Jump to content

Talk:Arrow (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transclusions

[edit]

There is no reason for the mass amount of transclusions that the Arrow articles include. All other Arrowverse series articles are stable as they are, using the traditional means of prose and transclusion, as are the thousands of other television series articles that do not use labelled section transclusion.

The parent article transcludes the episodes and season articles. The main characters article transcludes the parent article. The supporting characters article transcludes the parent and main characters article. The season articles transcludes the parent article. The episodes article transcludes the main characters and season articles. So: the episodes article transcludes the main characters article which in turn transcludes the parent article to finally get to the "lead" content; the parent article transcludes the season article, which transclude the parent articles What a mess! If one article held all the content, and the others pulled from it, perhaps that could work. But not when you have to work through a maze to find out where the content actually lives, as each transcluded sections trancludes another section, and it's a giant circle. If that was confusing, try this: start at the episodes article, then attempt to find where the lead content is so you can modify it. I present to you: a maze.

This reminds me of an identical situation, where templates were created to hold season colours, and then all articles would transclude those templates to take the season colours, in the hopes of containing it in one place so that they didn't have to be edited everywhere. These templates were put up for deletion, and they were deletion, opting instead to keep the content raw in each article. Identical situation here: mass transclusion is not helpful to inexperienced editors, and only satisfy a specific niche of editor.

Now for the actual policy part concerning consensus. The BOLD edit was the one that changed formatting across almost a dozen articles in contrast to the formatting that has held since the creation of each of these articles. I have been told that there is a clear consensus for the transclusions. Can you cite a consensus to me for the edits? Where does silence means acceptance? If you mean WP:SILENCE, then you have it wrong, unfortunately: Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). Voiced disagreement has now become evident, through both reverting and editing. Furthermore, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. This links WP:CCC: consensus can change. It is also recommended in CCC that it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed; alas, no discussion can be cited here, as no discussion has taken place to form any binding consensus.

If no real consensus is made through this discussion, then the bold edits will be reverted, and the articles will again use the format that thousands of articles currently use with no issue. -- /Alex/21 09:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of reasons why we may wish to use such transclusion-focused styles of articles, but this would need a global consensus as it would affect the whole site, or at least tens of thousands of television articles. As Alex says, the difficulty for non-experienced editors or non-programmers to follow the code is a huge strike against the method. The Arrow articles should just have the raw prose repeated at the various articles and if anyone wishes to discuss this further then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television might be the place to begin. — Bilorv (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write it in an even bigger wall of text to push your agenda? First off, the fact that other articles don't do this is irrelevant - articles differ from one another so much, part of which is because the project is hesitant on creating a uniform style. Not all episode articles even use {{Episode list}} or even follow WP:NCTV.
Before the transclusions were made the articles where not consistent with each other, forking data and even missing some data completely. There is no reason that a shared lead which is exactly the same (for example, the two list of characters articles), should fall out-of-sync, or for the need to update an award section in more than one article. These and many other issues were solved by transclusions. Regarding your "Maze" claim - how is that different then, the "Series overview" being transcluded in the main article from the list of episode articles, which itself transcludes the season articles?
Regarding the consensus claim. Consensus can always change, but as I've told you on my talk page, no one has in the last 2 months raised any issue. Of course you can contest any change at any time, but there has to be a point where claiming WP:BRD is moot. The entire set of articles has hundreds of watchers and had over 2 months dozens of other edits by dozen of other editors. In my opinion, if the edits were not reverted or questioned, then if you disagree (which is your right), you should have made the case here, instead of forcing your PoV.
To Bilorv, while I personally would love for a single uniform style across all TV articles, that isn't how en.wiki or even MOS:TV works. Just read one of the recent discussions about the placement of the marketing section or single sub-sections. Some work a certain way, others a different way. As that is the case, each article is its own eco-system. This discussion is taking place where it should as it effects only this article. Also, if we have concern over transclusions then we really can't pick and choose. Both the Season overview is transcluded, as is the List of Episodes, yet no one is arguing to remove those. --Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I posted a "wall of text" makes it clear that there's a massive issue with it. Don't like it? Too bad. Consistency is key, and if there's no precedent for it, then there's no support for it. Yes, a lot of articles don't use {{Episode list}}, but we (or the editors that care) always make sure that we adapt the article so that it does. Or so that it follows WP:NCTV. Do you not do this, do you deliberately leave content not conforming with WP:TV's ways?
If the articles were missing data, then update it. It's really not that hard. Realistically, the articles don't need a shared lead. This is the parent article, that introduces the series. The characters article should be concerned about the characters only, the episodes article should be concerned about the episodes only, and the seasons articles should be concerned about the respective seasons only. To answer your question on my maze claim, read my own instruction - "If that was confusing, try this: start at the episodes article, then attempt to find where the lead content is so you can modify it." The answer is: "the episodes article transcludes the main characters article which in turn transcludes the parent article to finally get to the "lead" content". I had to visit three articles to find the lead content. Not user friendly at all. The series overview table is transcluded here from the episodes article. One link, solved.
No one has raised issues in the past two months, sure. They have now. Hence, consensus can change. Any edit making mass changes to a mass number of articles can always be considered BOLD. The time that has passed since them does not change that. BRD applies to all edits. I've quoted multiple policies that deny the whole "silence is consensus" statement. Especially the part that states "until voiced disagreement becomes evident". Has voiced disagreement not become evident? It has. If your edits are disputed, even if they were from ten years ago, the onus is on you to explain your edits and gain consensus for them. The onus is always on the editor making the edits. Always has been, always will be, that's how Wikipedia works.
A single uniform style across all TV articles is most certainly executable, especially when the traditional format makes it simple for non-experienced editors and readers to edit the article. All this labelled section transclusion is, again, only for a specific niche of editor. Wikipedia should always favour the reader. This does not. This discussion is taking place, as it is the parent article, not because it affects only this article. It affects about a dozen articles. We are not arguing to remove transclusion at all, that is you putting words into our month. We are disputing the advanced format of it, that is not user friendly and goes around in too many circles. Again: the maze of articles to find the lead. -- /Alex/21 09:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in here, or on my talk page, you've only cited one policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) with the others being essays or information pages. Looking closely at the policy you did cite WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS says this: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. Two months worth of edits have established this implicit consensus. Your opinion that an onus needs to be on any edit, regardless of time, even 10 years, is solely your personal opinion and is not backed up by any policy that I know of, or that you've cited. Regarding the issue with the list of episode lead, if that is the only real issue, that can be easily fixed. For that, we have small edits and discussions - not mass reverts. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) It's not all or nothing at all; the size of the content in question is a key difference (in episode lists, almost the whole articles are "duplicated", so to speak, whereas this is not true of the episode list and main article), as is the complexity of the code in question or circularity of invoked templates. There is no fundamental layout difference between this show and any which has a main page, an episode list page and a character page (and perhaps the season pages... I can't completely follow the code and understand what's happening. And I'm a programmer). Another huge strike against these changes is that the content that's being transcluded should be different on different pages; the main article page lead and episode list lead serve two significantly different purposes and were they an FA/FL pair, their prose would differ significantly. So transcluding is not even keeping an ideal of data integrity because no such ideal applies here. In the same way that the episode list / season transclusions are standard practice in WPTV, with widespread consensus, these transclusions would need the same consensus and if deemed an improvement, would apply to thousands of articles. — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the leads should be different then they should be, but they weren't. They differed in a word here or a word there, or the order of the words - that's not a real difference and it made maintenance a pain having to clean up after drive-by edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs)
A "word here or a word there" in difference it not enough of an argument to support the implementation of non-user-friendly, complex coding. Wikipedia is made up of "drive-by edits" people coming through to fix small things or update small details. We could fix everything by transcluding everything that's duplicated, but we don't. Articles should be expected to exist by themselves. -- /Alex/21 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And at the same time it is not an argument for FA/FL difference. In comic-related articles, such as these, a drive by edit could mean adding incorrect aliases or linking to comic articles instead of the TV articles and redirects. It is your opinion that this is not user friendly, but it is the same system used the {{Episode list}} which you advocate (rightfully) for its use. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what editors are here for, to revert such vandalism. Episode lists are transcluded in their most basic form for the sake of appearances on an episode article, that's it. The lead is a fundamental part of every article that should not be reduced to a simple transclusion, where it should be different and specific to each article itself. -- /Alex/21 10:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that editors are janitors. If there is a system that can work better, we should strive to achieve it. Also, I don't disagree that the leads should be different. Only part of the leads is shared, and that part should be consistent as it is just a background of what the TV series is. Later in the lead, each article does it own thing. --Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's block all unconfirmed and IP editors from editing Wikipedia, so that we strive to achieve minimal vandalism. Nope, that's been discussed and rejected. Everyone can put a system across, but it's not always a beneficial idea. If only parts of the lead are shared, then there's no need for transclusion for such a minimal effort. Should we start transcluding ratings numbered and references from the episode list into the parent article? They're identical, of course. But we don't. Because we don't need to make a mountain out of an anthill. -- /Alex/21 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting my words again and the code itself. If we've reached the end of our discussion, I'll wait for others to comment. --Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, no comment, and no argument. You cannot seem to defend your own edits. No consensus remains. -- /Alex/21 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit consensus is not binding consensus. The consensus policy then goes on to talk about how consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). I'm sorry to tell you this, but both the parts either of us have quoted apply to you and your edits. There was consensus, but there is no longer consensus. WP:SILENCE is a policy, as it is an offshoot of WP:CONSENSUS. WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Up to you, sorry. And you seem to have ignored everything said. The issue is not solely with the episode lead. The issue is with the advanced techniques attempted to being used, that is not user friendly and results in a circular motion to get to the content of a single article, having to go through three of them. It is too much of a mess to exist in the article space. -- /Alex/21 10:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SILENCE is not a policy, see top of page. Also, just to repeat myself, I don't disagree with the notion that a bold edit reverted should be discussed and consensus achieved, I just don't agree with your interpretation of it which means that you can argue a 10 year edit, or even a 2 months one on a very highly watched and edit article (or set of articles). Also, I'd like to point you to the other editor who reverted which is less than a month here and apparently didn't find this a block from editing, nor do ALL the IP editors which edit the episode summary which are not found on the list of episodes. The only thing not found on the page you would expect it to be on, is the lead. Everything is in the most logical place and transcluded elsewhere. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is an extension of a policy, and thus is a policy in itself. Interesting how I'm not allowed to restore the content to the status quo without discussing it first, but you're allowed to make further edits while the content is being disputed... More edits to fix what wasn't broken to start off with. And see, this whole thing is how you "just don't agree". That's now how Wikipedia works, unfortunately. Either gain a firm consensus for the transclusion format (I recommend you hold an RFC), or it should be restored until you gain that consensus. There's clearly no widespread agreement on it, given that now more than one editor is disputing it. -- /Alex/21 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to revert my latest edits if you don't agree with them. I was trying to fix an issue you reported with the current implementation. If you think it made it worse, feel free to revert. Though I'd appreciate you not reverting for the sake of reverting. --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't made clear, I plan to revert them all to the status quo, actually, where there is no labelled section transclusion, given the clear lack of consensus for it. -- /Alex/21 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You maybe are right that this discussion will result in no consensus for it, but since it's been only about an hour and had 3 people and we know there is a 4th that disagrees with you, I'd let it play out first. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it stands, there is no consensus for it. There may have been, but as soon as it was disputed, consensus no longer exists for it. I look forward to you building a case to rebuild the consensus for your edits. -- /Alex/21 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is your personal opinion of how that works, but you've yet to show any policy that supports that. ONUS is not timeless. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited policies. You're the one who's said, and I quote, that you "just don't agree". ONUS gives no boundaries on time, it doesn't say "If edits were made two months ago or three seconds ago, then there's a binding consensus for them". It doesn't specify. It covers all edits. Gain a consensus while the articles are restored. -- /Alex/21 10:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

And as stated to you through the use of policies, to help build up of your inexperience, there is nothing that states that edits from two months ago cannot be disputed. Anything can be disputed. Unfortunately, this is all above the view of one editor, we are here to gain a consensus for the disputed changes. -- /Alex/21 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No further comments have been given in the past eleven days to support the transclusions. -- /Alex/21 06:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read all of the previous comments, but I'm also against this excessive use of transclusions. Not only does it make it confusing to edit for non-advanced editors, but it also introduces errors like duplicate linking. - Brojam (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the apparent lack of consensus to include the excessive use of advanced transclusions, I'll get to work soon on removing them. -- /Alex/21 13:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this discussion, I only saw the recent edit by Alex 21 to the LoE page. I just thought that I'd mention that reference 175 is broken. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has any source noted the existence of the Anti-Monitor?

[edit]

I know there is a cast listing for the Monitor, but is there one for the Anti-Monitor? I don't recall it being mentioned in any of the Arrowverse programs...- Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cast listing and source for the Anti-Monitor, also played by Garrett, at Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse); here's the source from the article, and another one. -- /Alex/21 21:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there was the single photo giving the first good look at him 3 weeks ago--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow (TV series) & Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)

[edit]

The "in other media" section of Huntress (Helena Bertinelli) says:

> The Helena Bertinelli version of Huntress appears in the Arrow live-action television series, played by Jessica De Gouw.

However, "Huntress" and "Bertinelli" don't appear in the "characters" section of Arrow (TV series).

This seems inconsistent. I don't know which is correct nor how it ought to be fixed, so I'm just flagging this. Crossposted to both talk pages. — Sai ¿?✍ 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xpost link Sai ¿?✍ 11:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt with Arrowverse characters, always try the name followed by "(Arrowverse)". So for here, Helena Bertinelli (Arrowverse) will lead you to the correct section. --Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

گرین ارو (مجموعه ی تلویزیونی)

[edit]

ارو یا پیکان یک مجموعه تلویزیونی ابرقهرمانی آمریکایی است که توسط Greg bertinelli ، Marc Guggenheim و Andrew Kreisberg براساس شخصیت کمیک DC ساخته شده است Green Arrow ، یک جنگجوی جرم و جنایی که توسط مورت وایزینگر و جورج پپ ساخته شدهاست و در Arrowverse با سایر تلویزیون های مرتبط قرار دارد. سلسله. این سریال در10 اکتبر 2012در ایالات متحده از شبک سی دبلیو به نمایش درآمد و در درجه اول در ونکوور ، بریتیش کلمبیا ، کانادافیلمبرداری شد. در ژانویه 2019 ، سی دابلیو سریال را برای یک فصل هشتم ده قسمتی تمدید کرد، در ماه مارس اعلام کرد که این آخرین فصل است. این فصل در 15 اکتبر 2019 به نمایش در آمد و رویداد کراس اوور " بحران در زمین های بی نهایت " را به نمایش گذاشت. فینال سریال در 28 ژانویه 2020 پخش شد. Farbod10.gfi (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions should be in English since this is the English Wikipedia, see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)&oldid=1233684737"