episode). Spanneraol (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted out the repeated inclusion of Bennett until a resolution is achieved here first. The constant back and forth is destabilizing to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But Jack I've included like a half dozen sources and the english language definition of recurring... what more needs to be done? The guy will never agree. It is silly to not have him in the cast list. Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Span, your first source is my source and the article doesn't say "recurring", only the header. Tv.com is the equivalent to IMDb, because it's user edited. Your other sources are for announcing the move to series regular status, and are incorrectly using the term to describe the fact that he appears in a lot of episodes. Also, no one is in the main titles, because they don't have main titles. All names are listed after the title card in plain text, with no identifier. He's merely a guest who is part of a multi-episode arc, not simply recurring. He's role is more important than what a recurring guest role would be. "Recurring" and "multi-episode arc" are not the same thing. I've already explained why they are not the same thing. Guest stars do not just appear in "1 episode". Again, you're attributing episode count to the only way of determining recurring status. Like I've said, he was brought in for a specific story arc, which means he isn't "recurring", he's merely appearing for his story arc. The others, as you've noticed in the show, did not have story arcs. They merely appear from time to time. That is recurring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We're going back and forth on this, so let's just make it simple. Why is it, that when his casting was first announced, it was announced as specifically a "multi-episode arc", as opposed to simply "recurring". We have plenty of other character who were announced as "recurring" from the start, yet Manu was not (at least not by the more reputable sources, like Entertainment Weekly). His character's apppearances also does not match up to how the other recurring guests have appeared (i.e., he's appeared as part of a specific storyline, the others have not). So, the simple question is: Why was his casting set as simply "multi-episode arc"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They are the same thing..EW simply used different language. Several other sources used the recurring language and one source used both interchangeably. He has been used more than other cast members that reccur yes but he's still recurring. You keep saying the other sources are incorrectly using the term?? Really? All of them? How do you know more than them? You also keep referring to "recurring guest" when the list on the page is "recurring cast"... there is a difference there. Why is it that you want to omit a fairly major cast member from the cast list over a minor wording issue? I have cited many reliable sources which refer to him as "recurring". You say they are using the term incorrectly but maybe it is you who are using it wrong? My main point remains... there is no ambiguity here... recurring means to reoccur... to appear in multiple episodes... I have cited sources which refer to that fact.. you have cited nothing otherwise just your personal opinion that the writers are all using the term wrong. You are simply making up a definition.. no where in the definition of recurring character does it say that you cant have a story arc and "just appear from time to time"... thats your own opinion. We go by reliable sources and many sources list him as recurring. Not including him on a cast list is simply wrong. Spanneraol (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I challenge the way your sources (fansites) are using the term, as opposed to a source like Entertainment Weekly, that is much more reliable that does NOT use the term. To me, there is a clear difference between appearing in multiple episodes as a recurring status, and appearing in multiple episodes because you have a set storyline for your character that will ultimately end. Manu is not a "time to time" character, which is how recurring is set. That's all I'm going to say on the matter from this point forward, because you and I clearly are not going to get anywhere. Also, keep your personal attacks to yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion that the english definition of the term "recurring" is wrong can be taken up with the dictionary people. Your desire to not have a major character included in a cast list that he obviously belongs in is not backed up by policy or consensus. Your desire to WP:OWN this article is a policy violation. Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OWN? I think you need to start re-evaluating what that means. Disagreeing over the inclusion of a character in 1 particular list is hardly be taking "ownership". Especially since I've compromised on many things that happen in this article. If I didn't, Jack and I would be having repeated revert wars about the links to the character pages....and we don't, because I try and respect the discussion process. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar examples of the two terms being used interchangeably [3][4][5][6][7] I think that proves my point... they mean the same thing. Spanneraol (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Spanneraol, you need to stop and take a step back, please. Bignole is the second person you have accused of OWNership (I was also accused of such); I think you need to re-read what consensus is, as well. We disagree with you, that's all. Please stop attacking your fellow editors, or you will find out that they a) won't edit with you and, b) they will likely work to get you blocked for being uncivil. I don't want to see that happen, but you need to control your temper somewhat.

Secondly, you seem to make a good point about the apparent interchangeability of the terms 'multi-story arc' and 'recurring role'. Is there something in the Wikiproject Television MOS that can help? Has anyone posted this issue there for clarification? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea i tend to get too emotional.. especially when i feel someone is talking down to me and not being reasonable... I actually tried to delete that comment but he posted too quickly... need to take a bit more time before responding. Spanneraol (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that there isn't anything in the TV-MOS. There isn't a lot of traffic on that page, but seeking responses from there or the TV WikiProject would be appropriate. To clarify, I do think you make a point about people using the terms interchangeably, but I still believe they are used incorrectly. For example, Olivia Munn (and I speak of this one because I know the show) was using both, yet she appeared in like 3 episodes back to back and that was the end of her run. To me, that really was not a "recurring role", so much as a short guest stint.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the only way to proceed is to seek more opinions. I'll be fine with whatever another editors thinks, ending the tie. This issuer will be moot come season two anyway.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, because he'll be in the series regular list anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it just seems wrong to not include a major cast member when you have Dinah listed, who was really in only one episode... Even if you want to pretend recurring doesn't mean what it really does... then change the listing to "additional cast" or "other cast" or something cause he should be listed somewhere. Spanneraol (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The actress portraying Dinah (who appeared in 2 episodes), was sourced as being a "recurring guest" from the start. That said, you don't typically see a lot of articles with "Guest" (recurring or special) lists to begin with. Just the main cast. Arrested Development had one, but it was ungodly long. The issue becomes differences in what is "recurring", like we have here, and when you change the name to just "Additional" the issue of including every guest star that appears on the show. Which, after a couple of seasons would be in Arrested Development territory. Most of the info on this page will ultimately be moved in a year or so anyway, because it is only relevant to 1 season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dinah was really only at the very end of one episode and a minor character in the next episode... Don't you think it's weird to include her and not Slade? Especially after I've shown you that multi-episode and recurring are used interchangeably? It seems that Caringtype and I want to include him and you don't and Jack doesn't seem to want to offer his opinion on this... and no one else seems to want to participate. Spanneraol (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more definitions of recurring characters from the web [8][9][10] [11]. The bases is that a recurring character is someone who comes back "again and again" on a show.. He fits that description... And before you say that he hasn't left... well neither has Felicity and you accept her inclusion. Being only on the island storyline doesn't mean anything either cause Yao Fei is only on the island and you accept him also. No where do i see your concept of recurring listed anywhere else... appearing in a number of episodes seems to be the basis of it.. And really you should include all the recurring characters or get rid of the listing altogether. Spanneraol (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

First, the only thing I find weird is that people use the terms as synonyms. Slade is an important character, but again, my opinion is really that we shouldn't have a "guest list" anyway. They are a small portion of the show, and at this moment only relevant to the first season. Main cast members are the only important cast members. I think that all guests should be represented in prose in the production section, and moved off the article completely once it grows beyond 1 or 2 seasons. As for Felicity and Yao Fei, both did not appear consistently. Felicity would go several episodes with no appearance, and then be in this episode and that. She only recently start making more appearances, and that probably ties more into that bit about recurring guests becoming more popular and being upgraded. Yao definitely was not appearing all the time. The island stuff went several episodes before we say Yao's character, and then he was there for a period, and now he really isn't there. Slade, once he appeared, has been there from the start and through and in every island appearance since he first showed up. He's also been much more important to the island storyline than Yao. To me, Slade has not been used like a recurring guest, he's been used almost like a main cast member with the prevalence of his appearances on the show and the impact on the storyline. Again, my preference is actually that the guest list be removed completely and all guests be in a section in "Production" (maybe a "Casting" section), because they are not as important as the main cast...yet we're treating them like they are. We have recurring guests that have appeared in only a few episodes and they are up there with the main cast like they truly impacted the storylines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support removing the list entirely then to avoid these sorts of disputes as some of those listed are really minor characters. Spanneraol (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact perhaps we should do something like how the Smallville page is done.. with the main cast listed with brief character descriptions and then a Characters page that lists every character with a significant part. Obviously this series hasn't been around as long so it would have less info but I think thats a good model to emulate. Spanneraol (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's probably where this will end up at some point. The question is, do we do it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the recurring list now because otherwise people will keep adding various characters to it... expanding the main cast with brief descriptions is also a good idea.. Not sure on creating the other page yet...but this show does have a fairly large group of cast members that have appeared so it may be ok to start it. Spanneraol (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

While we decide on developing a second page, I'm game for removing the guest list. We can move all (that aren't already there) to the "Productin" section, and create a subsection for them all with more fleshed out prose for them. We can also add a bit of descriptions to the main cast list, ala Smallville. Anyone else have thoughts on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the guest list and wrote some prose for the main cast... could be a bit more but I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaps of faith

We should not be connecting Barrowman's character to the DC character ofof Merlyn until we have solid, explicit commentary to that effect from a Reliable Source. The last time I checked, we are not allowed to Sherlock out a connection based upon our personal observations or fondest wishes. I'm noticing this not only with Merlyn, but Yaio Fei as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, his name is Meryln, the character's name is Merlyn. He dresses as a dark archer and the character does that as well. So...how are they not the same? You might as well say that Oliver is not Oliver because they don't explicitely say that he is the same from the comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Either every character should linked to the comic-book counterparts' page (if they have one), or none of them.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, we aren't using some unknown set of criteria here, guys. If there is a notable, reliable source stating - explicitly - that the character in the program is the character from the DCU, then there is no problem including it. If not, we are not allowed to make that intuitive leap as editors.

The importance of avoiding Sherlocking becomes all the more important int he absence of reliable citation. While we can in fact tie Manu Bennet's Slade Wilson to DCU's Deathstroke and the series' Oliver Queen to the DCU Oliver Queen (since we have RS' within the article that explicitly state that), we cannot do so for others without the reference; it is Original Research. With respect to Bignole's argument that the Merlyn villain from the comics is Barrowman's character, while it is true that there are similarities, they aren't so convincing that reliable sources have fallen over themselves to note it. Until they do, we as editors cannot cross that boundary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how we can tie Oliver and Slade to the DCU (No source says they are exactly like their DCU counterpart, only that they share the name - Especially since "Deathstroke" is never stated in the show and "Green Arrow" is not either), but not Merlyn? It's the same principle. These are interpretations of the DCU characters, not "explicit" duplications.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain? Sure. We have reliable, notable references specifically, explicitly noting Manu Bennett as Slade Wilson, the person to become Deathstroke. Here's another one. And another one. I imagine it would just as ridiculously simple to find the same level of notable references to reinforce that the Ollie Queen of the series is the same character as in the DCU; I'm hoping you aren't going to make me do that, as my time is limited.

As for Merlyn, there is only one such character in the DCU with that name, and only the single name, like Cher, or Bono or Googoosh. There aren't two as far as the DCU is concerned, and that's a problem here. We have no idea who might be(come) the DCU Merlyn, and seeking to deduce who will is amazingly unencyclopedic.The same goes for any evaluation of Thea as Speedy or Yao Fei as a watered-down form of the DCU character.

The characters are indeed interpretations of the DCU characters, but it isn't within our wheelhouse to decide how close or far those interpretations veer fromt he source material. Oh, we can notice it as readers, but we don't get to evaluate them as editors. We have sources for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, all you've shown in sources is that he's playing the character that shares the name. Why is it that when you have a source that says he's Slade Wilson, and there is another source saying that Barrowman is Merlyn, that somehow the Slade one is clearly talking about the DCU character and the one for Barrowman is not? I think you're trying to be very "letter of the law", as opposed to spirit of the law in this case. I won't argue about Thea or Yao Fei, because to me Thea is not "Speedy" (even though that's her nickname on the show) because Thea Queen doesn't actually exist in the comics. As for Yao Fei, I agree that that is also a leap. But Merlyn is hardly a leap. The name is the same, the costume is the same (updated for reality obviously), and has an off-shoot similar backstory (e.g., killing for contract...though there his own contracts on the show). We also know that in The New 52, Merlyn is actually "Tommy Merlyn, Oliver's best friend"....thus, one of these characters is being represented as the DCU character (if not both of them). So, to dismiss any link to the page is rather ridiculous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its okay to link the page of the comic book counterpart because the characters in the series are based on the comics, they aren't playing new characters. With that being said, there isn't a number of articles that we could link to, without linking to a completely different character. For example we should not link Laurel Lance to Black Canary, because we do not know if she will become that character in the series.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll address both comments in order. Bignole, I am glad that find agreement regarding Thea Queen and Yao Fei. That said, I will reiterate that we have sources that explicitly tie the character from the series to the character from the source comic book material. The article about Bennett's portrayal of Salde Wilson explicitly tied his portrayal to that of Deathstroke, the - and I quote - "badass of the DCU". As far as I know, the word/name/term deathstroke has never been mentioned in the series whatsoever. That seems to present a pretty clear connection. By a reliable, reputable source. That isn't a literalist interpretation of our policy regarding inclusion; it is the policy, supported by numerous guidelines. We don't get to Sherlock out a conclusion because - and I know this is a bitter pill to swallow - our opinions are immaterial when it comes to article content. Content is driven by references, not editorial intuition. ANY editorial intuition.

The issue surrounding the wikilinking of Merlyn is a prime example of this destructive, intuitive editing idea. True, the character of Tommy Merlyn has been introduced in the newest (which is to say until Didio gets another wild hair to change it all over again) incarnation of the character, but not as the killer-for-hire archer. It's too far a leap to make to connect them. Add that there are two possible characters that can fit the bill in the tv series, that age, name and description helps not even a little bit, and the leap becomes too crazy for even Evel Knievel to contemplate. We should wait until we have solid citation that says, 'yes, Barrowman is portraying the Merlyn character from the comics.'
The same method should be applied to the rest of the characters of the series. No, Laurel shouldn't be linked to Black Canary. We as editors know the relationship between Queen and Lance as it exists in the comic books, but this one bears very little resemblance to that. As well, Laurel Lance shouldn't be wikilinked at all to BC, as - apart from the name - there is little in common between the two.A mere name is simply not enough. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am with Bignole on this. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are it is a duck or in this case the Dark Archer. We don't need a source to tell us the obvious. MisterShiney ✉ 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, if you read the quote completely, you'll notice that it was a clerk at the airport who said "Deathstroke is the badass of the DCU". That was not someone tied to the show "explicitely stating tat Manu is playing the DCU character". So, unless you're telling me that a customs official in an airport is a reliable source, I would say that the source doesn't meet your definition of explicite confirmtion. What you're doing is saying that because some random person in an airport, or the writer of a column can easily identify "Slade Wilson" as being "Deathstroke" that that is somehow enough confirmation......yet, here, here, or here, where it's clear that Barrowman is intentionally keeping coy about whether Tommy or Malcolm will ultimately be the definitive "Dark Archer", but he never says they are not the same. Or, how about The Huffington Post literally saying that he was the Dark Archer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Granted, it was a single reference, used to illustrate a point. And as an aside, if the reliable source chooses to note what a customs agent says, then it is notable, especially if it is expounded upon by the reliable source (which, I think, happened). I have very little doubt that more substantive sources could be found. That is, if we were talking about including Bennett's Wilson in either of the cast lists. The last I checked, that isn't really a discussion now. The point is one of making assumptions based upon information not explicitly noted in citation. When we have a source that thinks going into depth about Merlyn is important, then it will become important. Until then, we don't get to decide that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont forget that this is a TV series BASED on the comics! It is not a completely direct adaptation. MisterShiney ✉ 19:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but it isn't exactly a faithful representation, now is it? There is a lot of wiggle room, at least as to determining who Merlyn's wikilink belongs to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say that a customs official knowing who Slade Wilson and informing Manu who Slade Wilson is somehow confirms that Manu is explicitely playing the DCU character? Wow....I'm at a loss for words on that. Granted, I am not saying that Manu is not Slade/Deathstroke, just that you're reaching if you're saying that an airport official is a "reliable source for character identification". It has nothing to do with the fact that the journalist expands. We all know that they tend to see more than what is actually said. For example, if you look at many characters that appeared on Smallville, sources would often identify a character as being from the comics when in fact they merely shared a name (easiest example being Dr. Hamilton is season 1. As it turned out, he wasn't the DCU character, yet he was identified by journalist as that because he shared the name). That said, I see you did not comment on the sources I provided regarding Barrowman. I assume you didn't look at them, or you are saying the Huffington Post isn't as reliable as a customs official.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop focusing on Manu Bennett's Slade; that isn't at issue here, and really never has been. If it were, I'd point out that you would still be missing yet another point, which is this: it doesn't matter whether the person making the comment is the third plumber for a podunk town in Pago-Pago. If their comments are utilized within the cited source of a journalist expounding on a rumor and likely use a customs official as a means to do so, it trumps any speculative effort by us to magic up a connection that has not been made yet. So no, the writer would be the one compared, not the plumber.

That is the very heart of it, Bignole. No amount of exasperated snarkyness on your part (seeking to mis-frame my comments, assuming I didn't read your posts, etc.) can overcome the simple, clear fact that without notable, verifiable, reliable citation explicitly connecting DCU Merlyn character, there is nothing we can do. We are not citable. I did follow the links, Bignole; they were ones I'd already seen. Again, they don't appear to say what you want them to say, and stringing them together is simply synthesis.

Are you serious? Please, show me where at WP:RS or WP:NOR it says that if a journalist uses a shitty source that that somehow makes it legit. It doesn't. You need to use some common sense, and the fact that you're actually trying to defend such a source is hysterical and would not fly anywhere else (and it doesn't fly here with me). Manu is the example, and if the example being used was Olive than that would be what I would use, so don't try and turn this as some preoccupation with one character, it's merely the example that shows fault in your understanding of RS and NOR. As for my sources, "they don't say what I want them to say?" Clearly, you don't read my posts completely, as I followed up the first few sources with a statement that they don't directly call him anything, but insinuate. But, The Huffington Post literaly saying, "The Dark Archer is revealed to be Malcom Merlyn" was said explicitely? Somehow that isn't enough for you? Somehow, the Dark Archer and Malcolm Merlyn being directly tied together in the same sentence isn't enough?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A few questions of clarfiication, Bignole: first, when was the term 'Dark Archer' coined in relation to the comic book character? Myself, I never heard the term before, except maybe in passing the the Merlyn-esque character Vortigern in Smallville. I don't recall it ever being used before (or since) that one time.

As for sources, the clear path is that if the source is crap, we don't use it; I had thought you already knew that. I am not stating that we should should avoid better sources in favor of worse ones. I believe that my point - from the beginning - has been that, to date, no source has explicitly identified one Merlyn or the other as the Merlyn from the comics. If a source hasn't made that connection explicit connection, then we cannot. And, as 'Dark Archer' doesn't appear to be a moniker of the comic book character, ipso facto no such connection exists outside the imagination of at least one editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about identifying "THE" Merlyn. The Huffington Post clearly refers to Barrowman's characters as being "THE" Merlyn, but that is beside the point. The point is, both Malcolm and Tommy are based on the Merlyn from the comics. Whether a direct iteration or not, they are both based on either an older version or the newer (New 52) version. Given that Tommy Merlyn doesn't have his own page (redirects to Meryln), but exists as part of the original Merlyn's page (and Malcolm Merlyn redirecs there as well), it only makes sense that in the least he should be linked to the page. Whether you want to link him to a specific section or not, it's still the basis for these two characters (evidence without original research: they both share the name--spelled identically--Tommy is Oliver's best friend, and Malcom is a black cloaked archer who rivals Oliver's skills). We're not talking about writing on this page, or any other..."This is the Merlyn from the comics", but you would be remiss to try and deny that the shown (and sources....see Huffington Post) clearly see one, if not both, as being based on this character. Ergo, linking the page should be not only sufficient, but appropriate. You're sitting on an island alone right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are not saying that this person/these two people are not Merlyn from the comics, we should not link to that comic book character. Its only approrpiate to do so if we have explicit commentary from sources stating such. Otherwise, its original research and the worst kind of sherlocking.

Btw, did you forget to my initial question about a source that clearly and explicitly connects the term 'Dark Archer' to Merlyn (comics)? As previously pointed out, the only connection to Dark Archer in a tv series has been the character of Vortigern in the 10^th season of Smallville. There are more citable connections between Smallville's bad guy and Arrow's bad guy than either has to the Merlyn from the comics.

If you think I'm on the island alone, widen the circle, Bignole; initiate an RfC. My interpretation of NOR might be too tightly defined for an encyclopedia where we don't allow synthesis and deductive reasoning by editors. Here's your chance to prove that I'm wrong; file an RfC.

The Smallville character should not even be mentioned on Merlyn's page, because they are not the same. That said, the sources shows that Barrowman is being used as that character (again, you neglected the bit about Tommy, who is identical to his New 52 counterpart and only exists on that page). But, I'll be happy to do an RfC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There is a disagreement over whether or not to link certain characters on this page to the DC comics page that may or may not represent the character. The primary disagreement is over the characters of Malcolm and Tommy Merlyn. One side is arguing that they are a representation of this Merlyn. The other side of the argument is that there is no source "explicitely" stating that either is directly that character. Sources and more detailed arguments are supplied above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem in a better nutshell is that we have characters within the tv series named Merlyn and neither of them is a close approximation to the character depicted within the comic books, apart from one of the characters using a bow. All references of the bow-using character have been that of a "Dark Archer", a reference only recently applied and which trace back to the name of a Smallville character named Vortigern (and definitely not the same character as that represented within this series). Since Wikipedia is not a compilation of editorial detective work but rather citable references, we should adopt a 'wait-and-see' attitude - a reliable, reputable source will eventually come along tying the comic book and the tv series character (which/whoever that might be) together. Until then, any presumption is WP:OR and Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We're supposed to be neutral here and let people decide. Otherwise, I would point out that "Merlyn" in the New 52 comics is really "Tommy Merlyn", the best friend of Oliver Queen (which is exactly how he is portrayed in the show). As well as the fact that Malcolm Merlyn not only shares the name, but dressed exactly like the comic book character (that's more than just a bow, that's a full costume). Just saying, it's a little more connected than you are actually presenting it to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd additionally point out that the comic book character is given no first name. When one adds that, indeed, the character in the "New 52" series is Tommy (and not Malcolm, who some are seeking to wikilink) and the rather vastly different costuming, it becomes apparent how such confusion can arise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: Unless it's reliably sourced, it's original research and doesn't belong in the article. — Bility (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• What's all this about? The character of Tommy Merlyn is currently appearing in DC Comics, as has been noted (and ignored) above. If Helena and Ollie are going to be linked, he should too. Roy Harper shares a full name with a character from the comics, so what exactly are we supposed to think has happened here? That the show's producers coincidentally gave these characters names not knowing that there was any connection with the comics? And if we are going to require a citation for these characters being the same, why not require a citation for Starling City being a reinvention of Star City? That's linked, too. The name of a character cannot be construed as original research if that name itself appears in the primary source. We do not need a source for the name of the characters anymore than we need a source for the plot summaries in the episode list. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I dsagree, as does most of the policies, guidelines governing Wikipedia. Unless there is an explicit connection from one media to another by a reliable source, we cannot independently make the connection. And maybe we should have a citation for Starling City being the equivalent of Star City, but we cannot link characters like DCU's Merlyn to this article because we haven't the hint of RS connecting either one of the Merlyns to the character, apart of Sherlocking the hell out of the material. The same for Laurel Lance being Black Canary. This is not to say that any of these will NEVER be connected. We are saying that we do not have sufficient sourcing to connect them as of yet. Extraordinary sources require extraordinary citation. We have that for Helena and Oliver, and it could be argued that we have that for Wilson Slade as well. go ahead and look at the connections the linked sources make for these characters; it might provide suitable insight as to what Wikipedia needs for inclusion/linking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you're looking for more explicit connections than would be necessary for what is really being said. Linking to Black Canary shouldn't automatically say that they are one in the same character, but Laurel Lance is clearly inspired by that character, and the link should really be "Black Canary#Arrow", because there is no independent article for Black Canary's alter-ego, Dinah Lance, like there is for Superman and Clark Kent. To deprive a reader of knowing where the inspiration for a character came is almost worst, IMO, then "sherlocking" the connection. You know by the name where the foundation of the character is rooted. The same, in the least, can be said for Tommy Merlyn. We know he exists in the DCU exactly as he is portrayed here. His link should be "Merlyn (DC comics)#The New 52", because that section is the mention of this character. Nothing is exactly the same, but linking to a page where the character is inspired from, if not the same character, is appropriate, so long as you link in an accurate manner. Don't link generally, link to specific sections that clarify the character's portrayal from another media. BTW, here is another article where they ask her about Black Canary, and Katie Cassidy pretty much shows that they are the same character even if Laurel isn't the "Black Canary" on the show, yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading more into that article than I saw. When asked pretty much point blank, she stated she didn't know if one would turn into the other, as it was up to the writers. See, that's pretty what I have been talking about thus far. We (meaning you and I, and a few other editors) know what comic book characters these tv characters are patterned after. However, could this series survive if Laurel never became Black Canary? How about if Roy Harper never became Speedy? I think so; I think the series stands on its own, much like Smallville did (and that show took so many liberties with the DCU, it should have bought it dinner first).

And maybe I am more strictly interpreting our synthesis policy, Bignole; I don't mind the accusation. If I conform to the letter of the law here, then only the Wiki benefits. And any worries about readers not knowing the inspiration for the series' characters is just silly. The first paragraph of the article makes reference to the source material. Interested readers can explore the comics or the Green Arrow article to find connections. We don't pre-chew the food for the reader; let them explore on their own. And you will find me to be unswayed by any argument regarding the Merlyns, since we have no clue as to who is going to end up being the DCU character. Until a reliable source comes right out and says it, we cannot Sherlock the connection. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

But you're fixated on one piece of the puzzle. I'm not arguing that Laurel will one day be "Black Canary", but she is intended to be the alter-ego, "Dinah Lance" (her name on the show is "Dinah Laurel Lance", as stated by her father). The same with Roy Harper. Sources talk about Roy being Green Arrow's partner, but we're not arguing that the show's Roy will one day be Green Arrow's partner, but he's clearly the same character. Whether they choose to put him directly in line with DCU is irrelevant to the fact that he is intended to be that character. As said, this even applies to the Merlyns. You're fixating on the idea of "Merlyn the Magician". Removing Malcolm Merlyn from the picture, Tommy is clearly the new 52 character, yet you refuse to even allow a link to that section of the article. Again, you're being more pointy than really trying to benefit the wiki. I think that the only reason you're not doing the same with Oliver is because he's the main character of the show. Nothing says he is "Green Arrow", so why are we linking to that character?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We are linking Oliver to the DCU character because citations do that. Not me: reliable, notable, verifiable citations.The same with Helena being linked to Huntress. The source said so. They don't say that Laurel, Roy or either of the Merlyns are. (On a side note, I don't think I've confused the DCU archer with the Arthurian wizard even once, either here or elsewhere). I don't mind if Tommy Merlyn, Malcolm Merlyn or Laurel or Quentin Lance link to this article - they are characters is the series after all. The problem with linking to the New 52 mention within the Merlyn article is that Tommy is not the DCU villainous archer there, either. Topically stuffing him there simply because his surname is the same as the character would be like redirecting the article of the late Sonny Bono to that of U2's Bono. Granted that's an extreme example, but the point is this: we are not here to CRYSTAL ball the connections between these characters - and presuming what the intentions of the writers, cast, etc. are thinking in the absence of citation to that effect is nothing less than fortune telling. You are acknowledging that I am following our polices, though narrowly. That is not Pointy. What is the big hairy problem with simply waiting until a source thinks a connection is as important as you seem to think it is? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, because there isn't a single citation in this article about Stephen Amell's Oliver Queen being the Oliver Queen from the DCU. What are you talking about, "Arthurian wizard"? Do you know anything about Merlyn? His name in the comics was "Merlyn the Magician", I'm not talking about King Arthur's wizard aid. There is not problems with getting reliable sources, the problem is that you're demanding that someone literally say, "Malcolm (or Tommy) Merlyn is the Merlyn from DCU", and people don't talk like that. The reason being is because no one interviewing Barrowman, or Cassidy, etc, is asking if their characters are from the DCU, because they already know that they are. The only time you've seen those questions was when Barrowman's character was still "The Well-Dressed Man", and not Malcolm Merlyn, and well before he started dressing up as an archer. You have a show that has a character named Merlyn, who dresses up like an archer, but in all black attire, and kills people. Gee...that sounds remarkably like the gent from the DCU who shares that name and does the same thing. The fact that the DCU character doesn't have a first name is irrelevant. The same is true for Katie Cassidy's character. Other sources talk about her character becoming Black Canary. THey are not asking her if her Laurel is the same one as the one in the comics, but if her character will one day take on the persona of "Black Canary". You don't have the Sherlock anything to see that they are the same character. She doesn't need to become the Black Canary for Laurel to be based on the DCU character. My point is that you're trying to say that no one has said they are the same, but they have. The only difference is that the question is whether or not she will every be the superhero known as "Black Canary", NOT that she is the representation of the non-hero alter-ego known as "Dinah Laurel Lance". As for Roy, the announcement source here, stipulates that Roy Harper is the Green Arrow's sidekick. Again, whether or not they ever make that character, on the show, his sidekick is irrelevant. It's still the same character. How they choose to interpret the character does not negate where the character comes from. Otherwise, I might as well say that Slade isn't the real Slade from the DCU because in the DCU he was not friends with Oliver, and was a cold-blooded assassin. Again, you're trying to require a specific source that will identify YOUR definition of connection to the DCU. Based on how irritation you showed yourself to be with Smallville's interpretation of the characters, it almost comes across like you just don't want these characters to be the same because they don't match YOUR definition of what that character should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What Bignole said. Demanding references for something as simple as wikilinking is unprecedented; it is not something we have to do, and no policy says so. We don't have to have a reliable source to place four brackets around the word "Batman" at The Dark Knight Rises, and we don't have to have a reliable source to link "Dinah Laurel Lance" to Black Canary; the name being identical is all we need; the primary source (the show itself) using the same name as the comics is enough. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you are both wrong, for reasons I've already illuminated. At length.

First of all, Bignole, the citations you offer (that for some odd reason are not in the article) that supposedly prove that the characters are connected. I think you and I can agree that you are at the very least paraphrasing. In the Collider article, Cassidy states "At some point, if and when the Black Canary happens" - that is far from a ringing connection. The Roy Harper reference is equally vague: "DC Comics aficionados will recognize that name as the young marksman who has been known as, since his debut in 1941, the Green Arrow's sidekick Speedy, Teen Titans member Arsenal, and the Justice League's drug-addicted, one-armed Red Arrow. While details on this iteration's possible secret identity are being kept, well, secret...Roy is "destined to become a significant part of her life and an important player in the larger world of Arrow." Perhaps I didn't make myself clearer on the subject of explicit citation: if a source didn't say it, we don't get to, either. By wikilinking them, we would be doing exactly that. How the show-runners choose to express a given character makes every difference in the world. And I didn't work in Wikipedia while Smallville was on the air, so I am unclear as to what you mean. I don't recall having expressed any opinion of character interpretation. Maybe your comments in this discussion would serve you better if you try to keep this professional and stop trying to divine my motives, since they happen in this case to be wrong.
And Evan2008, your statement about how "demanding references for something as simple as wikilinking is unprecedented; it is not something we have to do, and no policy says so" is just simply wrong. A wikilink - by definition - creates a link between two things. Since "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves," we would have to have a reference explicitly linking those two points of linkage. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't have that here. We have two different women who could be identified as Black Canary Dinah Lance and Laurel Lance. We have two different people named Merlyn, Tommy and Malcolm. Only in the last example is there even the suggestion of a connection with the character from the DCU - Malcolm uses a bow to kill people (sorta like Oliver…hmmm, maybe we could infer that Oliver is Merlyn!). Howeverm even this closer connection hasn't been noted by any reputable, reliable source. If they didn't feel it was important enough to point out, we don't get to, either.
And I'll ask again, why the big hurry? If events are going to play out the way you seem to think they will, its only a matter of time before some reviewer makes a solid enough citation for connection. Until then, our hands are tied. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some selections from the sources I've just used to reference brackets in the cast list:

From Digital Spy"

In the original DC Comics, Dinah 'Laurel' Lance - played by Katie Cassidy on Arrow - becomes the costumed adventurer Black Canary, but Guggenheim has insisted that the transition "has to be earned" on screen.

From Entertainment Weekly:

Keep an eye on Laurel Lance (Katie Cassidy): In the comics, Arrow’s former flame eventually morphs into his crime-fighting partner Black Canary

From Deadline.com:

Cassidy will play Laurel, a young legal clinic attorney who shares a romantic past with Oliver. (In the comics, the character, Dinah “Laurel” Lance, has a superhero alter ego, Black Canary.)

All emphasis is mine. I also want to mention that we are not talking about Cassidy portraying a character named Black Canary; we are talking about her portraying a character named Dinah Laurel Lance. There have been entire series in the comics featuring Lance where the name "Black Canary" was not mentioned. I'm not trying to educate you or condescend to you or anything, but since you didn't know who Merlyn was, I feel safe assuming you might not know that either. Do with that fact what you will. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Evan, I didn't see it as condescending. I was not aware that one of the nicknames for the DCU character was 'Merlyn the Magician'; I actually thought Bignole had gotten the two confused. I am very well aware of who the DCU character is, otherwise.

As for your citations, the first two are fine, as they link the character of Laurel Lance as someone who will "morph", "organically" into the character of Black Canary. Without it, there was no way for us to connect via wikilink to the DCU character article. The problem otherwise is that there is no connection between the two except for a name. It needs to be more substantially connected via RS to not make the wikilinkage original research.

I have removed the third reference that you placed in the article, as it fails to accomplish this connection. You and I might think the connection is obvious, but our opinions matter less than a squirrel fart when it comes to inclusion in the Wiki.

So, good work. Rather than arguing about the policy, you went out and found what was required. You are to be commended for your efforts. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your points as to Black Canary and Merlyn as they are unclear... but don't agree with you as to Roy Harper. He is obviously named after the comic character and even if he never becomes Speedy or Red Arrow or whatever... he is still Roy Harper. Even a different interpretation of the character should still be linked to his wikipedia page to give readers some perspective on where the character comes from. No good reason exists for not doing this. Spanneraol (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What governs one of these governs all of these, Spanneraol. We need a citation that explicitly states, in no uncertain terms that the tortured soul fromt he DCU is in fact represented by the character within the series. Without a source making that connection, the character could be any Roy Harper. As I've said before, THERE IS NO HURRY. If it is an important enough fact for us to have, some reliable source will mention it at some point. Until then, we are just comic book fans watching with varying levels of excitement/frustration at how the producers choose to develop out the series. For me, its more disappointment: I miss the forked beard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It could be years until they confirm it, whether Malcolm/Tommy is Merlyn, Roy is Roy from the books (But it's an adaptation of the character, etc..). We may get an answer before the finale, rumors are swirling that maybe Tommy or his dad die by the end of the season fianle. I do, Jack miss the beard, but despite that, I've grown to care about the series despite the CW not using Batman but using GA to make a Batman-ish show. But people forget the urban, 80's Mike Grell era where he killed people and fought druggies, corporate types, etc. that it's got some inspiration from. I have hope it goes for at least 5 seasons, 10 may be pushing it. And hey he had a beard on the Island flashbacks in the pilot, points to them for that. PS, sorry about the pain in the butt I've been, Jack. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC))

You aren't a pain in the butt, Joe; you just look at things with a lot of exuberance, and that's great. What's more, you are willing to see things from other points of view, which I personally value in my fellow editors. I don;t think we'll have to wait years one way or the other, though. They might be arrogant enough to think they will get a full 7 years to tell their story, but the public will not be as patient. And reviewers will start making connections, or pointing out that these connections aren't being made. Either way, time is on our side. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack, you are really over thinking things... They didn't just randomly come up with Roy's name...he was named that way because of the comic character... Perhaps you should just use some simple common sense. Sometimes people (meaning you) are such slaves to the letter of the law that they fail to use common sense. You need a source that explicitly states what? That they named him after the comic character? Again, he doesn't need to be Speedy or Red Arrow for him to be named after the character. They don't randomly come up with these names... and who put you in charge anyway? Spanneraol (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand how you are feeling, Span. You are frustrated because you think I am not "getting it", so you think that by not-so-slyly insulting me that I will magically change into someone more willing to see your point. That doesn't happen in the real world and it certainly doesn't happen here. All it does is foment edit-warring. So knock it off and be more polite. Be smarter or begone. Pardon the implied insult, but my time is too valuable to waste it on arguing with people who won't follow the rules the rest of us have to.

I am not suggesting that they pulled RH out of a hat. I have enough knowledge of the comics to know who he is...in the comics. However, he isn't that superheroing character in the TV series, and no source has up and said, 'RH is indeed that guy', or 'just wait, he will become Speedy'. And that - despite all your misguided anger and foot-stamping at me - is what we need for inclusion. We cannot link the tv character to the DCU character without it because, quite simply, the DCU character shares little in common with the tv character, apart from a name. For all we know, the tv character could end up being this Roy Harper. Why are you in such a hurry? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Again common sense applies here. Even if he isnt exactly the same guy he should still be linked to provide context for readers. I don't understand your point.. you need him to be EXACTLY like the comic character in order to be linked? Why? Media adaptions of comic characters are very rarely exactly like their contemporaries. This article [12] makes it clear the character is an interpretation of the comic character... doesn't matter if he ever becomes Speedy he can be some other version of the character but its certainly inspired by the comic character. By the way, it does seem like you are the only one in this long chain of discussion arguing otherwise so it would seem the consensus would be against you in this regard and wikipedia is based on consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's odd, because when i looked at that article, I saw nothing of the sort. I saw an actor hoping that his part gets expanded, not that he IS that character as of yet. If it had been, the producers and the show-runners would have been more forthcoming to the actor. They have not, so while the article is good as to how Haynes approaches the character, it doesn't come out and state that the two are the same. Sorry.

Allow me to be even more clear than I was earlier: as editors, we are not reliable sources, and cannot use our Sherlocking or fondest wishes in the article. That isn't me, that's the way we do things here. Consensus doesn't trump our basic policies.

Rather than getting all upset with me, why not spend your energy far more wisely and find a source that says what you want it to say. Because without that reliable source explicitly paralleling the Roy Harper from the series with the one in the DCU, it ain't going in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In the article, the actor talks about how they are developing the character and refers to the comic book roots and discusses how the producers are teasing the fans about the character.. It is still a character based on the comic book character and it says that... even again if he doesnt become exactly the same guy... I'm not sure how you could read that article, and many other similar articles, any other way. And again, Jack... YOU are not in charge of the article and your claiming ownership of it is a violation of policy... consensus is the ultimate policy on wikipedia not your hard line OPINION of what other policies say. Spanneraol (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source where the producers explicitly talk about the character as being based on the comic book character. [13]. The key quote " obviously, the character of Roy Harper has three different Arrow-related identities in the comic book..." And another [14] "but this is definitely Roy Harper"Spanneraol (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The one source that actually fulfilled the criteria was the ComicBookMovie.com source. The rest did not say what you think they say; ie. they did not explicitly say that the series' Roy was the DCU Roy. If we could wikilink them to the person and not the hero they are in the comic book (and even then, we are overlooking the fact that not even the backgrounds match), then that would be something. Problem is, you cannot wikilink to RH without linking to the costumed hero, which this portrayal is pretty clearly not. The EW and the HollywoodReporter sources fail to be explicit enough, and I've removed it from the article, retaining the CBM one.

I'll say this again, because I have the feeling that you could potentially be a valuable editor here: stop making your comments personal. Attacking me for pointing out the polices (not opinions or interpretations of policies, but the actual policies, pretty much verbatim) makes you look like an uncivil douchebag. Suggesting I am displaying OWNership tendencies when all I want is a better article is, frankly, stupid and baiting. I am not in charge of the article, but I have the same responsibility as any other editor here to make sure that the content being added passes the litmus test for inclusion. I would urge you to reflect on how you interact with those who disagree with you. Attacking them will only make your time editing here that much harder. In short, stop taking dissent as a personal attack and make more of an effort to see the logic of the dissent. You will be a better editor for doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not getting into the above argument, since Bignole has covered my points. But if I may bring some geeky perspective to this: it's worth pointing out that while DC introduced Tommy Merlyn in one comic, they are unlikely to ever follow up on it because they have editorially decided to give up on and forget about that critically-maligned run and take the series in a different direction. Not that we can use the OR, but imo it's unlikely there is some massive synergy there other than them briefly attempting to introduce the TV variant. I would be disinclined to overstate the comic book prevalence of "Tommy" and to instead specify the more well-known Merlyn which the character is adapted from. Classic Merlyn still appears, too, e.g. in Batman Incorporated.Zythe (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)