This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. It would be normal to handle this request at
WP:AFC, but even if we accept this as a proper move discussion, consensus is against moving the article in its current state (One editor was in favor and three were opposed).
EdJohnston (
talk)
14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Draft:Arrow (season 3) → Arrow (season 3) – The draft misses other sections, but still meets the notability criteria.
WP:TVSERIES says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations". It meets all the criteria in
WP:GNG. it doesn't include only the plot summaries of the episodes; so it aligns with
WP:PLOT.
HamedH94 (
talk)
15:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
well, your link says: "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." since it DOES contain the characters section, the directors, writers, viewerships and other stuff of each episode in the table, it's obviously not "a mere plot summary". so your "Minus" doesn't mean anything. --
HamedH94 (
talk)
16:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, sure, if you want to get extremely technical. The characters section and lead do not provide anything new that the main article does not, so realistically, the only new information in the article is the plot and details of the episode.
Alex|The|Whovian?02:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
if by "the main article" you mean
Arrow (TV series), it only includes the main cast, not the recurring cast of each season, let alone the guest characters. so, realistically, it does have new information and can be improved after it's turned into an article. --
HamedH94 (
talk)
03:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hold off for now This draft should have more info, such as a production and a reception section to start, as well as references for the cast members. This draft isn't ready yet. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Except the lack of any real information that isn't already in another article. You forced the move, now you're requesting a rename - that's forcing, and so far, you have only yourself backing this.
Alex|The|Whovian?06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
it's a tv season. it's obvious that the information will be in other articles like the main article of the series, the characters articles and the list of episodes article. and by the way, you should comment on content, not the contributor. we're talking about the notability of the page here, not my alleged personality disorder. --
HamedH94 (
talk)
06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
...Excuse me? What? I brought up nothing about personality disorders. After saying I've said something that I didn't, it is obvious that you don't plan to discuss this with me properly. And yes, it's a season page, so you would expect content relative to the season on the page - besides the episode table, there is nothing. Hence: Production and Reception info.
Alex|The|Whovian?06:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
now it's "besides" instead of "minus". i'm not in the mood to go in circles again. i've answered all of your arguments. now it's up to the closer to decide who's right. however, if you come up with a new argument, i'm happy to discuss. --
HamedH94 (
talk)
06:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
And yet, you enjoy doing the same... It's not "who's right" here. It's whether the article is valid enough or not. And obviously more views are needed before a decision can be made.
Alex|The|Whovian?06:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Accolades
Wasn't Katie Cassidy's Prism award for the season two addiction storyline? I am aware she was awarded it in 2015, but thought it should go with the season two article instead if that was the season it was awarded for. Am struggling to find any sources that discuss it online, so didn't want to move without checking here first.
AutumnKing (
talk)
14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply