Talk:Barry Allen (Arrowverse)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled discussion[edit]
Please review whether the summaries of Barry in the season are concise enough. Check the if the language is too repetitive. Please also review whether the subheading of 'Arrowverse' is necessary as i was not whether to include the summary of Barry's appearances in Arrowverse.
Pavement 1997 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 8 November 2018[edit]
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to Barry Allen (Arrowverse) (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Barry Allen (The Flash 2014 series) → Barry Allen (The Flash) – This is the proper naming convention. If not, it should be Barry Allen (Arrowverse). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it is better if the article should be renamed as Barry Allen (Arrowverse).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Barry Allen (Arrowverse). I actually saw this while it was in draft and thought about saying something, but the previous discussions still hunt me (note: Draft:Barry Allen (The Flash) and Draft:Barry Allen (The Flash) (2) still exist and should probably be merged/deleted). A few reasons why I believe this should be moved to "Arrowverse". First, per WP:CONSISTENCY it should match the other topics Oliver Queen (Arrowverse), John Diggle (Arrowverse) and John Constantine (Arrowverse). Yes, Joe West (The Flash) exists, but that should probably change as well. Secondly, the suggested title is just ambiguous. Flash (Barry Allen) is already an article and the very minute difference between that and Barry Allen (The Flash) is lost on almost anyone reading it (and who hasn't been actively editing these pages), as The Flash is also the name of some of the comics. On the other-hand, since this article only deals with the "Arrowverse" version of Barry Allen, the use of "Arrowverse" is clear. --Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the move to "Barry Allen (The Flash)", as it would generate confusion with The Flash (Barry Allen). That said, bigger problem is that this page fails WP:GNG, horribly. It's a page of plot summary and a few things about his suit. Does not warrant a page. We need to either address that issue, or merge this somewhere else (thus making the name change irrelevant). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I doubt the page will be deleted (as it doesn't fail GNG). Also, not really how RM works. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- First, it did fail the GNG. There was not significant coverage on this page about the character when I saw it. It was plot and some lines about the suit. That was failure; the fact that someone added a bit more doesn't change what it was. As for how a RM works, it works in the sense there is a move request. You support or you oppose. I stated at the start that I opposed the specific suggestion. Really unsure why there was a need to specifically respond to my statement in the first place in some vain attempt to chastise me about calling out the article for failing the GNG at the time I cast my vote for not moving to "Barry Allen (The Flash)". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I responded because saying it "fails WP:GNG" is misleading. WP:NEXIST (sadly) does not care about the current situation of the article, but on the existence of suitable sources. So saying that that failed because the article was bad, is against the same guideline you cited. --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeeessss, but my comment was based on what was here. Based on this page, there were no sources to say it was notable. Notability is also not simply inherited, nor is it something that we just go "hey, I know this is notable even though I cannot prove it". I also didn't call for the deletion of the article, I merely pointed out that it fails the GNG (you have to be able to show that sources exist), and I said that it would need to be fixed. Again, no real reason to specifically call me out on, especially when another editor acknowledged the issue at hand. Seems more like a personal reason you may be doing that, especially considering you came directly at me...after someone else had already supported the fact that the page was lacking evidence to support its existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to miss the giant big bold sentence that I linked to which says
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
- the sources in the article are not a factor if it fails or not. This may be a semantics issue, where you mean something which I understand as something else, but if you would have said that it "might fail GNG" that would have played differently with me, since saying it fails as a fact, could influence other editors with baseless assumptions. The other editor agreed with you without providing any new claim, meaning yours was the original point. No point in debating someone's point with someone else's. Also, you might have missed it, but there were actually two options given for a new name. --Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)- Yes, but when someone challenges the notability of said article (and I didn't formally challenge anything, I made an off-hand comment that you took as some serious admonishment of this article), it isn't that person's responsibility to see if those sources exist. The point of "NEXIST" is to say that if you can show that sources exist, regardless of the fact that the article is fleshed out, then notability can be established. If I, or anyone else says, "this article fails GNG" because it does not show any significant coverage by reliable sources and is a page of plot information. That's in fact a true statement. Now, if you or anyone else comes back and shows a bunch of sources that indicate notability, then that statement is no longer true. That's how it works. It doesn't negative the validity of the comment originally. I did not say that the article couldn't be notable, or that the character was not notable (which is what it seems like you are trying to imply that I was). I said that this article doesn't show that notability and thus fails GNG (..GNG isn't used to say something can or should be notable, it merely outlines the criteria necessary to show that). Yes, I did see the other option. I'm ambivalent about it, which is why I didn't say anything and only voted against the one that obviously should not exist. Again, weird how you feel the need to dictate how my responses should be. Almost as if you have some personal issue with me or my editing. Hmm. That's the end of that, no need to bog down this RM with needless banter about whether or not this page did at one time fail or not fail the GNG. :) Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm trying to ignore your uncivil attitude of accusing me of personally signaling you out , while I've explained over and over again why I responded directly to you. If you'll continue I'll have to take this issue elsewhere. Lets not get there. Back to the point though, while I support your thought of how GNG should work, you are again mistaken. I've been around more than a few discussions and providing sources is not really the job of anyone saying it passes GNG. It's enough just to show that they exist (hint, google would have cleared that up for you). So yes, saying it does not pass GNG in a discussion about a page move, is misleading and irrelevant to the point and does not contribute to the present issue discussed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I said nothing uncivil, I merely pointed out a weird thing to me. Mischaracterizing my words is far more egregious to me than this notion that I would somehow influence others reading my statement of notability. Congratulations about being around for awhile, it's hard to keep people on Wikipedia for extended periods of time, but doesn't change the fact that the onus of supplying said Google search is not on the person pointing out GNG issues. Thanks though. Again, your argument only make sense if I had actually nominated this article for deletion on grounds of failing the GNG. I didn't...you just decided to make a mountain out of a molehill for......whatever your reason was. Happy Editing to you; hope you last another 7 years. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm trying to ignore your uncivil attitude of accusing me of personally signaling you out , while I've explained over and over again why I responded directly to you. If you'll continue I'll have to take this issue elsewhere. Lets not get there. Back to the point though, while I support your thought of how GNG should work, you are again mistaken. I've been around more than a few discussions and providing sources is not really the job of anyone saying it passes GNG. It's enough just to show that they exist (hint, google would have cleared that up for you). So yes, saying it does not pass GNG in a discussion about a page move, is misleading and irrelevant to the point and does not contribute to the present issue discussed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but when someone challenges the notability of said article (and I didn't formally challenge anything, I made an off-hand comment that you took as some serious admonishment of this article), it isn't that person's responsibility to see if those sources exist. The point of "NEXIST" is to say that if you can show that sources exist, regardless of the fact that the article is fleshed out, then notability can be established. If I, or anyone else says, "this article fails GNG" because it does not show any significant coverage by reliable sources and is a page of plot information. That's in fact a true statement. Now, if you or anyone else comes back and shows a bunch of sources that indicate notability, then that statement is no longer true. That's how it works. It doesn't negative the validity of the comment originally. I did not say that the article couldn't be notable, or that the character was not notable (which is what it seems like you are trying to imply that I was). I said that this article doesn't show that notability and thus fails GNG (..GNG isn't used to say something can or should be notable, it merely outlines the criteria necessary to show that). Yes, I did see the other option. I'm ambivalent about it, which is why I didn't say anything and only voted against the one that obviously should not exist. Again, weird how you feel the need to dictate how my responses should be. Almost as if you have some personal issue with me or my editing. Hmm. That's the end of that, no need to bog down this RM with needless banter about whether or not this page did at one time fail or not fail the GNG. :) Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to miss the giant big bold sentence that I linked to which says
- Yeeessss, but my comment was based on what was here. Based on this page, there were no sources to say it was notable. Notability is also not simply inherited, nor is it something that we just go "hey, I know this is notable even though I cannot prove it". I also didn't call for the deletion of the article, I merely pointed out that it fails the GNG (you have to be able to show that sources exist), and I said that it would need to be fixed. Again, no real reason to specifically call me out on, especially when another editor acknowledged the issue at hand. Seems more like a personal reason you may be doing that, especially considering you came directly at me...after someone else had already supported the fact that the page was lacking evidence to support its existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I responded because saying it "fails WP:GNG" is misleading. WP:NEXIST (sadly) does not care about the current situation of the article, but on the existence of suitable sources. So saying that that failed because the article was bad, is against the same guideline you cited. --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- First, it did fail the GNG. There was not significant coverage on this page about the character when I saw it. It was plot and some lines about the suit. That was failure; the fact that someone added a bit more doesn't change what it was. As for how a RM works, it works in the sense there is a move request. You support or you oppose. I stated at the start that I opposed the specific suggestion. Really unsure why there was a need to specifically respond to my statement in the first place in some vain attempt to chastise me about calling out the article for failing the GNG at the time I cast my vote for not moving to "Barry Allen (The Flash)". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I doubt the page will be deleted (as it doesn't fail GNG). Also, not really how RM works. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support the move to Barry Allen (Arrowverse) but only if major improvements are made. Otherwise, I would agree with Bignole that it does not meet WP:GNG. Possibly move back to draft, but using the Arrowverse disambiguator for reasons of WP:CONSISTENCY? AutumnKing (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it has now been improved, I feel it should be moved to Barry Allen (Arrowverse) for consistency. AutumnKing (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I made this page for a school assessment, I am currently still editing. I also think that Barry Allen (Arrowverse) is a better title. Pavement 1997 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support move to Barry Allen (Arrowverse) per WP:CONSISTENCY. - Brojam (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not mind this article being moved to Barry Allen (Arrowverse), since he has made various appearances outside The Flash. But the fate of this RM will decide whether Joe West (The Flash) will be moved to Joe West (Arrowverse) or not. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
Article creation[edit]
I just noticed, when looking at this edit via WP:Huggle, that this article now exists. As seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 24#Character articles for The Flash (2014 TV series) and Supergirl (TV series) in 2017, I was going to create it. But it's now one less thing on my to-do list. I'll likely expand and clean up the article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Above, I see that Bignole changed his mind about the title of the article. Makes sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. LOL. I think following the rules, it would be "Barry Allen (The Flash character)", but it isn't a battle worth fighting. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
The Flash LoC section[edit]
Since this article has been created, does anyone want to help copyediting Barry's section in the List of The Flash characters page? I feel like a lot of the detail in the LoC could be trimmed (or maybe incorporated here if it's relevant enough). If there's a separate article for him, I don't think the list of characters page really needs that much detail. Thoughts? Rfl0216 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say trim it to the bare minimum required with {{main}} linking to here - this should probably be done for Joe West as well. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
More detail of crossovers[edit]
Hello, my first time here so please forgive my ignorance. I was wondering if it were possible to have more detail for crossovers. I have been watching Arrow and wanted to see how the two intersected and when by listing the season and episode. I have yet to discover information out there that had the consise details I was looking for when I found this page. First crossover being Arrow S2:E8 The Scientist, then S2:E9 Three Ghost. It would be helpful to fans to understand the timelines better. There are a few mentions further in Season 2 and 3 of Arrow but unsure how precise a page like this should be. Please advise how to proceed. Meltigger (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)