Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Main character table

I am simply following the same thing like on the Downton Abbey, walking dead or even Gotham wikipedia page, about a table with all the main characters in it. I mean if it was made on the gotham page, why not here?? also, the same info with all the same stuff is already written on the wiki page list of the flash characters

Principal cast	Role	Seasons
		1
Grant Gustin	Barry Allen / Flash	Main
Candice Patton	Iris West	Main
Danielle Panabaker	Dr. Caitlin Snow	Main
Erin Richards	Barbara Kean	Main
Rick Cosnett	Eddie Thawne	Main
Carlos Valdes	Cisco Ramon	Main
Tom Cavanagh	Dr. Harrison Wells	Main
Jesse L. Martin	Detective Joe West	Main

The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

First, we don't need a table to illustrate this information and they're going to be on the list if they are main anyway, so there isn't a reason to say that. Just because other pages do it does not mean that it should be done. The intention of the main page is to be able to describe these characters in a basic sense. The character page gives more detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists isnt really a convincing argument to use against the table.. as the editor above is arguing for consistency among articles, which is something that is usually desired... I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way on the use of those tables... they can be helpful on articles where several seasons have occured and you can easily track the cast changes with them... on something like Flash, still in its first season I find no need for it.. But throwing out a link to an essay that is more useful for deletion discussions than for content disputes isnt really helpful. Spanneraol (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't find them useful to begin with, because a cast list should be more than a simple IMDb list and include "main" or "recurring" doesn't really change that that is all it is, especially when IMDb lists episode counts next to the characters. Cast listings should have prose next to them. We already do basic lists in the lead and the infobox. We don't need to duplicate that with an unnecessary table, whose only contribution is color coding if they were a main character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides, Gotham has its List of Gotham characters page. So, all of the information already exists there with the table present, and by putting a table on this page, you're deleting the information. Alex|The|Whovian 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a page for the Flash characters as well.. so its the same situation. Spanneraol (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the belief that the Flash characters page was for the general comics, but it appears to be about this particular series now that I actually look at it. In that case, I support the addition of the table, for consistency between articles, much like Gotham itself. the case is the same with The 100. Alex|The|Whovian 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This "consistency among articles" argument is an interesting beast that has come up lately (more so for recent articles than older ones, just to be fair). If the majority of articles are doing something they shouldn't (and I'm not saying that this particular issue is right or wrong, though I personally disagree with it, I'm merely pointing out a fallacy), then the idea of keeping "consistent" would be in support of continuing to do something we shouldn't. At one point, trivia sections were rampant, and the idea of "being consistent" would have meant putting them in all articles. The real question should not be about "are we consistent", but should we be doing this in the first place? What is the real purpose of the table? If we're discouraging IMDb like lists (Per WP:MOSTV: "The character descriptions could include main plot points about the character—followed by any relevant real world information that could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series. The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb."), then how is this really different if it's nothing more than a table? I won't even bother further discussing the inane idea of creating a table to say "main character" for a show that is in its first season. Ultimately, this is an encyclopedia and we should be striving for more prose than over-simplified tables to convey information to readers whenever possible.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a general discussion somewhere, maybe at the TV project, to discuss those cast tables.. I feel that the table is an easy and quick way to see an overview and then the more detailed cast information can be given in text. There should be an attempt at consistency... so a discussion may be warranted.Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be, because the table is basically IMDb's list, and we already discouraging replicating what IMDb already does. We should strive for more. Being easy does not necessarily make it better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont know if you can say its IMDBs list... as they list everyone who appears on the show cast and crew in a completely different format. Spanneraol (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDb list means that it's just actor / character and nothing more. I'm sorry, but saying "main cast" when that's all you're going to see in the table anyway, doesn't actually add information. Readers are not ignorant and can easily read prose content that says that character X was a regular in season 3 and not season 2 or 4, or whatever. We don't have to hold their hand with these unnecessary tables, just because they're "easy" to read. Prose isn't hard to read, so why avoid actually writing. To me, tables are lazy editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the table is unnecessary as a general rule, and especially for a show in its first season. It also pushes down more cogent info. If anything must be done, what the List of Arrow characters article has for its main characters section seems reasonable. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Bignole. The table is clunky and tacky, not to mention, as Bignole adequately pointed out, redundant. LLArrow (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify Blue's comment, the table for the main characters at List of Arrow characters, is in conjunction with a prose list over at Arrow (TV series) for them. Just wanted to clarify that the table on the LoC is not paired with a "trimmed" table like being proposed here on the main page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I created the same table on the Arrow (TV series) page and it was still deleted. ok, lets take in account that The Flash is only one season alive, what is speaking against a table on the Arrow page??The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Principal cast	Role	Seasons
		1	2	3
Stephen Amell	Oliver Queen / Arrow	Main
Katie Cassidy	Laurel Lance / Black Canary	Main
Colin Donnell	Tommy Merlyn	Main		Guest
David Ramsey	John Diggle	Main
Willa Holland	Thea Queen	Main
Susanna Thompson	Moira Queen	Main
Paul Blackthorne	Detective Quentin Lance	Main
Emily Bett Rickards	Felicity Smoak	Recurring	Main
Colton Haynes	Roy Harper / Arsenal	Recurring	Main
Manu Bennett	Slade Wilson / Deathstroke	Recurring	Main	Guest
John Barrowman	Malcolm Merlyn	Recurring	Guest	Main

All the same reasons outlined above. The only difference is that The Flash has the additional issue of it being in season one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; no table needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Prose is almost always preferred over tables. We could always go down the route of the NCIS page (albeit the descriptions can be tidier) and have the table on top and then more detailed on the main cast beneath it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the exact reason that I don't like tables like this, because it becomes a color coded mess to look at. We have tables for the series overview, tables for the ratings, tables for the awards, tables for DVDs, tables for everything. It's like no one believes in actual writing any longer, or they think readers are so lazy they cannot digest basic prose content to determine when an actor left a show. At least with prose, you get the context to why they left. This move toward over-simplifying content makes articles look less professional.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: The NCIS article (and others with cast tables, i.e. House) always retain cast descriptions. The tables don't replace them. Sure, at 1st season (or first few seasons depending on the series) the table is useless. But in other series, it can be a useful tool to see who was in which season. Supplementing prose with design and visual aids doesn't make articles seem less professional. Quite the contrary. To be clear, I agree it's far too soon for this on The Flash page, I'm mixed on it appearing on the Arrow page, but that talk should take place there, not here, where editors watching the Arrow article are not alerted. ― Padenton|✉   03:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Supplementing prose for tables is lazy editing, plain and simple. We have a cast list, which people can read. The average reader is not coming to the page simply to see when a character was a guest, recurring, or main character in a particular season. They're coming to read up on the page. Given that the table lacks context for why a particular character wasn't a regular, there is no point in duplicating the information for the sake of duplicating it. They can read it under each character's description. One should not be afraid to write sentences, instead of simply writing code.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't interested in it, but that doesn't mean others aren't (especially for series where the main cast is frequently changing. For example, Law & Order or Game of Thrones. The prose in these articles rarely indicates which seasons an actor appeared in. ― Padenton|✉   03:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What others? I didn't say that I wasn't interested, I say that creating tables to inform readers is lazy editing. If an article doesn't say something, then put it in. Don't create shortcuts by developing unnecessary tables that say what the prose already says (or should be saying). Writing a sentence is a whole lot easier. Additionally, you cannot compare a show like The Flash to something like Game of Thrones or Law & Order that goes through cast more frequently. These shows typically have the same basic cast and a couple of recurring guests that become regulars. Again, that's stated in prose form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you just aren't listening to what they are saying. What we are saying is that maybe six or seven seasons in (especially if the cast changes lots) then a table can be added in above the prose, for people who like reading about why a character left, they can by simply reading the prose. What the tables are meant to represent is a way for the more casual view who just wants to see who is currently in the main cast at that point. PS. I've tidied up both tables a bit (removed the extra actor in the flash one and made sure Tommy is a guest in season 2 since he appeared in the "Three Ghosts" episodes) and placed them in my sandbox at User:Ditto51/Main (Arrowverse). I'll try to keep them upto date as things change in future seasons.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When the show ends, there won't be a need for "current", because there won't be a current. We write from an historical perspective, and if after 7 seasons (if the show lasts that long), you have that many cast members that you need to keep track of them in a table then I'd argue even further against that because then you'd basically just have a section for a table as it would overshadow the prose content. Actors/characters are more than just what type of contract they have. Again, it doesn't matter if it's now or season 7, it still comes down to lazy editing and this believe that the average reader doesn't want to actually read.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because some people have time to spend reading through various pages doesn't mean everyone does. And I think you are making some assumptions when you call it lazy editing because it really isn't. Most information would still need to be added to the prose and it would simply be a table that would be sourced, easier on the eyes than lots of text and a quicker way for someone to find the infomation they are looking for. Not everyone wants an indepth study on why Cast Member A is no longer a main cast member, they just want to know if he is or is not, and the templates are in my sandbox, just to be sure, not to necessarily be added.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that they aren't easier on the eyes. Not when you have to color code everything and all I see is blues, pinks, and purples floating around. When you get into later seasons, it will become even more difficult because you'll have newer cast members taking the place of older ones, or coming and going. All you'll see is a checkerboard of color. Ironically, when you look at featured articles (since people are talking about consistency), they're not even consistent there: The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., Firefly (TV series), The Wire don't have anything. Degrassi: The Next Generation has a jumbled mess that shows just how dysfunctional the table can be. You end up with many characters that are blank for 13 of the 14 years, or simply flip flopped back and forth. That's not functional to a reader. Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) does their own thing and has prose within the tables, but only for recurring/supporting roles. That's not confusing at all. Then there is House (TV series), which is confused by itself, and appears to just go with "guests" or "also starring"...or nothing at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The coding problem can be fixed with the {{yes2|}} (Main), {{no2|}} (Recurring and Guest) and {{n/a|}} (No appearances) as I have done in the tidied up versions of the table

Also Starring → Recurring (Although the cast member on the house page who has never been part of the main cast should not be in that table) Horrible Histories is a different thing as the same actor can portray lots of characters. (Which the tables accomplish with the "Name / Alter Ego" thing they have going for them. And as long as we revert the vandalism then the tables should actually go across nicely. Now ignoring the ones above, here are the tables that I propose as a basis to be improved upon and extended upon as seasons go by until it is deemed necessary on using them:

User:Ditto51/Main (Arrowverse) --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, i'm new here so my opinion is probably not worth much, but i wanted to weigh in on the issue. I am someone who frequents Wikipedia for exactly this reason, to look up information on shows that i either have watched or am planning to watch, and a cast chart is always appreciated. Wikipedia is someplace where you should be able to quickly and conveniently find the information you are looking for, and the fact of the matter is, the average person on this site is not going to want to look at the paragraphs of information when they could easily find it in a chart. Now i know, you think that's lazy, but that is what people want. Let me explain a little further. There are, in general two kinds of people who would come looking at the cast list on Arrow's page, people who have seen the show, and people who haven't. Someone who has seen the show may have forgotten how long Colin Connell was on the show, and want to see what seasons he was in. Sure, this person may have forgotten a few minor details, but mostly knows what happened to the character, so he/she doesn't want to read a paragraph of information of things he already knows. A chart is better. Lets say someone who hasn't seen the show really loves John Barrowman's work, and is considering watching Arrow, so he/she decides to look at the cast section of the Wikipedia page. Now he/she is considering seeing the show, so he/she does not want to spoil too much, only very broad details can be spoiled, such as how long Barrowman was featured on the show. Chart is better. I get that you don't like the idea of a cast chart, but it's not hurting anybody if it goes above the prose. It will help people in the long run. Now, for The Flash a cast list is entirely unnecessary, because it has only one season, but Arrow is going on four. We are talking about a series that has had a considerable number of cast changes, and will continue to. One cast member is already confirmed to not be returning next season, and there could be more than one departure. Please, consider it.Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the amount of time it would take to read the cast information would probably take around 30 seconds. They are not huge paragraphs of info, because we have an entire page devoted to them. It wouldn't even take long to scan for the "He was written out of the show after season one" line.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I just don't see the issue here. I don't want to push this too hard, but why scan for the info, when it could be presented alongside the paragraphs? Why take 30 seconds, when you could take 5? It doesn't damage the page in anyway, and it adds convenience. I don't understand what the problem is.Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The main use of these character tables is in series where the cast has changed throughout the series. That's why NCIS_(TV_series) and House, MD have them. We're still in the first season of the flash. There hasn't even been casting announcements yet for next season (that I'm aware of, I suppose). ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Padenton, i meant for Arrow, seeing as this conversation was largely about both series. The Flash table is unnecessary, i agree, but i think Arrow needs one now that it's heading into its fourth season, and has had notable cast changes.Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arrow discussion really needs to take place separately at the talk page for Arrow, not here. We can't reach a consensus here that affects another article. ― Padenton|✉   18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, i will bring this up in the Arrow talk page.Monsieur Gustave H. (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

| ShortSummary = After investigating Dr. Wells for months, Joe and Cisco decides to investigate the accident scene where Wells’ wife Tess Morgan died at Starling City; after they learn Wells’ behavior has changed drastically since the incident from Dr. Tina McGee. With Captain Quentin Lance’s help, they have located the real Harrison Wells’ body. In addition, assistant district attorney/vigilante Laurel Lance (Black Canary) asks Cisco's help in modifying her late-sister Sara Lance (The Canary) sonic weapon; which he did so with the components of Hartley Rathaway’s own technology, providing Laurel a new "Canary Cry". Back in Central City, a metahuman shapshifter, Hannibal Bate, is robbing banks by impersonating bank tellers throughout the city since the particle accelerator explosion. He eventually subsequently frames Eddie and impersonates Barry during the pursuit; ultimately learns the latter is the Flash. Caitlin conducts a serum to repress Bate’s power, allowing Barry to defeat him. After a series of tests confirm the corpse's identity, Barry, Caitlin and Cisco discover the imposter’s secret room, and finding both the Reverse-Flash's costume and a newspaper article from the future concerning the Flash’s fate during a Crisis.

The Correction is 'a metahuman shapeshifter, Hannibal "Bates"' not 'Hannibal Bate' Subkrish91 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Easily fixed yourself. Alex|The|Whovian 08:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, since Subrish91 isn't yet autoconfirmed (not enough edits), this was the only route to getting a correction, since the article's semi-protection won't let anyone edit who isn't autoconfirmed or is an IP. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Episode 21 Title

I just wanted to say how relieved I am that The Futon Critic FINALLY posted the title of episode 21. I mean, they were only weeks behind everyone else (who heard this information directly from the mouth of one of the show's executive producers) with the news but since we must bow to the "futon critic gods" I finally know that the executive producer of the show isn't a liar. I bet it would be a relief to said producer as well to know that he actually knows what he's talking about. Pjstar35 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We must bow to the reliable source gods, not just the Futon Critic gods. If you knew how to edit properly, you would know this. Alex|The|Whovian 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a blacklist for unreliable sources. You can request sites be added to the blacklist and until you do so and it gets approved to be blacklisted then that site should be allowed. No individual editor, or small group of editors, has the right to decide for themselves what site is reliable and what isn't if it's not on the blacklist. Anyone who thinks they have that right is frankly full of shit, just like the shit that spews from every post you make in regards to something I have an opinion about. I know you're going to go scream "he personally attacked me" now, since that's what you like to do, but this is just simply a reaction to your personal attack above so let's not play that game again. Pjstar35 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And to add one more thing to your post, I think the executive producer of a show counts as a "reliable source god" as you put it. Pjstar35 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you would actually do some research rather than just googling sources that supported your POV, then you would trace the sources back to a press release, thus avoiding all this kerfuffle: The following article is a press release issued by the aforementioned network and/or company. Any errors, typos, etc. are attributed to the original author. The release is reproduced solely for the dissemination of the enclosed information. DonQuixote (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that The Futon Critic information is via a press release, I have no problem with that or with using The Futon Critic. My issue is the suggestion that only sources that use press releases are reliable sources. When an executive producer says something about a show that he produces, to a public crowd of hundreds or even thousands of people during a panel, he damn well knows what he's talking about or he wouldn't have said it and to just ignore that and say that information isn't reliable is just absolutely ludicrous. If a site such as the ones that reported what Andrew Kreisberg said are known for reporting false information then they should be added to the blacklist. If they're not on the blacklist then we shouldn't just automatically assume the worst about that site without evidence showing their lack of reliability. This whole issue of reverting information and saying "that's not a reliable source" without having evidence to back up such a statement is just a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit. Pjstar35 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand about blacklists. Those are for sites that are known to be unreliable and should never be used (or used with caution as stated in the blacklists). That doesn't mean that everything else is reliable. Sources that have a reputation for reliability are automatically accepted as reliable. The burden of proof for any other source is on the editor who wants to use a source that doesn't have such a reputation. For titles of works of fiction, the highest reliable source is the primary source itself, which hasn't been released yet. The next highest are press releases. Anything after that is up to consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So first you say "Those are for sites that are known to be unreliable..." and then you contradict yourself by saying "That doesn't mean that everything else is reliable." I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world but I am college educated and it's common sense that if something isn't reliable that definitely makes it unreliable and vice versa. There are no varying degrees of reliability. I could only imagine what cars and heavy machinery would be like if designers and manufactures said "well, this part is not reliable but we'll go ahead and leave it here with everything else and let our techs make that call on whether or not they want to use it." What it sounds like you're saying to me is there's a lot of sheep on here that see someone else say or do something, which may not necessarily be correct, and then follow that lead since they can't think for themselves or are just too lazy to do so which leads up to a lot of nonsensical bureaucratic bullshit just as I said previously. Thank you for confirming what I believed was the case. Pjstar35 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Those are for sites that are known to be unreliable..." and then you contradict yourself by saying "That doesn't mean that everything else is reliable." – How is this a contradiction? The sites on the blacklist should not be used, all others are to be looked into and then decided if the website is reliable. Not every site that we can't use has to be on the blacklist, because that would just be stupid. And whether you like it or not, we have to follow the policies laid out on this site.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely dumbfounded that you can't see the contradiction in that. I actually had to pause for a moment after I read what you typed because of the sheer ludicrousness of everything you've said. To say that "not every site that we can't use has to be on the blacklist" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever seen anyone say. The blacklist is there to block sites we can't use so why would we not block every site we can't use? That's like leaving the keys in a running sports car and telling the 16 year old kid standing next to it to not drive off in it. And as far as the policies you speak of go, there's a lot left to interpretation. Wikipedia did a horrible job with the policies, there's just too many gray areas left open for people to interpret in whatever way benefits them most. Look at that, there's that bureaucratic bullshit theme that just keeps popping up everywhere. Pjstar35 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not every site is on there because, as I pointed out, that would be bloody stupid and would take way too long to do. I don't think you fully understand how big an undertaking that would require to put all unreliable sites on the Blacklist. As for the contradiction: We can't use the sites on the blacklist, but that does not automatically make every other site reliable. And it is actually your job to provide evidence of reliability for the sources you want to use. I will admit some policies aren't clear, however the policies on verifcation and reliabilty are probably the most thought out and clear policies on the site because they require everyone to be on the same page. Also, read what you are saying: You are definatly the one saying the dumb stuff here.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this blacklist matter. On a side note, spell check is your friend and you really should use it. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as my point is put across then I'm fine with my spelling as long as my point is gotten across. PS. If you feel so strongly about the blacklist then vollenteer to help out with it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As Ditto51 points out (thanks), it's not a contradiction. If you really were "college educated" then you should already know how to properly use sources, reliable or otherwise. Reliable sources have systems like fact checking and peer review. That's how we tell what's a reliable source and what's not. Then we can make a blacklist of sources that are absolutely not reliable. Any new sources that pop up can then be judged good enough to use or not good enough to use, and at the extreme end we can choose to add them to a blacklist. Seriously, this is basic college-level stuff that you're failing to grasp. DonQuixote (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely a contradiction and for you to not see that, as well as question my education, shows that you yourself are clearly not very well educated. If you want to play the "dick measuring" game then by all means lets do that but be sure you can back it up because I know I can. To further address your comments, the "system" that reliable sources appear to have here is far less fact checking or peer review and more of a "what I say goes and I've got these other guys to back me up so we'll get you banned if you try to disagree even though we're not necessarily right" type of system. I find it quite interesting that even though anyone can make a request to have a site added to the blacklist, some people decide they'd rather continuously revert others, demeaning them, and trying to make them feel like crap rather than requesting that site be added to the blacklist. I figure the reason for that comes down to 2 possible choices. Either they enjoy treating people like that, which is pretty messed up, or they're afraid if they try to blacklist a site and it gets denied that they'll have to admit they were wrong. Try thinking on an advanced college-level instead of the basic college-level, though I'm seriously beginning to question if your thinking level is even up that high just yet. ;-) Pjstar35 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the point in adding all five billion and a half... fansites to the blacklist when there will always be another that someone will find and try to use. Seriously, there is only so much the people on the site can do, and it is quicker to revert edits supported by fansites than it is to get everyone blacklisted.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you start claiming to be college educated, and thus tacitly imply that everyone else isn't, you shouldn't be surprised when you get called out on it, especially if you insist on things that results in poor marks on a college-level term paper. And, no, it's still not a contradiction. The blacklist is a list of known unreliable sources. That doesn't mean that every other source is known to be (and thus should be regarded as) reliable. See identifying reliable sources to see that blacklists aren't an end-all. That is to say, if an editor who wants to cite a previously unknown source then the burden of proving that source is reliable is on the editor who wants to use that source, and pointing out that it's not on a blacklist isn't enough. DonQuixote (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

More often than not I've seen information that was reverted because it came from a so-called "fan site" actually end up being correct. Case in point, the title of Episode 21 of The Flash which was announced by one of the executive producers of the show but still wasn't allowed because it was reported by a "fan site". So to say "the burden of proving that source is reliable is on the editor" doesn't really make a lot of sense when a site can be proven reliable and still not be allowed. Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should run out and quote every "fan site" out there because that would just be absurd but to put a blanket "not reliable" tag on ALL "fan sites", including those reporting information directly from a producer's mouth, is equally as absurd. What is comes down to, I believe, is that one day probably long ago there was a discussion about the reliability of some information someone attempted to post from a "fan site" and that information was found to be incorrect so then someone else who saw, or possibly participated in, said discussion got it stuck in their head that all "fan sites" were unreliable. That person then began spreading that notion, albeit an incorrect and extremely stereotypical notion, and then we end up where we are today. To quote Voltaire, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” Pjstar35 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not about being correct (WP:TRUTH), it's about being verifiable. And it has nothing to do with your hypothetical discussion, it has to do with standards. Unless a fan site has been shown to fact check (or something similar), then it's not up to reliability standards. This has been in place for decades in all tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not a general wiki or a blog or a fan site. It's trying to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and it has chosen to follow the protocols set for respectable tertiary sources, which is that the source has to be vetted as being reliable before being cited. It doesn't matter that it is a fan site, it matters that it hasn't been vetted as being reliable. The point is, you can't just claim a site (fan site or otherwise) is reliable, you have to show it--that's why the burden of responsibility is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

it is an established policy that they need to be reliable, fansites typically are not (no editorial oversight and a host of other things they need to be considered reliable) and the burden to provide evidence of reliabity is on you, not on us to prove it isn't reliable. The idea behind fansites being unreliable is that they can make shit up. It is unlikely that they will but they can make up quotes and interview s and without editorial oversight they can write what they want.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone needs to take a moment and chill. I'm seeing a shit ton of personal attacks and uncivil behavior. This has to stop now.

To address the only thing relevant to this entire discussion: "sources". Pjstar, we don't "blacklist" every website that is simply unreliable because it may be used in some other fashion on the page that is acceptable. For example, IMDB is not a trust website for giving us information on film (most specifically future films/tv shows) because it is user edited. It does contain some valuable information for readers that we might not include in our article, as such, you'll find it in an external links section. If it was blacklisted simply because it was unreliable for news information, then it wouldn't be allowed period and we would lose that resources for readers. The same is true for fansites. They are by their nature, unreliable because they lack editorial oversight and they often don't identify where they get their information.

There are exceptions to this rule as well. Direct interviews are considered acceptable from fansites. For example, Kryptonsite webmaster Craig Byrne after gets access to the cast and crew of many CW related shows because of his past connections with The WB writing companion books for them. That said, we wouldn't accept anything from his site that says "from a source close to the show", because that's not verifiable. It also has nothing to do with whether something is "true" or not. Reliability and verifiability are not based around truth, but what can be reliably shown. So, a website that is deemed "unreliable" can be right 80% of the time and that doesn't change the fact that they are unreliable, because reliability has nothing to do with being right or wrong. If you look over the criteria at WP:RS, it's about a lot more than that. That's why certain websites can almost never be used, even though they may be "right" most of the time.

Is it ok to use an executive producer's comments on a fansite? That depends on whether he was talking to them, or they are claiming it was reported somewhere else. If it was reported somewhere else, chances are a more reliable source (with editorial oversight) is stating it as well. It's always best to look for the most reliable source over the most easily accessible source. Please don't look at this as "I'm right and you're wrong, because the website was correct." The great thing here is that, we're not in a rush to add information, because Wikipedia is not a current events website. So, if an unreliable sources is reporting something today, there is a great chance a more reliable one will be reporting it tomorrow or the next day. If that means we have the best possible sources, without getting caught up in the same trap that IMDb gets caught in (which is publishing just about anything delivered to them by their editors until someone tells them they are wrong), then I think that is the better option in the long run.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was just trying to point out how relieved I was that the Episode 21 title was finally posted. I can't help it that someone took that negatively and started the ball rolling on this particular healthy, albeit it mildly heated, discussion/debate. ;-) Have a great day! Pjstar35 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is/Is Harrison Wells?

At the moment, there is disagreement on the article as to whether "Is" or "is" is correct in the title of episode 19. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is very clear (per MOS:CT): verbs are capitalized in titles, which would indicate "Is". The network press release for the episode uses the lowercase "is".

My understanding was that the MOS:CT has primacy here, and I came by this understanding after having and seeing various episode titles and song titles changed to match this guideline, despite network and record company orthography. In my experience, there has never been any precedence given to their capitalization; rather, Wikipedia's has held sway.

If I'm not right about this, please let me know, and point out the appropriate guideline. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I had an issue once with this regarding capitalization of a song title vs what the MOS said - the MOS won. So what ever that says we should use, we use, despite what the press material uses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia and I too cannot find any precedence showing that network capitalization, or lack thereof, should override MOS:CT. I have made the change on the article and have directed people to this discussion but I still would not be surprised if it were to get reverted anyway. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Why was this [1] done when there isn't a single contesting in this section, not even one from AlexTheWhovian? ― Padenton|✉   13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Without getting into details, he and I have some personal issues with each other. That was clearly not a good faith revert on his part but I've come to expect it which is why I mentioned previously that I wouldn't be surprised if it still got reverted. Pjstar35 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He thanked the above comment of mine right after I made it, so I assume he has no issue. Things just get heated sometimes. ― Padenton|✉   20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with it at all, which is why I decided to leave it as it is. Pjstar, however, seems to think that he is always right and that everything is about him, after some unfortunate encounters on the Constantine talk page, and reverts to personal attacks a lot (I mean, having a go at someone for their spelling? Grow up.) Alex|The|Whovian 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Let it go and move on! Cheers! Pjstar35 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

| num_episodes = 23 Sgr33n (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Pleas change | num_episodes = 21 to | num_episodes = 23 because the online count is wrong.

 Not done num_episodes shows the number of episodes that has aired, not the number of episodes that has been ordered. From Template:Infobox television, for the entry of num_episodes: The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. Alex|The|Whovian 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the search for "List of The Flash episodes" be re-directed?

Currently, the search "List of The Flash episodes" leads to the disambiguation page. It is less likely that someone will be looking for the list of episodes for the 1990 series. Should this search be redirected to the episodes section of the 2014 series page? --AdamTango123 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No. People may still look for it (which is the reason why this page has 2014 in the title) the list of episodes page will also have 2014 in the title and will be made when episode infomation for season 2 begins to come in.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen many pages that searches are re-directed to even though they could have different intentions. A message at the top explains specifically what the page is and provides a link to other possibly intended pages and the disambiguation page. I'm new to contribution on Wikipedia - what about this topic suggests that this search should lead to the disambiguation page rather than being re-directed to what is (in my opinion) the more likely intended destination? --AdamTango123 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Most redirects don't have another alternative, if they did then they to would be disambiguation pages. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be going to the proper page at the moment.. One extra click wont hurt people searching for the episodes list. Spanneraol (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, searching "12 Monkeys" leads to the page about the movie, even though someone could easily be searching for the show. This makes sense because it's more likely someone is intending to get to the page about the movie rather than the show. --AdamTango123 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The show is based on the movie in that case so its a natural start point. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. --AdamTango123 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits

If all you're going to do is add a few punctuation marks and/or make grammatical/spelling corrections, please mark your edit as minor. DarienLeonhart (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it really matter so much? Alex|The|Whovian 10:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because then I'm not getting notified about something minor like punctuation or grammatical/spelling corrections. I only want to be notified when changes are made to the episode list. So unfollowing the page is not an option...DarienLeonhart (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

IPs can't mark edits a minor anyway, so they will always show up. And just look at the size of an edit, if it is only one or two or zero bytes or any small value, then it is likely a punctuation or grammar fix.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Email notifications don't tell you the size.DarienLeonhart (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Episode 23 description at the end: "Flash super speed" should be "Flash super speeds" with an "s". 96.48.225.240 (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

change, the line in the Legends of Tomorrow section, "Caity Lotz, who portrayed Sara Lance / Canary on Arrow, would also be featured in an unspecified role" to some thing that shows that she will be reprise her role as Sara Lance, who has taken the name White Canary. the page on Legends of Tomorrow has good References to make this point. this is just an update of facts. DTBrown72 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Another editor has changed this as required. Alex|The|Whovian 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2015

Ciara Renée now has a Wikipedia page and her name should be given an internal link under the DC's Legends of Tomorrow subheader in the Shared universe section.

Stelmarias (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Alex|The|Whovian 13:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I must have hit save a couple seconds after you then... :)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Does "Episodes" section need its own article?

"List of The Flash episodes" article. Or it's not necessary yet? --Zyma (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary yet in my opinion, until there are enough details to create a table for its second season. Alex|The|Whovian 09:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. --Zyma (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Season 1 is complete, and Season 2 will begin several months later. I don't see any harm in setting it up now while the primary TV season is over. It's work you don't have to worry about when Season 2 begins. But it's up to you folks.  :-) --Cxwong (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until details of season 2 episode begin rolling in, for now it just seems to be unneeded. (Although setting one up in either a sub-page in your userspace or in the Draft Space couldn't hurt)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Standardization and Clean-Up of the Cast Section

I'd like to propose standardizing and cleaning up the Cast section. Currently, I think it's all over the place: One character talks about current and potential actors for a role, while others give single-sentence overviews or specific plot developments. I'd like to simplify it to only high-level overviews while leaving more detailed biographies, developments, or other information to the "List of Characters" page. --Cxwong (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Those that are only one line is because they lack further big infomation. Whoever has potential actors for a role should probably have them removed (with it being placed in the casting section). Otherwise, no the rest of the infomation should not be moved over to the List of Characters page. Yes it is already over there, but with a little bit of extra tweaking and a few other major plot elements added to those who may not be upto date, then the page will be standardized. May I offer up the Arrow and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. cast sections for examples of what we should be working towards for the section on this page. (Or maybe somewhere inbetween.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to use another article to model our work against, we should use a featured article. The Firefly TV series is listed as a Featured Article, and I think provides a great model for us to use. It lists each character and talks about who they are, rather than what has happened. Plot points are used to discuss the beginning of their involvement or entry to the main storyline. Their "List of Characters" page goes into detail regarding their characters' story arc and fate. This is a great model to use because not only is it a feature, but the show is complete, meaning that our model will not significantly change as we make improvements to The Flash page and fall out of Wikipedia's high-quality criteria.

Another featured article is The Simpsons, but I have a feeling that format won't sit well with most. --Cxwong (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish to English translation of Eobard Thawne

The English translation of eobard thawne in English is Professor Zoom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.230 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia. Alex|The|Whovian 01:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

please change | num_seasons = 1
| num_episodes = 23
to
| num_seasons = 1+
| num_episodes = 23+
Rliebi (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Why? The reasoning behind this is unclear. Only one season has aired; only 23 episodes have aired. Alex|The|Whovian 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

According to flash is getting renewed by a second season. Rliebi (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the values don't get added until seasons actually premiere, and when episodes actually air. Alex|The|Whovian 08:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

The information regarding the awards and nomination's the show has received is inaccurate. Domenicstrazz (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a specific "change x to y" request; current is too vague. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Det. Eddie Thawne

Currently the article says the following about Thawne: "Eddie's past is a mystery and he harbors a dark secret." That comes from a source that is over a year old and was published before the show started even filming. So far, from what I recall, the episodes haven't even hinted at this. Though it's referenced, should we think of taking this out? After all, the writers could have decided to go a different way with the character. Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source stating that the writers have decided to take him in a different direction, it stays as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LLArrow. Simply because a reference is older, doesn't mean that it is useless. The series has yet to air its second season, and undoubtedly, the writers have already begun planning for it. So, concurring with the above editor, references and sources always stay unless/until an official source overrides it. Alex|The|Whovian 02:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, he's dead.. he has no more secrets.. plus they've pretty much dealt with it in the storyline.. his secret was that he was the RF's ancestor.. updating the character description like that guy is doing is perfectly legitimate so why dont you stop edit warring? Spanneraol (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

He may be dead for now, but it's original research to assume you know what the aforementioned secret is. That in mind, the information should remain, in the past tense. It is properly sourced, without a new reliable one to supersede it. LLArrow (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to point it out, that was Wells' secret, not Eddie's. Also we don't know what they will do with Eddie in season 2, he may be brought back through the worm hole or something weird. His secret could come to light in the middle of season 2 that could completely change the way the characters work together, or maybe it was just something mentioned in passing they did change their mind on. However, they have not stated this, so us assuming it would be WP:OR.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was Eddie's secret, just one he wasn't aware of. It said that he harbors a dark secret, which was true. He didn't know it till the end of the season though. So, I think it's fine to stay. The other stuff can be added to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanneraol: I very much appreciate your comment!

LLArrow, AlexTheWhovian, et. al: I don't care too much about leaving it in.  :-) But to be clear, its omittance is not indicative that the character is no longer harboring this “dark secret”; given where the show is at the moment, it’s simply not the most relevant piece of information to a reader who is looking for an overview of The Flash, irrespective of a potential return via future “time travel” stories. Even though it is possibly the most reliably sourced piece of information on the character (i.e., direct from those involved in creating the show), does not mean it absolutely must be in the character’s description on the front page. I'm convinced this comment is a better fit for the “List of Characters” page. Taking a step further, the most reliable piece of information is what has happened in the show itself: my edit that Eddie Thawne IS a partner to Det. West and love interest to Iris versus Eddie might be harboring/has harbored/continues to harbor through his death/possible return some dark secret.

Everyone: I’ve never quite been comfortable with putting spoilers on the front page; I think they’re better suited for the “List of Characters” where it’s normal/expected that descriptions are given significantly more detail. Are there any objections if I delete them (e.g., Eddie Thawne’s death, Wells actually being Eobard Thawne)? --Cxwong (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. So yes that would be an objection to deleting those facts about the characters. On to Eddie: Its a sourced bit of information that could become relevant at any point in the future. We don't know. But we can't just remove it because we don't think that it is relevant. For all we know the creators of the show think that that is the most important fact. As such remove it because we think it isn't relevent is Original Research.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto51: I appreciate the Spoiler article you referred to. However, I believe we're mixing up the spirit of the Spoiler article and the technicality of it. I'm still convinced that such information can be moved to the "List of Characters" page, a section which is very much integral to this page. Leaving it on "List of Characters" serves multiple purposes: (1) ensures standardization and cleanup of the purpose of both pages, (2) satisfies the group of people that do not wish to learn of a plot immediately, and (3) satisfies the group of people that wish to learn the show's entire storyline through Wiki. I do believe point #1 is imperative to Wikipedia. We need to decide whether character developments belong on the front page. If we do decide that there is a place for it, then we should also be updating other characters' descriptions: Iris learns that Barry Allen is the flash in episode x, Cisco Ramon first exhibits signs of his meta-human powers in episode y.

I disagree that the removal of Eddie's "dark secret" is original research. I'm not stating anything to contradict it, and I don't see anywhere on the "No Original Research" article that removing an item is against Wiki's policies. I think the "List of Characters" page offers much more flexibility for this mention. I'm not saying that Eddie's "dark secret" is not relevant; it's just not the most relevant. And while there is policy against removing relevant information, we, as editors, still have to determine what makes the most sense to keep when conveying a quick summary/overview about a character. --Cxwong (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The only reason that I did not update the Cisco-meta human or Iris finding out that Barry is the Flash is because I was running late for school and it wasn't in the refrence I found for Eddie's death. Caitlin's wedding just so happened to be in the source so I added that as well. If you can find a source that mentions that then add it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, just because there's a source doesn't automatically mean it makes sense to put it in there. What's the reason for putting episodic, individualized information like Caitlin's wedding to a supporting character on the front page vs leaving it in the "List of Characters" page? --Cxwong (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to Eddie.. There is a nice Hollywood Reporter interview with the producers [2] where they explain that they always intended his secret to be that he was the Reverse Flash's ancestor and that they originally kept it vague to keep the audience in the dark. No reason to expect that it meant anything else at this point. I think we should replace that old press release source with this new source about what their actual intentions for him were. Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. --Cxwong (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing here because this page just spoiled the Flash ending for me and I can't edit the main page. Eddie Thawne's entry says "He kills himself in the first season finale in order to wipe Eobard Thawne, his distant descendant, from history." I mean, really? You put finale info on a character intro? Please edit it out. Nemein (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on Spoilers which explicitly states that we do not sensor them.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your link also explicitly says that while spoilers can be written, this does not mean such information must be included, either. In this case, including that information hasn't been very helpful at all. I understand putting this info in a detailed character bio would make sense, but not on a brief frontpage synopsis (where one would expect to find only general information, not if they die at the end). If you want to keep that information, I would suggest we include it in the article List of The Flash Characters. Nemein (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The information explains why the actor does not return as a series regular for season 2. Also one comment explaining why it should be included is not enough to warrent its removal (exact opposite actually).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just looked over the policy, and nowhere does it state that it can't be there. As for removing it, the policy states: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." As such, you cannot remove it without consensus here. Favre and me both agree that it should stay and most other editors probably will as well.

So let me ask you a question @Nemein:, if we were in the middle of season 3, would you still be fighting for the information to be removed? Or is it just because you are half way through the series, came to the Wikipedia page for the TV series to find out something and discover that Eddie died? Because if it is the second option then it would be your Point of View (POV) which the policy I linked also states should not be used as a basis for removing content. Only if it takes away from the WP:NPOV of the article.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be acceptable even if you were in the middle of season 3. It would be the equivalent of the Game of Thrones series entry mentioning that Ned Stark gets beheaded in their cast/character section. He dies in season 1 and there are 5 seasons, but it's a big enough spoiler that it's common courtesy to keep it out of the front page - where people who are simply interested in the show (and who might not even have begun to watch it) come to read about it. Nemein (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've said this on the Once Upon a Time wiki before when they block people for commenting about an episode as it is airing on the east coast of America, but I'll say it here as well: Don't come onto a site like this one and not expect their to be spoilers. Also, I don't see you protesting Wells being noted as Eobard, which is a much bigger plot detail that could spoiler the entire show. (Although at this point, surely everyone knows that Ned is dead, even if you don't watch it, other people have probably spoilt that, plus there is the fact that he is played by Sean Bean, who dies in every role he is in, so his death should be expected...).

When Caitlin becomes Killer Frost, should we just not note that? That would spoiler much of the show (especially if you are at the beginning of season 1). We are not here to protect the people who want to learn about the show from spoilers, we are here to write the articles on what happens, which is what we have done by including Eddie's death.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

For the last time - yes, I know we can have spoilers, but the front page of the show isn't the right place for them. Head over to the GoT series front page - no major spoilers. If you want to dig deeper, you can find them in other sections. And yeah, I thought the Wells/Eobard one is a pretty big plot detail as well (and should be removed), but wanted to tackle one thing at a time. Think of the front page as the back of a novel - readers should expect to read a synopsis without being spoiled. If you want to dig deeper - the information is there in other sections. Your argument that people shouldn't come to sites like this if they don't want to be spoiled actually points to a pretty glaring flaw in the articles. Articles about TV shows should have layers - and it's the viewers' choice to decide how much info they want. As it is, casual viewers curious about the show can't read this article without being majorly spoiled, and that makes this a really bad front page article. --Nemein (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Per policy, it should be kept, if you feel so strongly about it, then I suggest either bringing it up on the policy's talk page or at the TV Wikiproject talk page and see if you can change others opinions on it. But really the sections are there to detail the characters with any major developments, so Wells turning about to be Eobard or Eddie dying. The article has a cast section, in the infobox it mentions the main cast, so you can see who is in the show, so their isn't much need to move past that if you want to know about the cast, if you want to know which character then you scroll down to the cast section, read the actors name and then who they play and then move on.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not per policy... it is clearly the editor's choice about how much info to put in. And I'm far from the only person who feels strongly about this. The talk page of the spoiler policy actually has a pretty nice write up on it, section titled "Editorial Courtesy"

Summary: it's OK to include spoilers when discussing fiction, but a bit of consideration should be put into where they're appropriate. Nemein (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Except the information is not in the lead... You may not be the only person who feels strongly about not having it in there, but I'm not the only one who feels strongly that it should be included. If we are going to remove certain aspects of the character desciptions then why not just remove all description from the characters altogether? That would end this debate, even if the page would go down in standards (also I am not suggesting in any way do this right now, just an idea because other it would be your opinion on what to remove). We don't sensor spoilers period. And I'm sorry if it spoilt it for you, or for anyone for that matter, but the infomation is important for his character development and to give context for why the actor left the series.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: WP:Spoiler is a guideline, not a policy. Also, someone posted my feelings on spoilers in this discussion, which were removed because it was a copy and pasted matter. I'm not going to weigh in on this debate, but I do stand by that post. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

Under "Shared Universe" -> "DC's Legends of Tomorrow", add the following:

In June 2014, Gustin stated that he would make an appearance as Barry Allen / Flash in Legends of Tomorrow.

136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added, with slight word change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Adding Constantine to related shows

In an interview with IGN (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back?%20hub%20page%20%28front%20page%29 Arrow producer Wendy Mericle has said that the version of Constantine appearing on Arrow is the same version and character from the Constantine show, thus making the events of Constantine canon to this universe, and should therefore be on the list of related shows. Ttll213 (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. All of the series in the "Flarrow"-verse are connected to one another by default/proxy, even if the character of John Constantine is only guest-starring on Arrow. To not mention Constantine on all of the articles for the series that make up the Arrow/Flash universe is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigificWriter (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Crossover, perhaps, but not "canon" as such until someone mentions it. (See crossovers between Doctor Who & Coronation Street and Family Matters & Step-by-Step, etc.). And it's not even a crossover with this show. So, it probably doesn't belong in this article. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia article and not a fan page. DonQuixote (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that in the article, Mericle is explicitly establishing that Constantine IS canon to the Arrowverse. Therefore, it deserves to be on the list of related shows. Ttll213 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading the article...no she does not. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion here. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be mentioned here - if he appears on The Flash *maybe* but a guest appearance on another show belongs on that page - the shared universe aspect is explained in plenty enough detail with out that level of trivial information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not just make a DC Television Universe page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:840:8200:60C:FDF7:D1E7:8D92:C06D (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode headline

The episode headline was removed from the article and hidden underneath the "Premise" headline with no valid explanation given. As a result, readers of the article can no longer comfortably navigate to the Episode article using the table at the beginning of the article. I have restored the Episode headline so that the style of this article will be the same as other Wikipedia TV series articles, and in order to enable readers of this article to comfortably navigate quickly to the Episode headline from the TOC. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The above user has taken the discussion to User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Discussion here. Alex|The|Whovian 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's bring it back here. To the IP, I don't think that readers are going to get lost not seeing an "Episodes" header. They'll see "Premise", which the average reader knows means plot. Go there and see the link. The problem with your edit is that 1) we stop transcluding tables after 1 season because the page would get bogged down for shows that run several seasons. 2) We don't create sections just to house a single link. Otherwise, that would be the "See also" section of the article. Thus, the appropriate place for the link is where it currently sits.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Hmm... 7th Heaven (TV series), Reba (TV series), Castle (TV series). Tabercil (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those links - they have been fixed. Alex|The|Whovian 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tabercil:, you should know that just because other pages have been doing it doesn't mean that the should have been doing it. We have guidelines that tell us that we don't create sections just to house a single link, and if they house multiple links they had better be titled "See also". To the IP who left a message on my talk page, instead of here (claiming that others aren't actually discussing it), "Premise" is an accurate location to find episodes. Given that episodes contain plot summaries, and the Premise is a summary of the plot, I would say that the two are related.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Keiynan Lonsdale a Series Regular?

Um... just like with Neal Mcdonough/Damien over on the Arrow show being wrong (you guys had him as a series regular, but he's just a special guest star)... Nothing has been said to hint "officially" that Keiynan is a series regular. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way credits go is that (series regulars) regardless of whether they appear or not series regulars still end up being credited on the main cast. So far, they have not have it... So why do you guys have him on as a series regular when it's clear he's not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.71.139 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... check the given source, he's clearly stated as a series regular. Nothing changes until officially proven otherwise. LLArrow (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

^^^ Have you checked it yourself? There's nothing there(says 404:Page not found) and like I said, if he had been made series regular even if he wasn't appearing right away, his name would still appear in the credits. Why add him in when he hasn't even appeared yet? Besides, I've done my research, and none of those articles that announce him coming into the show have him as a main character. I know wikipedia isn't the most credible of source but come on, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.71.139 (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Source is fixed. Alex|The|Whovian 10:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lonsdale interview

Something new. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Drafts for Arrowverse

OK I created a draft page for the spin off series. here is the link: Draft:Untitled Arrow/Flash spin-off, feel free to change add and do whatever you wantThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also a draft page for the shared universe as a whole and can be found and can be found at Draft:Arrow universe--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Credit adjustments

A conversation affecting this article, is taking place on the Arrow Talk page. Your 2-cents would be greatly valued. LLArrow (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot summaries?

Would it be appropriate for there to be a plot summary section added to this article? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the premise section is. It summarizes the two seasons fairly well already. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems to leave out a lot of key information (I wouldn't know where season 3 is picking up just from reading it). Should it be expanded? In any case, as a separate question, what's the WP policy on how spoiler-y a plot/premise section can be? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers are not avoided per WP:SPOILER. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Thanks. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It only needs to be a basic summary. We have an episode page if you want to know where season 3 might pick up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I know where S3 will pick up, since I watch the show, but if we're going to have a "premise" section that's really a plot summary, that seems to raise 2 questions: 1) Should we rename the section to "Plot"? and 2) Should a little more detail be added in so that the reader gets a better sense of where the plot is at? It's kind of a big deal that (SPOILERS) Barry ran back in time and stopped Reverse-Flash from murdering Nora at the very end of S2. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Having a plot summary here is unnecessary duplication. This article just needs a basic premise section to give people a general idea of what the show is about and help with context for the rest of the article. If readers really want to know what happens in the show, then that is what the plot summaries at the episode list is for. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)