Talk:Arrow (TV series)/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Digital Spy"

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

From Entertainment Weekly:

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

From Deadline.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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