Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox image

Someone please explain how the title card "represents the series more accurately" than the free equivalent. Per WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, if a free equivalent exists, you have to use it. In this case, the title card just says "Arrow". The free image, says "Arrow", stylized in the way that it is on the posters. So, I'm not seeing much of a difference, and I don't see how a single word is going to represent a series any better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The image that was substituted is one I haven't seen anywhere else. I am for reinstating the one actually attached to the program (the one with the stylized word, 'arrow' across the bevel and face of the arrowhead). I've noticed that it was reinstated, and again reverted out in favor of the new arrival. While i understand the preference of free images versus copy-written ones, but there is a certain amount of visual recognition for the old image - it is indeed the only one that has been used to identify the program. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cover of the DVD/Blu-Ray box art. It's also on the posters. The "new" image is merely the word art minus the copyrighted pieces (i.e., you cannot copyright word art that is simple like that), thus it still represents the show, but without the need for dealing with fair use laws. The only time you see the "old" image is within the title cards, it isn't the stylization used for marketing of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that does change things (TY for providing a link to where the image is officially used in conjunction with the program). While the arrowhead image is indeed more recognizable, it is not free, We have another image proven to be associated with the program and free, to boot. I withdraw my objections to the newer infobox image. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How wasn't the other image free? The current one looks childish and silly. But if it's official, then meh. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The other one was a screencapture from the episode, which is copyrighted. The newer one is a general text with all copyright texted removed. Personally, I think a black background would make it look better, but the image is free nonetheless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thea Dearden Queen/Mia Dearden?

At the risk of reigniting the whole "who should be wikilinked" debate from below, on the Season Finale, I noticed that Moira Queen's middle name is Dearden, which got me wondering if Thea Queen is supposed to be the Arrow universe's version of Mia Dearden. A little research turns up that, in the "Vertigo" episode, Thea Queen's middle name is explicitly given to be the same as her mother's maiden name, i.e. Thea Dearden Queen. Given that Thea rhymes with Mia, Oliver refers to her as "Speedy"(an identity Mia Dearden adopted in the comics), they did a similar thing with Dinah Laurel Lance's name, an archery(Mia Dearden/Speedy's weapon of choice) trophy can be seen in her room in the pilot episode and that, among others, the wikipedia article on Mia Dearden, a themarysue.com article that references an MTV Splash page(that contains a quote from the executive producers that indicates they meant Thea to be a version of Mia, and the Mia Dearden article on comicvine.com all have made the same connection, should not a reference and/or wikilink to Mia Dearden be contained in Thea Queen's character summary similar to Tommy Merlyn's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.206.141 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Article

Per WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages, I do not support creating "Season 1" and "Season 2" articles. There have not been enough episodes to justify such a split. I think that after season 1 ends and we start getting more season 2 information then we should split off and create a "List of episodes" page to contain all of that information. I think we're putting the cart before the horse when we create season articles before "List of" articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon for Season pages, maybe during the next season. But I absolutely think it is time for a "List of episodes" page to be created.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a silly suggestion far too soon! We should create a list of episode pages once Season 1 has finished airing and more information is available on Season 2. MisterShiney ✉ 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Once season 1 has finished airing and verifiable information has been sourced for season 2 then a split is justifiable; Main Series Link | List of Episodes (even using this, Season 1 & 2 with more information on the episodes isn't mandatory). G.Light (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Season articles are unnecessary at this point. Per WP:SIZERULE, we'd have to get around season five or six before individual season articles become necessary. A "list of episodes" page should be created once we're a little closer to the season two premiere. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There still seems to be a mad rush to split the episodes into a separate page. We haven't even finished season one, and we have no other real information for this page that isn't directly related to season 1 (e.g., nothing on the series as a whole). Per WP:SIZE, you don't start considering splitting a page until you're around 60kb of "readable prose". This entire page only has 20kb of readable prose, and that's with the episode summaries. I think we can wait until this page can support itself without looking like a skeleton when we remove the episode list. At the moment, readers only have to go to 1 page to get all the information on this show (2 if you count the character list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that the first season is over, please find a way to split the episodes into the following separate pages: List of Arrow episodes, Arrow (season 1) and Arrow (season 2), without having any problems. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason for 3 different pages... what would you even put on a season 2 article? The List of episodes page could be created at this point though. Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then, by all means, create a List of episodes page for me. It would be much better than spitting into 3 different pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a LoE page? There is 1 season, and it fits comfortably on this page. This page is 90% season 1 information. If you split then this page will be virtually empty of information. Per WP:SIZE, we're no where near appropriate size to split this page. It's 60kb of "readable prose", and we barely have 25kb of readable prose (and that's with the episode table). Why send readers to other pages when they can get everything here while the page is still small.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the information that the information doesn't fit comfortably on the page. The episode table is large and clunky, and should be on a separate page. I could see your point if the series has 13 episodes, and then was canceled, but this series has one full season, and another one on the way.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Large and clunky? It's the same thing it was when it was 13 episodes, just merely 10 episodes longer. It's no more clunky now than it was then. Again, size wise, it's not "too large", because the entire page isn't that "too large"...so one section couldn't be "too large".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is simply inconvenient for readers who don't want to read individual plot descriptions to have to scroll past the table to get to the rest of the information. The table has become too long for it too be easily read and managed on one page.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Inconvenient to scroll? First, we have a table of contents that allows them them to skip the episode section. Second, it's not like it's War & Peace in length. It takes all of 2 seconds to "scroll past it". Last, what exactly are they trying to get to? A barebones reception section, or a barebones broadcasting section? Not like there's a lot there. Which is exactly my point when it comes not needing to split the page. The only thing of value on this page at the moment is characters and episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The characters section is already spilt, and on here it has only three references, so how is that of value? the reception and broadcast sections absolutely do require expansion, but are you trying to say that we have to keep the episode table here to cover up the fact that other sections are barley complete?Caringtype1 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think this article would be better served by having a one or two paragraph synopsis of the main points of the season and the episode list could be on another page.. That seems to be common practice among the tv series articles.Spanneraol (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't split that, and don't think it needed to be split just yet. There is not a lot there that could not be here. I'm saying that per the size of the article there isn't a reason to split, so why develop another page when this one is barely developed. If this page was self-sufficient, and contained more information on the series as a whole then it would make sense to split. That is not the case, so again, why jump the gun when we haven't even developed this page. Spanneraol, that is "common practice" when you have multiple seasons of a show. The fact that people are trying to make it common practice to do that as soon as a show manages 1 season is the issue. People seem to be in a mad rush to split things "because other articles do it". We have the tendency to see other articles that have been around for awhile and think "we need to do that", and we don't stop to think "should we do it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the other first season CW shows, both Beauty & the Beast and The Carrie Diaries have separate episode list pages.. i checked a few other shows from other networks and they all seem to follow that same format. There is something to be said for consistency between articles..Spanneraol (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And Bignole seems to be the only editor arguing against a split.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, because others did it does not mean that it was the correct thing to do. We used to have trivia sections in all articles, and I can still find many articles with "Differences" sections when they are adapted from books (even though WP:MOSFILM says not to put those in articles). Just to prove a point about "mad rushes". The Carrie Diaries has a season 1 article with only 13 episodes in the season. Both the LoE pages for Carrie Diaries and Beauty and the Beast were created by User:30PRCCT. If you look at the contribs, you'll see they have a history of creating these pages really early in a show's history. Since WP:MOSTV says not to create season articles until you're around 80 episodes in, it seems that we're a bit early for season pages.....yet, many editors are creating them anyway. So, clearly people don't respect our guides, they just want to do what they want. So, why again do we need to ignore the fact that the page is relatively small simply to split it "because others are doing it"? BTW, Caringtype, if you check the history of all the articles you'll see that I'm not "the only one".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the only editor who is voicing their opinion against a spilt in this discussion, which is how a consensus is reached.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONCENSUS, it has nothing to do with the number of people arguing a side. In this case, the only precedent to split is because "other articles are doing it", and it's been shown that they are doing it against WP:SIZE and WP:MOSTV (respectively). There is no guideline that says you should split a page after 1 season. There are guidelines on size of an article to determine appropriate splitting (whether in general, or more specifically for season pages). You havne't actually provide a reason to split other than "other articles", which I have already shown are going against our guidelines and are typically being split by the same people (thus removing the idea that some crazy number of people are doing this).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said was discussion is how a consensus is reached. Editors merging pages without participating in this discussion have no baring here, until the voice their opinion. Also there is an argument for a spilt, just not one that you're accepting.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The MOS article says to not create individual season articles until you are 80 episodes in, but doesn't seem to take a position on a general episode list. I am not in favor of creating a season 1 or season 2 article but a general episode list that contains both seems warranted... though i'm fine with waiting till we actually have season 2 info to include. Spanneraol (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Again, Caringtype your argument for splitting was either that other pages are doing it, or because there is some inconvienence to the readers. To me, neither of those arguments trumps the two guidelines. Especially when other people ignoring the guidelines is the reason why there is a "precendent with other articles". Spann...I tried to be clear that the MOS was about the season articles, but that WP:SIZE is about a more general sense. To me, there isn't a need for a LoE page until we're well into season two because we don't have any other information on the series other than season one episode and character information. For me, it's more convienent to keep it all here until we have more information on the series (which usually takes time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it's time we have more editors review the arguments and add their opinions.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Start a third opinion section and put in a request.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Until now I have not supported splitting the article at all, because it was unnecessary while we were still in the first season. But season one is over now, season two is forthcoming and we already know it's going to be a full season, so a LoE page will very shortly become necessary. There isn't much sense in delaying the creation of an article that A) Will need to be created soon anyway and B) Other editors seem to want so much. One of Bignole's arguments is that it's more convenient to have all the information about the series in one place, but seriously? Is it really that much of a pain in the arse to have to click on one additional link to get to an LoE page? Of course it's not. Split and be done with it. At least then this pointless argument will be over. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He has a point here... if people are going to keep trying to split it and you just keep reverting them you are probably just wasting time... Since the article will be created at some point better to let it happen now and avoid having to continue this debate and engage in a constant revert war. Spanneraol (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So, "split and be done so we don't have to argue and edit war" (paraphrased quote of you guys). Then I would argue, what's to stop the edit warring over the creation of season 1 and season 2 articles that people keep trying to create as well? If we just allowed things that go against our guidelines just so we don't have to argue and edit war, then articles would turn to shit (just to clarify, I'm not saying splitting to an LoE page means an article will be shit, just making a point).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that it is useless to continue to rail against the inevitable. Since the show began various editors (myself included) have had to re-direct an LoE page back here a number of times. Why? Because people want it. So let's just give it to them. We're already edit warring over the creation of season articles as well, perhaps not as frequently just yet, but it'll pick up momentum as the show continues. That is also inevitable. We may as well put a stop to this pointless argument so that we can move on to other pointless arguments. That's what this site has become the last couple of years, anyway. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand the argument of "just let them have it so we don't have to deal with it". That makes no sense to me. We wouldn't do that for anything else. We don't allow future films to have articles before they meet criteria to have an article just to "stop arguing about it" with people that want it. Why would we do that here?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Australia "irrelevant"?

Initiating discussion regarding the addition of Australian ratings information. Two users are back and forth about the matter, so talk it out here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with "No", it's not relevant. The question is, "What makes Australia more relevant than Canada, or the UK, or any other English speaking country?" Since we're not here to simply collect all data across the globe we have to be selective. There is something special about the Australia data, or somewhere else, then we note it. We shouldn't be simply collecting everything because it has no bearing on the show. A series that performs well in Australia (or somewhere else) will have no bearing on it being kept if it performs poorly in its country of origin (in this case, the US).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do any other tv shows pages on wikipedia list ratings data for countries other than the U.S.? If not then they don't belong here either. Spanneraol (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's not necessarily a good indicated, because many pages do things their own way, and it's the same editors on most pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Being Australian, obviously we're not irrelevant. But Australian ratings for a US show definitely are. As Bignole has already pointed out, there's nothing that makes the AUS ratings more important than ratings from the UK, Canada, Indian or anywhere else. If we allow the AUS ratings, then other editors will want to add the ratings from their country as well. And what happens if Arrow is the next Smallville and lasts for nine or ten seasons? Are we going to have ten seasons worth of ratings from twenty different countries? That's insanity. Best to stick with the US ratings and not open those floodgates. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I vote irrelevant per above. CSB radio (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Laurel Lance to become Black Canary?

There is some possibility that Laurel Lance may finally become the legendary heroine Black Canary in season two of Arrow. If and when you find a reliable source on that, could you please let me know immediately? This is important. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing it really until it happens. The comic books can say whatever they want, until it actually happens on this show it's not really noteworthy. If and when it happens, then it should absolutely be included. Until then, it's all speculation. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Arrow episodes

Seeing that the show has already been renewed for another season, I say it's time to move the episodes section to a separate page, don't you think?

Or maybe make a separate page for Arrow (Season 1) as well, but I am not sure if it warrants a separate page or not.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.127.157 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither warrants a separate page. There isn't enough need to separate the LoE stuff yet. Everything on this page is for season 1. Until this page fills with general show information and gets to a size that requires splitting, we don't need to split just because there will be a second season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Bignole. If you are eager to begin articles, start writing articles for the episodes, starting with the pilot. Once articles of substance start filling in the episode section, there is more weight to the argument that the episode list needs its own article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced synopsis and episode descriptions

I've tagged this for improved sourcing. Given the number of editors attentive to this article, someone might be able to quickly resolve the issue. The underlying concern is that all of these passages could have been lifted from other websites. The tone of prose suggests as much. JNW (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries are one of the few things excluded from Wikipedia's policies regarding referencing to primary sources. The reasoning behind this is that a number of editors, having seen the same thing (and perhaps making different observations) are better able to provide an overall view of what the episode's content are. In short, they are extremely collaborative, which is both a good and irksome thing. When there are sharp disagreements, there is usually a primary source that can be found (ie, an episode review by an aforementioned primary source) that clears them up.

That said, I think the episode summaries are somewhat overlong, and could do with a great deal of trimming. We aren't here to digest and process the information for the reader; we are here to provide an overview of the subject. I don't see where they are lifted from somewhere else. If you want to rewrite the summaries to make them more brief and concise, I'll follow your lead and help you out. Let me know. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that synopses are exempt from source requirements (a policy with which I disagree, but that's neither here nor there), but when episode summaries are written in a certain manner (coherently, and in a TV Guide patois) they send up a red flag. For instance, for episode 7, did Wikipedia's version precede this [1], or this for episode 6 [2]? Perhaps they're Wikipedia mirrors, in which case I'd be happily corrected. Mostly I was led here by following the trail of several accounts that have been persistent in copyright violations. Thanks, JNW (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering that I wrote the majority of the plot summaries, I'm going to tell you that I have never copy and pasted a summary from another website. Those are probably taken from here, and that wouldn't be hard to find out. The Episode 6 description clearly says it was published in April 2013, and the episode aired in November 2012. The episode 7 summary is harder because it was first created a week before the episode aired (and we didn't have that level of description...anywhere...a week before), but it says that it was updated 5 months ago and that was probably when they copied this website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I hope you'll accept my apology; I've had my contributions questioned once or twice by those who are surprised to find literary competence. JNW (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Specials" episode

I was perusing Futon Critic and I noticed that they have an episode listed as such: "(#200) YEAR ONE" set to premiere on October 2, 2013. This appears to be a recap episode, getting viewers ready for the premiere of season 2 the following week. I was wondering if this should be mentioned at all, similar to Lost? Their specials had Futon listings as well. Here is the one for the final special in that table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's of real importance. They aren't real episodes, and knowing that there is a "recap" episode doesn't help us understand the show any better. Given that we're not a TV guide, and the fact that any importance of the recap episode is lost after it airs, I'd say that we shouldn't include anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. At the moment, I'm just assuming it is a recap episode, based on the name, but if it turns out to be anything (which I doubt), we can revisit then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is a desire to include a specials listing, but from what that "episode", it was merely a recap of season 1 with a preview of season 2. There was nothing inherently special about it. It wasn't a standalone production, or some episode that has no bearing on the show but was just aired as a gift almost (i.e., a special). It was nothing but a "Hey, remember we still exist" shoutout design to renew interest in the show before the season actually begins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Even though the end had a "special look" at season 2, it was basically all the footage that has been released before. As done above, I was initially unsure, but agree that it doesn't really have a purpose for a table inclusion. However, prose might work. A simple sentence can be constructed: "On October 2, 2013, a recap episode titled "Year One" aired showing highlights from season one and a special preview of season two.(source)" But even that may be pushing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I like Favre1fan93's idea. Right under the Season 2 heading: "This season was prefaced with a recap of the series titled "Year One" followed by a preview on October 2, 2013." BTW, my push for including this is that it is an episode of the show if only a "special" recap episode. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Slight mod CSB, if we are choosing to place it where you suggest: "This season was prefaced with a recap episode airing on October 2, 2013, titled "Year One". It featured highlights from season one and a special preview of season two.(source, which I have hidden)" If you don't object CSB, Bignole (as you are a part of this discussion), or anyone else, I think this can be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. I would just make it a note in the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add it and feel free to reformat it if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me as a plainly visible sentence. But what about the viewers? Shouldn't that be fit in or is that too extraneous?––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The viewers was like 1.5 million, that's about what a standard repeat episode gets for that show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ben Turner / Bronze Tiger

I miswrote what I meant. During the episode, he is not referred to as Ben Turner or Bronze Tiger, just China White's partner. However, when I recorded it and checked the info for the episode, it said "........Oliver winds up in an ensuing battle against China White and her new partner, the Bronze Tiger......." It does not need to be added to the article right away, but it will once an RS confirms it. - Mainstreammark (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We know who he is because we have a source that announced the casting. The point was that they don't name him in the episode. This is like with The Dark Knight. We know that Harvey is "Two-Face", but he never goes by that name. So, it isn't added to the plot itself, it is in the casting section of this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Return of Sarah/ beginning of Black Canary

I've noticed that a few people have been in disagreement about whether or not to add info about the black clad blond attacking the thugs at the end of season 2 episode 1. I agree with others, that this is information that is important to the storyline for this season about Sarah Lance returning and the beginning of Laurel becoming Black Canary yet it seems that Bignole does not agree with this assessment, what are your thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfyd (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The event in the episode is not relevant to that episode. You cannot decide what is "important" to a storyline that has not even started yet. If you go back to the first season, we don't discuss certain things that happened there until later, because at the time we didn't know if they would be important. For example, we left out certain things from the island flashbacks until later episodes because we were not sure how it would impact the show. You're making an assumption that it will be important because of the pre-existing knowledge of who Black Canary is. If you didn't know who that was, you might assume it's a throwaway character in the show, another vigilante and nothing more. You're making your position based on existing facts of the comic character. In that specific episode, it's not important, because it was a minor spot and did not impact anything in THAT episode. We know that Oliver is going to meet her in the next episode, and that's where she can be introduced. Given that these plot summaries are not supposed to be that large, it's a detail that can easily wait because of its lack of impact on the episode at hand. We're here to summarize episodes, not try and establish storylines for a show ahead of time. Readers can just watch the show if they want those types of minor details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... We know the event and character is important because we have read information in the trades about the character as it relates to the show... that has nothing to do with the comics. I don't even agree that it had nothing to do with that episode as it was part of the storyline of Roy attempting to copy the vigilante. Spanneraol (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It had no bearing on that particular episode. That episode was about Oliver coming back and getting back into the fold. It was not about Roy being a pseudo-vigilante (that was more in the last episode, as it came to a head). Even then, the fact that someone saved Roy was completely minor to the overall episode itself. Not to mention, we're already at our word limit (198), and the episode certainly wasn't complex enough to warrant more than that. To summarize the MAIN points of the episode, you would focus on Oliver's return to the city and how it is impacting everything in his life. The "unidentified woman" wasn't a main point, especially since her appearance was all of 10 seconds and no identifying feature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of room to summarize the episodes a bit more and still mention the blond vigilante as well. I agree that the summaries are too long, and tend to wander pretty far afield, but we should cover the main points, and I do feel that, while the blond wasn't a main point, she was an important one; Oliver's to-be-renamed vigilante isn't alone on the streets anymore. Kreisberg has admitted that “one of the things we’re doing this season is we’re telling the beginning of the Black Canary story.” ¹ This would be an excellent opportunity for someone needing more in the summary than we can allow to go on and create an article for the episode. It isn't as if its never been done for. So, go for it, enterprising editor.

I also think we are approaching the time when we should split the article into main and episodes; usually, once a show has made it past its rookie season, it is developing storylines and characters in such a way that at least episode articles are called for. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like there is a bias toward including Black Canary just because of who she is. You added her, but at the expense of removing Isabel Rochev, who was far more important to that episode (and probably will be to the season overall) than the "unknown female vigilante".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be right, but since "Broken Dolls" aired, I am guessing its a moot point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think both characters should be included in the summary. Where does it say you need to stick to a 198 word limit? That sounds rather arbitrary. Spanneraol (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's moot for Black Canary (who still doesn't have a name), but not for Isabel. I suggest putting Isobel back and allowing "Broken Dolls" to be the first point of mention for the Canary considering her prominence in the episode. Spanneraol, word count is covered at WP:MOSTV, where episode summaries in tables should be between 100 to 200 words for uncomplex plots. The season premiere was not complex at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That thing says approximately 100-200.... and up to 350... so adding in another 10-15 words to include another plot point really shouldn't be a problem. Key plot points in each episode should be summarized so those that miss an episode can catch up... and since they included that scene in the "previously on..." segment, the producers thought it important. Spanneraol (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

First, we're not here to provide a substitute for watching the show, or to "catch up". That isn't why we have plot summaries. We have plot summaries to provide context for the real world information the article. The episode wasn't complicated enough to even warrant 200 words. We don't operate on the "how close can we get to the 200 word limit" philosophy. That's how we end up with plots at the max and people going, "it won't hurt to go over just a bit". The Black Canary stuff wasn't important to "this" episode, the fact that they put her in the recap for last night's episode doesn't mean she was important in the premiere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one that brought up the word limit.. I didnt even know about it till you mentioned it... And by your philosophy, we are supposed to be making subjective judgements about what is or isn't important. All the key plot points should be mentioned as they go into the overall season story arc.... skipping something because you dont think its important leaves too much to personal opinion.Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I did mention the word count because we have multiple guidelines discussing how to write about fiction and what is an appropriate length for a summary. The whole point is to decide what is important to THAT episode, not "overall story arc". Again, I'll point to the fact that we did not include many things from the island flashbacks in early episodes because we did not know the significance of those events until they played out later. Then we merely included context in the episode where they were more important. You're attributing significance to one 10 second bit of an episode that doesn't have importance until 2 episodes later. It's not about determining what's important to an overall story arc, but what's important to the episode. We're not here to dictate every single plot point. Again, if you didn't know who that was you wouldn't argue about how "important" the appearance was, especially when it's an unnamed woman that comes and goes in a few seconds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It was obvious from watching the episode that they were setting up something that would be significant. And again, you are picking and choosing what you think is important to the episode... Much of the season 1 summaries are significantly longer than what is written in season 2 so far... so apparently your standards have changed over time... Significant events from the overall arc should be mentioned, and there is no reason not to. Again, you are fixating on something that you are pushing simply because you want it like you have done over and over again. I don't even write the summaries so i dont know why i'm going with this long debate. Spanneraol (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

I don't think that the DVR ratings should be added to the episodes table. That is good info to add to a separate ratings section to further expand upon what was added or subtracted from the original, due to DVR ratings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to have a separate ratings section for such things. Ratings are ratings, and the DVR ratings still impact the show's popularity and ad space. We don't need to say that a show had 2.9 million viewers in "overnight ratings" (which are much more flawed estimates because the final figures are not even in that quickly), than then go, "but with DVR after 3 days there were 3.5 million viewers". That still leaves the total at 3.5 million total viewers. We're not here to point out that some people watch the show on DVR. I personally never watch it live. I always record it and then watch it around 9 pm. That's same day viewing, but would not be counted in your "non-DVR" numbers. I suspect many people do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is merit in both numbers. Many programs are based on how they do in their initial viewing numbers and the all important 18/49 demo. If we want to use both, because I feel we should keep the DVR numbers, just not replace what we have, we could use the "Aux4" parameter for the episodes table and make that "DVR viewers (millions)". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at it from the average reader perspective. There is a reason that the "18/49 demo share" is not really used, and that's because it's not easy to understand. You have to explain shares and how they work. The average reader is going to care about the total viewers, if they care at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have always seen TV shows use original airing numbers, and that is what I assume they are when I look at them. So if we change them to the DVR numbers, I think that would be more miss leading to a reader, who has this assumption already, only to see that that is not the case here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the page you're looking at. Smallville generally kept the "Live +7" figures, with exception to the earliest seasons when those figures were not available. To use that here, given that it is a more accurate reflection of all viewers of the show, it would require a slight modication of the name of the category. Right now, it's "US viewers" (not "US viewers, Live). It could be "Total viewers", or "Live+7" (or "Live+3") viewers. Even TVbytheNumbers, which we are using, is distinguishing between "Live", "Same day", "+3" and "total viewers". See here. It seems more appropriate to use "total viewers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with using this data, as long as it is clear to anyone looking at it, that it is the DVR total numbers, not the initial viewership numbers. If so, I suggest the change be made to season 1's viewer numbers as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A note can be added that clarifies what the "Total viewers" (or whatever we call it) actually consists of. I agree, the season 1 figures should be adjusted to include that as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this then. One thing to note. How do we handle new episodes' ratings, before the DVR numbers are released? Keep it initial and then just change them? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I've never been the one to handle the ratings on any article that I edited, others did. Some people would add the initial and then change it, and others would have everyone wait a week to get the final figures with the DVR. I'm ok with whatever you think is the best approach.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should put the initial, and then change it to the DVR numbers once they are available. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not add an additional ratings table like so many do, which has all ratings information for each episode plus DVR. That would be the best idea Buffyfan123 (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

One, it would just be an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't need "initial viewers", "Live+3" and "Live+7" numbers, when 1 number can do the same job. Second, the average reader doesn't understand "shares", and if you have to explain your figure to them just so that they understand it then it's not the valuable in the first place (to the average reader, which is who we write articles for).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Casting

Just wanted to ask why my addition of Kyle Schmid to the casting section was reverted (he played Ace, of the Royal Flush Gang). It's clearly stated in the reference that he and Currie Graham were cast as Ace and King respectively:

Below you'll see Currie Graham as 'King' and Kyle Schmid as 'Ace.' The pair appear as part of the Royal Flush Gang in the sixth episode titled 'Legacis' that airs November 14.

I know it's only a minor detail, I'm just curious as to why the change was reverted. - Liambarrett1986 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it was not part of the source being used, and an image on SHH is not a reliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is clearly listed on the SHH site the two actors playing the two characters. I don't know what is unreliable about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Their initial source is "GreenArrowTV", a fansite. Secondly, they are a fansite and no fansites can be used with the exception of direct interviews that they conduct. Thus, it is not a reliable source. I'm not saying it isn't who they say it is, I'm saying that he is not identified in the source we use, and in that source the publisher of that information is not considered reliable per WP:RS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole here. The reliability of the source is kinda dodgy, and the source it is using is a crufty blog. When mainstream sources (read: ones without an agenda) offer up the same info, then we are in a better place to cite their use of a crappy source. SHH isn't of that caliber. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that all sounds reasonable. Thanks for the feedback. - Liambarrett1986 (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be possible to find a better source for this casting if it needs to be in here, but I don't think we need to list each and every actor to get cast on the show... that's a bit of an overkill. Spanneraol (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. A lot of contributors overlook the fact that simply because something can be cited, that it should be in the article, despite its trivial nature. That isn't always the case, but more often than not, if several solid, reliable references fail to mention its significance, then it likely isn't all that relevant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Series overview being removed

The series overview is needed due to the list being hidden by default, and is follows the same format as every other TV series article (e.g. List of The Walking Dead episodes, The Big Bang Theory, List of Hell on Wheels episodes, List of Homeland episodes...).—CKY2250 ^ταικ 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's when the episodes table(s) are on a separate page. So at the moment, it's not needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A series overview isn't needed for 2 seasons. When the tables are removed, I imagine we will have a ratings table added to the page (ala Smallville#Nielsen rankings). That will cover the season premiere and finale dates. In addition, I don't know why people started adding DVD information to those tables in the first place. It has not business being there. It's the least important thing on the page, as we're not here to sell a product or tell you that a product is available for sale. So, why DVD information would be so high up on the page when it's own section is the last thing on the page is beyond me. Just because those other pages are doing it, does not mean that they should be doing it. You don't need a table to summarize tables. That's just redonkulous. When the LoE page exists, we won't need a series overview table, because we'll have the tables right there. Those overview tables shouldn't even exist, as far as I'm concerned, because they don't add anything but redundancy. We don't need to hold a reader's hand for every page. They can do a little scrolling, maybe read the table of contents.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the series overview table, the information is already there to see in other parts of the page, and is pretty redundant until the episode list is eventually moved out onto its own page. I would disagree that the DVD info is not important or that it's just there to "sell a product", but that's an argument for another day :) - Liambarrett1986 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Where are the freaking Episode lists??

Hey, I'm not an editor, just a user, but while you guys are all arguing semantics, there are people like me who actually want to -use- the episode guide.

I see from the 'talk' that there -was- one once, so what's with its removal?

Heck, there are far more controversial issues on Wikipedia, are they going to be wholesale removed from view until resolved? That would leave some massive holes in the Wiki, wouldn't it?

The show is into it's second season. It has over 30 episodes now. I'd like to see a list of them please, so put them back, okay?

/feel free to delete this interjection, but only after you bright editor folk put the actual material back for viewing, okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.193.247.221 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This list has not gone anywhere. It's still there. If you click the "Episodes" link on the table of contents you will be taken to the section that has them. They are in collapsed tables. All you need to do is click "show" on the right side and they will drop down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the tables being collapsed, but yes, doing what Bignole stated will allow you to see them. At the very least, season 2 should default to uncollapsed, as we are in that season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the second one should be uncollapsed as well. Didn't want to start another fight, from others chiming in.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to add my voice to those asking for (at least) the second season of eps to be uncollapsed. I am not sure where that particular OCD trend began, but I am not convinced that the average reader is going to be all that impressed with how much space we are "saving" - esp. when they don't know how to uncollapse it. It simply gets in the way of the reader's ease of enjoyment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If they don't know how to uncollapse it then they can't read. And it wasn't about saving "space". It is about it being unnecessary for the page, when everything else besides the list is important, other that the DVD section.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 19:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You really shouldn't say what is important or not like that as it's relative.. for some people the episode list may be the MOST important thing on the page. Spanneraol (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For a reader, you may be right. For an encyclopedia, it's a different story. There are two things that Wikipedia is not here to do, and that's sell products and be a substitute for watching a show/film/stage/(or read a book). Yes, that may be all readers care about, but that doesn't negate the less than important nature of those items on the page. There is a difference between importance to readers and importance to the encyclopedic article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

An issue does arise with the collapsing. It can't be viewed on mobile, or have a way to uncollapse it. That is a problem and cuts off a portion of readers accessibility to the info. I have removed the collapsing templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. That it has consistency with other series pages - I thought that once a second season had been commissioned/started airing then there was enough notability for an independent article that had episode information....-- MisterShiney ✉ 21:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm

Malcolm was never shown to be dead or confirmed as dead in the fiction at any point. The latest revelation is only a further confirmation of the opposite. The fix is not to update for the further development only. The summery was never correct from the point of view at that point of fiction as well. Also I don't think we have maintain the POV of characters in the fiction rather the fiction itself or of the viewer or else we would be excluding much of the fiction which the characters don't know about. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore, my wording doesn't suggest that it was left known about Malcolm being alive. It was most definitely left as a lose end. No one had confirmed or denied his death. If you want a more accurate wording that would settle by both characters and the viewers, you can say he was "presumed dead", but saying that he 'lied' about the death would be incorrect not only from at that point but also becomes an inconsistency for later. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed dead? He's not real, so you're not going to "confirm" anything. As far as the show is concerned, everyone believes that he is dead and believed it then. Oliver clearly thought he was dead in the finale, as he lied to Tommy. Your wording suggests that he did not knowingly lie ("after the latter tells Tommy about not killing Malcolm to comfort him."). As far as he was concerned, he WAS lying to Tommy. The reality of the situation is irrelevant because he does not know that Malcolm is alive. Regardless, the fact that Malcolm is alive is irrelevant, as he himself acknowledges that he faked his death. Thus, Malcolm's own words prove that he intended for everyone to believe he was dead. At the time of the writing of that episode, Malcolm was believed dead. Him coming back doesn't negate the fact that he was believed dead. It's just like with Sara. As far as the first season goes, she is dead. That is why it says she was believed dead and we don't retcon those events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my full sentence, "confirmed dead" in the fiction is what I said. You can't be serious about making this about real. The only thing real here is the viewers' perspective. Coming to the point, Is there any point till that moment where it is shown that Oliver has killed him? At no point is his dead body is shown being handled. Oliver might have believed that he killed him but he did not. So if you take it from the characters' perspective a better wording would at most be 'presumed dead' and not dead. About the second comment, the inconsistency is still there. "Faking of death" makes no difference here as there was no clarity about death in the first place. I don't know how you take fictional sources, but I think we could do with a WP:RS here that describes Malcolm as dead and not believed to be dead? If not then all you can say, atmost, is "the later lied to Tommy about not killing Malcolm, although he presumed him to be dead" (or a grammatically better version of it?). The version I added might have taken out some perspective from Oliver's point of view but the current version suggests a viewer, at that point, would be sure of his death which is not true. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in, I'm with Bignole. At the point of 1x23, as far as anyone knew, he was dead. Events of the second season shouldn't influence how summaries for the first season are written. This only became an issue after it was revealed that the character was alive, that in itself should be an argument for keeping the summary as is. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you're basing your entire argument on the fact that he was revealed to be alive. The statement, "Oliver lied" is based on his perspective. It has nothing to do with "confirmed facts" of Malcolm's death. To the viewer, it appears he is dead and to Oliver is appears that way as well. The point of the statement is not to confirm Malcolm's death, it's to show that Oliver has to live (until he finds out the truth) with the idea that he lied to his best friend before his death and did kill his father (doesn't matter that he really didn't, HE believes he did).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys we dont know what happened yet... he may very well have died... My reading of his wording in the last episode was that he died and possibly was brought back with the Lazarus Pit. Need more to be revealed on the show. Spanneraol (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My point of emphasis was not whether Oliver was technically lying or not, as he was unaware himself. And this was also not just based on the fact that he was revealed to be alive later. That is only on one count of inconsistency. We still have the unanswered argument on the fact that even Oliver believed Malcolm to be dead. That doesn't equal a factual statement even if you consider that the current episode was not yet shown. Anyway you guys seem to have a consensus / agreement on it so I wont edit it again, but I feel there could be a slight improvement in summary. Maybe a better sentence that fixes this without 'retcon' as you say. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't need to actually be dead in the episode for Oliver to believe it, and it's clear that he does. If you even doubt that, he makes it clear in season two that he thinks he is dead. Thus, the statement you are changing is actually accurate to the situation. He was lying, as far as he knew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That sentence at question here is really poorly written and almost makes no sense... in fact him lying or not lying doesnt really matter in the scheme of things so i think it should be changed to just Tommy is fatally wounded and dies. The "after apologizing and thanking oliver, after...." stuff is just poor grammar. Spanneraol (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be good actually and eliminate this debate. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)