Talk:Arrowverse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Main space

Again, we need to have this discussion. This page is filled with a pieces from 3 different shows. What it is not filled with is any sort of information regarding a "universe". You cannot create a page, manufacture information from 3 other pages and then call this one unique. The only unique thing on this page are the tables we have created combining all the elements. Nothing has shown notability for a "Universe". That is the key here. We need reliable sources discussing a UNIVERSE. This isn't a matter of how many shows are connected, because they can be connected and we can keep all their information separate on their pages. We don't need to duplicate information to a central location just because we want a page detailing a fictional universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it's Poroboros again, who at this time, I have to believe are just not getting it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: @Favre1fan93: so what?? hate me all you like. is there a wikipedia link for "one article shouldnt be in the Main space but it is, for apparent no reason at all" (take a look at the Buffyverse page, that is in the main space despite no sources talking about the significance of the universe, DISCUSSING THE UNIVERSE or anything else)Phoenix (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No one hates you. Just because other pages exists does not mean that they should. Just because we don't go running over to merge/delete/redirect them doesn't mean that we support them either. We cannot fix everything. WP:GNG is pretty clear. This page has not actually shown any notability. What has been shown is that we can combine the information from multiple pages and put it here, which goes against WP:GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following quote by Geoff Johns regarding the DCEU also briefly mentions a television universe (Arrowverse):

"Also in the month, Geoff Johns explained DC's difference in approach to Marvel Studios and their cinematic universe, saying, "We look at it as the multiverse. We have our TV universe and our film universe, but they all co-exist. For us, creatively, it’s about allowing everyone to make the best possible product, to tell the best story, to do the best world. Everyone has a vision and you really want to let the visions shine through ... It’s just a different approach." The Man At The Center Of DC’s TV Multiverse" It's not much but it's something nontheless.Oraklebat (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl/Flash Crossover

so, am i the only one who saw that we could get Supergirl in the arrowverse if it gets the "back 9 order"[1]??Phoenix (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a rumor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

5th Main space disscusion

So.......Hi again, can we now get to an agreement here? Isnt it about time this Draft goes into the main space? I mean, in the past the arguments against it were:

(1) The universe doesnt have a name -> Now it does

(2) No sources are talking about the universe -> Yes they do (10 times more sources are talking about the Arrowverse than about the Buffyverse).

Additionally: In 24 days the 4th series in the Arrowverse will premiere; Megalyn Echikunwoke will reprise her role as Vixen from the Animated Webshow on Arrow and a lot of actors from Arrow and Flash (Matthew Nable, Neal McDonough, Casper Crump, Falk Hentschel, Ciara Renée, Peter Francis James..) will be in Legends of Tommorrow and will crossover one into another. What more do you need to allow it in the main space? (Also, could someone please take care of this bug on this Talk page?? I dont know if everyone sees this but at the end of the talk page is a source from Buzzfeed called "the Man at the Center of DC'S TV Multiverse. is this happening only to me or do other people see it) Phoenix (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing is the significant coverage. The name part is irrelevant and not a deciding factor, nor is the number of series. Multiple sources reporting the same stuff is not significant coverage. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mentioning in passing, and more than multiple sources reporting the same story. We have basic universe info, but no one has really addressed it beyond the fact that DC's TV universe (which it talks about from the stand point of all DC tv shows, and not the Arrowverse alone) is doing better than Marvel's TV world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mainspace

Um, this draft was moved into the mainspace, but I still don't see significant coverage on the universe itself. What I see is coverage on the individual series all copy and pasted on this page. The only unique content is the Arrowverse name and the user created tables. Where are we meeting the WP:GNG at?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just playing devil's advocate (which doesn't indicate my support of the move): With the article, much of the copy/pasted material is removed from the individual series, housing it all here. As well, while not much, Adamstom.97 did add some commentary about the universe, which is a step in the right direction. Now, having said that, I still think MarkoPhoenix has an itchy trigger finger and should not have moved the article to the mainspace. I would be in favor of moving it back to the draft space until it is actually ready. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I saw that the page had been moved by who I thought were more reliable editors, and was just helping clean up a bit, but I also added in some critical commentary that I've been meaning to get to while I was at it. At this point, yes there is a bit of duplication in the development section from other pages, but the overview tables, crossover tables, and most importantly the critical commentary are all unique to this page, and by removing much of the information from the Arrowverse sections on the individual series pages to avoid redundancy with this one, we now don't have almost identical large sets of information on both the Arrow and Flash pages. Also, I would point out that the Arrowverse navbox has only been rearranged from the Arrow one, which to me seems a bit ridiculous given there are more links there not about Arrow than about it.

So though I have agreed in the past that it wasn't time to move to the mainspace, I am thinking now, with the page as is and the critical commentary added, that I am fine for it to stay where it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree on the commentary being about the universe. That's a stretch. The commentary specifically talks about "Legends" and that show affecting the other two. Not the universe as a whole, and it was specifically strictly from a viewership standpoint. Tables are not establishment of notability. All we did was create a table to say that a crossover happened on this day. Again, it has no bearing on the universe notability. We will still have an Arrowverse section on the article pages, because you'll have to summarize the connections to the shows. They might be a little slimmer, but there is still nothing on this page that shows notability of the universe itself. The only thing on the page even discussing the "Universe" is the piece about getting it named. Everything else is extrapolation based on comments about individuals shows. I'm not saying that Adam's addition wouldn't fit on the page, just that you cannot take a review about one show and how it hurt the other two because of how it was set up, and say that that establishes notability for an entire universe. To establish notability, people need to be talking about the universe specifically. They aren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bignole, but it now seems like you are the one that is stretching, stretching to find reasons not to have this article in the mainspace. Not only is it clearly better to have this single page, with the other pages sending viewers here, than to have information about the one topic spread across several pages (with quite a bit of redundant duplication), but this article is also clearly notable enough to be in the mainspace as well. Yes, WP:GNG states ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", and there are no think-pieces or reviews about just the universe above the individual series here, but GNG also states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material", and I would strongly argue that that is covered in the commentary section. We are not interested in the in-universe details of the Arrowverse, just the real-life television series and how they connect and affect each other. We find this information in articles where critics and analysts take a single show or two, generally because they are about to come out or something like that, and use them as a way to discuss the wider universe and its effects. The stuff I added to the commentary section covers thoughts and opinions on: the success of having a series completely different in tone and feel from another share the same universe; the success of crossing over the series, a major part of having a shared universe; the way that the series sharing a universe may be harmful and therefore reasoning for why another series may be better off not joining the universe; and the way that the producers took advantage of the shared universe to set up a new series and how that was harmful to the other series in the universe. All of this is discussion of the real-world implications of the universe, is exactly the sort of critical commentary that we would look for for such a section, and is more than enough to establish notability for the Arrowverse. So like I said, I feel that saying it is still not notable is a stretch. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the only one. Your commentary is a review about "Legends of Tomorrow", it's not about the universe. They don't even mention the universe. It's original research to extrapolate commentary on the universe from a single review. That said, even if it was, a single items of coverage is not significant. Plain and simple. This page has countless redundancies within it, let alone with the other pages. You cannot fluff up this page with redundant tables and completely unnecessary linkage in an effort to saw that it's somehow "better". You talk about cleaning out the other pages, but you cannot remove the development section from those pages. The development section of this page is entirely clipped from the other pages. It belongs there. The development of individual series should be there. This is why you need significant coverage, because significant coverage would include things like the development of the UNIVERSE, not of individual shows. The individual shows make up the universe, but their development belongs on their pages, not duplicated here like somehow that was the original intention of the developers. It wasn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am really struggling with what to say here. You are blatantly ignoring my explanations and insisting that your odd interpretation of sources is correct, and now you are deleting projects that are set in the universe from the universe page, without discussion. It is hard for me to assume good faith in a situation like this, especially when dealing with such an experienced editor. I want to argue why the commentary I added clearly deals with more than individual series, which will be obvious to anyone who actually reads the sources, but I don't see the point if you are just going to come up with more ridiculous reasoning accompanied with the likes of "Plain and simple" and "It wasn't"; arrogant statements that just serve to be frustrating rather than conducive to any decent discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're explanation? You've said that the commentary shows significant coverage. It doesn't. It's 1 source, and it doesn't even talk about the universe. There's nothing else on the page that shows significant coverage. As for the content, the comic books of Arrow and The FLash have nothing to do with the universe. They existed before a universe was ever established. They have no business being on this page. Constantine isn't not part of the development. You are putting stuff back into an disorganized state. Arrow's marketing from season two has no business being on this page anyway. It's not about the universe. You're deceiving readers who think they might be reading about marketing for the universe, when it's not. Blood Rush was just for Arrow. It should stay on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are saying "It doesn't", as if we should take your word as fact, but you haven't even looked at the commentary section! If you had, you would realise that there are four sources, not just one, and they all deal with multiple series and how they affect each other, which is the universe not individual series. As for the comic books and web series, yes they are relevant at the individual series pages, but since they are set in this universe, they are relevant here as well, just like the MCU comics, which have their own page with a table transcluded to the main MCU page (similar to what is happening here, although we are obviously not at the point of having a separate Arrowverse comics page) plus they are discussed on the film or television pages that they are connected to. You can have both, and having similar information or covering the same topic in multiple articles is not automatically redundant. I agree that the Constantine info doesn't belong in the development section unless that series becomes a proper part of the Arrowverse, which is why I moved it to the crossover section, which seems like a pretty logical move to me.

Your insistence that you are in the right here, and your apparent belief that you somehow own the page and can do whatever you want without discussion, is astounding. We as a group of editors need to come to a consensus on this issue, and you are seriously not helping with your blatant disregard for us. I am not saying that I am completely right, or that we even have to keep the page in the mainspace, but at the moment I do believe that it is notable enough, and you have so far failed to convince me otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, Brian Lowry's review specifically talks about the crossover episode of Arrow and Flash, not the universe. Meredith Borders's review (which is not reliable and should be removed) again is just a review of the crossover episode. No discussion of the universe itself. Not even a discussion about how they affect each other, outside of a ratings bump...which is not really universe talk. Paul Tassi discusses Supergirl joining and the difficulty of keeping all the storylines together. This is mildly universe based talk, but hardly significant in coverage, especially when half of it talks about Supergirl's own problems with being part of Superman (i.e., not relevant to this page). Then there is Alice Walker's big review of the premier of LoT. Again, discussion about that show itself, not the universe as a whole. Again, you're missing the part that you're trying to take multiple sources that talk about one thing and say that they talk about another. That's call original research. There is no direct conversation about the "Arrowverse", sans for Tassi's initial comments, which are minimal and not significant at all.

As for the comics and webseries....um...no they aren't. You cannot just duplicate information across pages because you deem them "relevant here too", when they are not based on the universe. What happens strictly for Arrow should stay on that page. Otherwise, you end up with another page that is one giant duplication of others with minimal to no actual original content. The difference between MCU and this page is that those comics have nothing to do with the universe. They weren't written to tie into the universe, only to tie into that respective show. If you go by your logic, why have separate pages at all. We'll just put everything here.

With regard to the development section...again, completely stolen from the other pages. This is a page about the universe...the Arrowverse, not a page about every individual series within in. A Development section is being mislabeled here. Readers would think that this is the development of the universe. Only, when they read it, they'll be reading everything they've already read about the development of the individual series within this universe. A Development section should focus on the development of the universe, and only use information from the individual series when it directly pertains to the development of the universe. Your argument is based in the fallacy that because they are part of a larger universe NOW, that what happened then is somehow directly related. That's inaccurate and perpetuates wrong information to the reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because something doesn't specifically use the words "Arrowverse" or "shared universe", doesn't mean we are using original research to find it relevant here. Just common sense. When someone is discussing a crossover between two series, not in terms of how the episodes have been made as in a reivew, but in terms of how each series works together and is affected by one another, than that is all part of the series sharing a universe and having to work together. If someone is discussing how again how series work together, and why it may not be a good idea to add another series to that universe, then thay are discussing the shared universe and how the series work together in it. And again, the Legends piece is not a review, in fact it was released before Legends premiered and never talks about what happened in the episode itself outside of things revealed during promotion. That is because it is a separate opinion piece concerning the mechanics of the Arrowverse—how the producers took advantage of the shared universe format to 'set-up' Legends, and how that affected Arrow and The Flash as individual series, all only possible because of the shared universe and a big part of these series having to work together within it.

Now, I said "As for the comic books and web series, yes they are relevant at the individual series pages, but since they are set in this universe, they are relevant here as well", and your only reply was "um...no they aren't"? How? What is your reasoning? Because they are set in the Arrowverse, and you deciding that you don't want them to be doesn't mean we are just going to let you remove them. If something is set in the universe of Arrow, and Arrow is set in the Arrowverse, then that initial something is also set in the Arrowverse. That is not original research, that is basic intelligence. The reason why it is appropriate to have the series both here and at their own pages, is because they belong here by existing in the Arrowverse, but we have way too much information to solely keep them here, which is why we just give an overview here, and go into the full detail at the individual page. That is not just duplication, it is navigation and organisation.

Finally, how is having brief development info about each series not important or relevant to the article? Talk of this shared universe only began when Arrow was created and then The Flash was spun-off from it, so are you saying we should not have information on the beginning of the universe? And branching out into animation that shares its title character with one of the other series is a pretty major step in establishing shared characters and plotlines over different media, so are you saying that you don't think that is important, so we should remove it? Also, creating a series that is not merely a spin-off following a character or two on their own separate adventures, but a series taking numerous supporting characters from two other series and putting them together to tell a separate series, something only really possible because of the shared nature of the universe, is somehow also not important or relevant? Yes, ideally there would be more information about the wider universe in scope, but there will be, and likely is already that we have missed. That doesn't mean we should remove anything that you deem lesser than that. And we don't always know what is going to happen in the future. Just because when Arrow was created we didn't know that it would become the Arrowverse, doesn't mean we don't include the fact that Arrow was created in the first place. We aren't saying that that is when they first began creating the universe, because we don't know that and it is also unlikely anyways. What we are saying though, is that we have this universe, and part of the road to getting where we are now was the creation of these series. That is not original research. That is not irrelevance. You are still failing at finding reasons for why this article shouldn't exist. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

They were referring just to the two series, not a universe. Again, you need to brush up on original research. Common sense would be 2+2=4...don't need a source for that. What you are saying is that because they are talking about one thing, it means something else.

For the comics...no they aren't set in the "universe" because the universe did not exist yet. Those were comics meant entirely just for those respective series. They aren't tie-ins for the universe. They don't even tie to each other. Thus, they aren't relevant on this page. If there are comics that come out tying in the series to the overall universe, then yes, you would have a point for that particular comic. Those comics have nothing to do with the overall universe. You cannot retroactively insert media that did not originally tie back in. That's now how we operate.

As for the development section, again you don't have a brief anything...you have pretty much the entire thing. You do not discriminate the information. That section should focus on the development of the universe, not the individual series, unless it was directly pertaining. For example, if Greg Berlanti discusses how they wanted to create a bigger universe, and by doing so they created "LoT", then some of the development for LoT would be relevant. The development of Arrow is not relevant, because they didn't set out to create a universe with it. They didn't set out to create a universe with the Flash either. It was really a fluke of a thing. Yet, somehow the renewal of the FLash for a second season is relevant on this page? You don't even write the section from the perspective of creating a universe. You've have literally copy and pasted it from the pages and stuck it here. That is why my tag IS appropriate. It needs to be trimmed and rewritten to not contain superfluous information (e.g., one example being the season two renewal). The last statement is really good and talks about what it takes to coral all these series. Most of the other stuff isn't relevant. For LoT, you don't even have development information, you have casting information and the naming of the show. The most appropriate info is the first bit about the CW wanting a team-up show. After that, you're just naming the cast...which is already named in the cast section.

I haven't failed at finding reasons why the article shouldn't exist, you just refuse to accept them. The basic one being the lack of significant coverage. A few sources that you are trying to use to extrapolate universe talk does not make significant coverage for the universe. If you stripped away all the duplicate information from this page (which includes those tables), you'd probably have...maybe a paragraph of unique content that would be used to establish notability. If you did this, no one would find the page notable because there wasn't enough significant coverage. You're hiding that fact being redundancies and tables.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you hit the development section issue on the head. It doesn't need a tag about how un-important or irrelevant it is, and it doesn't make the rest of the page un-notable either, it just needs a re-write to make it more appropriate for this article. I always intended to do that unless someone gets to it before I did, and it is a pretty simple fix that does not require moving the article out of the mainspace. You are, however, still missing the point with the commentary and other media stuff: just because most of the commentary I added only deals with a couple of series in terms of specifics mentioned within the articles, doesn't make it not about the universe in terms of overall subject, because it is dealing with those couple of series in a way that is applicable to the universe, by talking about how the process of having them exist as series within the shared universe has affected each individual series and them together; and "For the comics...no they aren't set in the "universe" because the universe did not exist yet" is ridiculous—the universe did not yet exist when the first season of Arrow was released, so should we not include that either? No, because when they established the shared universe, it was an extension of the universe established in Arrow, and since those Arrow comics are set in the world of Arrow, they are part of that extended universe as well. And we aren't listing them here as tie-ins to the universe, all we are saying is that they are set in the same universe as the series, which is what the reliable sources tell us. I am not the one that is "retroactively insert[ing] media that did not originally tie back in", the producers are by establishing this shared universe, and they are well within their rights to do so.

Now that we have established that the development section needs to be re-written and trimmed down a bit, much of the redundancy in that section will be removed, but you seem to think that anything not solely original to this article doesn't count towards establishing notability of the topic. While it is true that for the most part the significant coverage of the Arrowverse that we need to pass GNG ideally should be unique to this article, that doesn't mean that anything not unique here doesn't count. If information happens to be relevant to separate or some-what separate topics, then it helps prove notability for all of those relevant topics. You don't get to say 'this article isn't notable enough because we already used those sources somewhere else'! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the tag, the tag says you need to remove things that are irrelevant. It also needs a rewrite to be more appropriate. Separate actions. That said, it's issues have no bearing on the notability of the page. They don't help it, and they don't hurt it. They don't establish notability for the universe...mainly because they don't talk about the development of the universe. Not unless you're using that same original research logic.

The comics are ancillary media. The are meant just for Arrow, so they shouldn't be here. You cannot argue that because they are part of Arrow they are automatically relevant to the universe. Not everything has a connection and you cannot force a connection just because you like something. This is even more true for Blood Rush, which is literally a marketing gimmick and nothing else. It didn't even impact the actual show. Not mentioned, nothing. It's not relevant here.

I'm telling you the article's not notable because you don't have sources establishing notability of a universe. Plain and simply. I'm telling you that you're using duplicated information to fluff up the article to make it appear as though there's is a lot of information about the universe, when in fact there is very little information on the universe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through the development section and removed a whole lot of unnecessary stuff that didn't need to be brought here from the individual series articles. We now have two paragraphs of solid content that establish the shared universe and how we have gotten to the point we are at now. I know you are going to continue to argue that most of it isn't even about the universe, so let me just explain now: The Arrowverse exists because they created Arrow, they spun-off The Flash from that, then they created a separate, animated series which they set in that same universe and featured characters from both pre-established series, with a high likelihood of an original animated character moving over to the others at some point; then they created a fourth series that took characters and plots from both original series and brought them together for a special team-up that further explores the universe; we also have information on DC's plans to keep the films and TV series separate, which is obviously pretty signifcant, plus official confirmation of the universe's name and some of the process they are going through to keep continuity between all the series, which is only required because of the shared universe nature. That is the development of the universe and what we know so far, and it all establishes a degree of notability for this now established construct.

What solidifies the notability is the reception to and critical commentary of this now established universe, and we see that in the commentary section: how people think the producers went at creating a spin-off, separate series, and how they went about keeping the two integrated with crossovers as is the trend for shared universes; and how people think the continued introduction of new series to the universe is affecting the individual series, and why it may be better if they kept others out of it. You are trying to say that this commentary doesn't count because it doesn't blatantly state that it is discussing the Arrowverse, but it doesn't have to, as it is clearly dealing with the multiple series that are set within the universe, how they work together and are affected by each other, and what good a job the critic's think the producers of the Arrowverse are doing at establishing it. Just because they don't spell it out for you, doesn't mean I am using original research by trying to link them to this topics—they are obviously extremely relevant!

As for everything else in the page, we only have brief overviews of stuff that is better served in detail elsewhere, such as all the media projects that are set within the universe, which we just have tables and brief prose (in some cases, such as the TV series plot summaries, not brief enough prose) with links to where the rest of the information is, and the crossover information, where it serves us to have some easy to read tables showing what has happened so far, and leave much of the other information to the appropriate places. That information shouldn't be removed because we have it set up like that, some things are appropriate in different forms in different places. The crossover information is important at the individual series pages, and how it is presented there has been decided there. But it is also important here since it is what has established this universe and solidified its shared nature, and we have decided that it is best presented as an easy to read table. That is not just a big redundant table fluffing up the page, it is important information to this topic being presented here in what has been decided as the most appropriate format.

Yes, this isn't the best article, and it will need plenty of work done to it. But through a little bit of development and reception information we have shown that this was covered by the media through all its build up and is now being accepted, even if not by the biggest audience, by the public, and analysed by critics who have discussed how these series interact together, which is what this universe is built upon. This is a notable topic that deserves to be in the mainspace, and now that it is here we can all work together to improve the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Supergirl joins the Arrowverse...sort of.

According to Deadline and TV Insider, Barry will cross the dimensional barrier into the Supergirl world for an episode in March. Since this does in fact confirm Supergirl is set in a different world from the rest of the Arrowverse (which itself already includes multiple dimensions in the form of Earth-1 and Earth 2), do we want to treat Supergirl as part of the Arrowverse going forward or just a one-and-done crossover like Constantine? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling the episode will (hopefully) fully clarify, but I'm going to say that yes, Supergirl is part of the Arrowverse, as a separate Earth (so it isn't on the Arrowverse's Earth-1). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's in-unverse. From a real world perspective, they're still two separate shows that will have a crossover. Please try to keep things in an encyclopaedic tone. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We are still noting that the series are produced separately and air on different networks, but it is important to note the in-universe connection as well because it affects how the series are written (the main Arrowverse shows all make compromises to create the appearance of the shared universe, for example). - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The universe is fictional, so there that is the only way it can exist in such universe. But we are noting the real world aspects of it appearing in the fictional universe, and those are explained by the story telling, which is Barry is traveling through the multiverse and ends up on Supergirl's world. And we also have all the discussion elements between CBS, CW and Berlanti to make it happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's fictional, but this is an encyclopaedia where fictional works are written from a real world context. Please don't lump together spin-offs with crossovers. The producers have chosen to name the spin-off as "Arrowverse", so that's that. But that doesn't include unrelated shows, even if they do crossovers. Please try to keep an encylcopaedic tone. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

But it is a spin-off. That's the point. It exists in the universe as an alternate earth (let's say Earth 5). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Have the produces said that it's a spin-off?--no. And "existing in the [same] universe" is an in-universe argument. If you can cite a reliable source that Supergirl was spun off from any of the other shows, please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping things in perspective, Family Matters was a spin-off of Perfect Strangers (TV series). Step by Step (TV series) had a crossover with Family Matters. That doesn't make it related production-wise with the other two shows. DonQuixote (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying now. I was overthinking the announcement. But the episode might provide better insight once it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just remember that both spin-offs and cross-overs are important. We can eventually group everything into one Arrowverse if enough reliable sources do that, but even with that we need to differentiate between spin-offs and cross-overs as distinct entities. DonQuixote (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to make a distinction, Supergirl taking place in another universe doesn't mean it is not part of the Arrowverse. Earth-2 is an alternate universe but we still consider it part of the Arrowverse, since many characters have crossed from one earth to another. So far we've described the Arrowverse as being a single universe, but in reality we could consider the Arrowverse as a multiverse, thus including Earth-1, where most of the shows take place, Earth-2 which as of now has only been featured in The Flash and the Earth in which Supergirl takes place (which has not recieved an official designation yet). Of course we can't justify this until there are any reliable sources, but updating the meaning of Arrowverse to a multiverse might be more accurate (when there are sources that support it). So far, this is just a theory.Oraklebat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, we can do that if enough reliable sources do that, but that still doesn't make Supergirl or Constantine spin-offs. DonQuixote (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that this makes Supergirl a spin-off though. Just because all the other series are spin-offs (though Vixen is borderline) doesn't mean that the producers can't retroactively add a separate series to the continuity if they want to. We don't have any reliable sources difinitively stating that this was the case for Constantine, but if we do for Supergirl then it will be another big step for the Arrowverse by finding a way to expand the universe further while avoiding the pitfalls of tightly interwoven continuity, something that has been addressed by critics (in our commentary section). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the origins of this argument was never whether Supergirl was a spinoff; it was whether it was canonically part of the same shared universe, in the same way that the original DC comics were originally separate stories that were later brought together as part of a shared continuity that was affected by each one's major story beats. It's like how Street Fighter and Final Fight began as separate projects, but later series fiction tied their two stories together, to the point where many Final Fight characters have since been canonized as Street Fighter characters. Despite its separate origins and network, there is no reason Berlanti and Kreisberg can't retcon it to be part of the larger fictional multiverse they established on the CW. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If marvel decided that the older spider man movies were now considered canicol in the marvel cinematic universe than that would be included on its list of films, I believe super girl and Constantine should be treated the same way becaouse even though when they were made they weren't intended for the universe they are now ( sorry for any spelling mistakes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you say "in the same universe", then you're speaking in terms of in-universe. Although we can mention this, it shouldn't be the focus of the articles. The focus of the articles should be the production, marketing and analysis of works of fiction. That is to say, we can write that issue such-such-and-such of comic book X mentions the Spider-man movies as occurring in universe blah while the Avengers movies occur in universe bleh. However, we can't write that the productions are directly related because they weren't in the real world. DonQuixote (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Constantine

At the risk of sounding like a buzz kill, didn't most of the sources say the actor is in. I haven't seen anything on the actual show being in, and we all know that A does not always equal B. We appear to be assuming that the show is in continuity. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

They haven't said anything about the show being actually connected, merely that they are using the character and same actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The show is definitely not in the universe. Per the wording that Guggenheim gave, this is a "one-time-only-deal" so that right there automatically ejects the series as being connected to this one. It's the character and actor's portrayal that are being shared. I have a feeling this is almost a John Munch situation. Just because Much appears in Homicide: Life in the Street and Law and Order: SVU doesn't mean those two shows are connected or in the same universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

actually arrow executive producer said that it is the exact same character from the show constantine and that 'Constantine' is part of the arrowverse. his appearance on arrow is the only thing that is a one time deal http://au.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back?%20hub%20page%20(front%20page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.180.213 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The link you just gave has already been used at #Supergirl/Constantine - please read the discussions there and contribute to that discussion, instead of this now-old one. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

crossovers should be listed underneath listings for television series

constantine has been confirmed by arrow executive producer to be part of the arrowverse and the characters appearance in the show is the only thing that is a one time deal http://au.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back?%20hub%20page%20(front%20page)

shouldnt it be listed in its own section under "films and television" called 'Crossover Television series' along with supergirl IF it is also confirmed to be part of the arrowverse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.180.213 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I literally just said that that link has been used before as a basis for this argument, and to read the previous discussion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Image, if at all

If we would like to add an image to the infobox (which I don't necessarily think we need one), I think we should use this image. IMO that's the best representation of the universe. Again, don't think we need one, just adding here based on these edits in which a user added a fan created image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

i am all for it @Favre1fan93:, go for itPhoenix (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As Favre1fan93 said, it's not really needed at all. The image doesn't actually add further understanding of identification to this page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

For all those interested...

If you didn't see it already this opinion piece on IGN pretty much highlights the crux of many of our discussions and the state of the universe/potential television/media multiverse with DC content. Might be beneficial in someway to aide our discussions or use in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

New colors in the Charactr table

really??? Yellow for guests?? why?? why not purple like beforePhoenix (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Because yellow is what {{CGuest}} officially uses, alongside {{CMain}} and {{CRecurring}}. Honestly, though, there's bigger things to worry about than the colour of a cell. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I know, its just, that the change from purple to yellow was sudden. Just wanted to askPhoenix (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian I user appeared to change the color for no reason at {{CGuest}}. Alex, can you make sure the purple is compliant with the link color? If not, can you adjust the purple so it is, if possible. I agree that the yellow was drastic, so if we can stay with the purple, which it has been to no objection since the table was created in 2014, that'd be great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Ah, I see. I've adjusted the colour accordingly so it's AAA compliant. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)