Talk:Arrow (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Loosely based upon"[edit]

This has come up, with pros and cons. On the pro side, we have multiple references that note the loose translation from comic to the series - a loose adaptation endorsed by the showrunners. On the con side, there appear to be editors who think that the descriptor somehow denigrates the series. It doesn't; it simply defines the series as having used the comics a starting point before venturing forth. And you, know, references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea you started a discussion. 4 reverts in 24 hours... that reminds me of something. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how calling it a loose interpretation is inaccurate. The series deviates from the source material quite a bit. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't "loosely based upon" and I've removed that wording. How the show deals with its comic counterparts is one thing, but it is still based upon the character and comics, no matter how much of those interpretations are to the T of the comics versions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Your statement of an opinion as an absolute fact aside, can you (without talking to me like a child) explain how the word "loosely" makes it inaccurate? There is a lot of deviation. Nobody disputes that the series is based on the comic, but when the series deviates routinely, the basis seems to be a more loose interpretation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And I've reinstated it. Respectfully, removing cited material from reliable sources to support a preferred version isn't very cool or collaborative. You can discuss it here, not edit war it in the article. If something is a loose adaptation of something else, it means that it is taking the elements of the source material to make something that isn't the same as the source material. The further away from the source material the thing is, the looser the connection. Perhaps you should take a knee and explain your motivation for removing both the 'loosely' characterization as well as several reliable sources. Since the discussion is ongoing here (and you aren't going to find anything approaching consensus by edit-warring it back in), maybe hold off on reverting for a bit. Let's discuss this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: "Based on" inherently means this object is adapting the original, not being a direct correlation of the original material. If it was, the wording would be "It is a direct adaptation of the character Green Arrow" or the like. Adding "loosely" before "based on" doesn't help further quantify this how much it is (fully) or isn't (loosely) based on the source material. And since it is only using it as a basis and is based on the comics, there is a safe assumption that there will be deviations.
@Jack Sebastian: See my response to Niteshift above. Additionally, RE Respectfully, removing cited material from reliable sources to support a preferred version isn't very cool or collaborative. Seriously? You are making it sound like I completely changed what was added. If you actually saw the diff, which apparently you didn't, I only removed one source that was not reliable (The Outhousers one) and then just did a C/E on the rest of the material to make it sound/flow better. Plus moving it below the season reception. Also not edit warring, that would be you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You are going about this in the wrong way, Favre1fan93. The edit-warring has to stop and pronto. I'm sorely tempted to report you right now for ignoring a discussion to edit-war your pet version in. You did completely change what was added by removing a the 'loosely' bit of the statement that was explicitly reinforced by several sources. So you didn't like the source? You come here and tell us, and we talk about it. That's how collaborative editing works. You shed the assumption of good faith when you pull stupid shit like that. Now, you can either self-revert, or I can report you. It's as plain as that. Clocking is ticking, son. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to cut the attacking attitude. It seems as though you are just looking to get into arguments and not discuss, seeing as you threaten the ultimatum of me reverting or you reporting. First off, since you reported me for no valid reason, as I said there, I edited the article one, outside of whatever happened before, and then reverted you one time. That isn't edit warring. Second, I don't need to discuss copy editing or the removal of unreliable sources. But if you whole point is that I removed "loosely", then you shouldn't have reverted me, undoing those valid edits, and simply readded the "loosely" word. So that is on you, not me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your definition. If I make a movie based on a real event, the adaptation can be very true to the source (such as Apollo 13 or Tora Tora Tora) or loosely based on the source (such as Braveheart). Both Apollo 13 and Braveheart can say "based on", but the amount of movie that is actually based on the event and the amount based on what the producer thought would make a good movie are drastically different. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I still don't feel we need a quantifier before in this instance. Yes there are differences in the show from the comics, but at its base, the core elements of the character and story is generally there. If this was say, for example, a TV show meant to be an adaption of DC Comics' Green Arrow, but the character isn't called "Oliver Queen" and the setting was the far future, or the like, then I could see including "loosely". But not in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Both may have an Oliver Queen, but Oliver Queen isn't the only character. Braveheart had William Wallace, but the movie version was much different than the historical one the movie was loosely based on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that we do. There are significant differences between the series and the comics. The showrunners themselves have noted that they aren't going to follow the comics that closely. Granted, the adaptation isn't as drastic as, say Contantine, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Wanted, but the differences are notable. There is the matter of Thea. Then there is the odd origina story that departs markedly from the comics. Then there is the whole killing thing. Then there is the alternative backstories for virtually every single one of the villain used in the series. Then there is the costume, and the missing forked beard. And Dinah Lance - oops, its Laurel Lance now, and oops, she's dead.
These are marked departures from the comic books that consistently loosen the connections between the two versions, and that - according to the showrunners - is be specific design.
Plus, there is, you know, references in support of the characterization. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are a couple of reliable sources that use that characterization and I think that's getting overlooked. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to add another sentence after the current "It is based on..." more along the lines of this" "Arrow features loose adaptions of the comics characters in the series, particularly with Thea Queen." That is directly sourced by the added material, and would be a better way to present the info IMO, if we need "loose" somewhere in the lead, which I still feel we really don't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's closer to a solution (which is good), but it fails to reflect that the series Oliver Queen shares very little with the comic book version of the same character. And Thea Queen doesn't even exist inthe comics, so there's no adaptation possible there. Nor is there a Diggle, or a cadre of helpers. With the exception of Speedy (a teenaged boy) and later Dinah Lance (who in the series is dead), the series only uses the most superficial nods to the comic books.
Yes the series uses the comic books as a source, but they depart madly from that point. We have several sources that say very much the same thing, including that of the showrunners. It doesn't weaken the article to a) follow the sources and, b) tell the truth. This is a very different character. That's not a bad thing, per se - it just is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Just out of curiosity, who here actually watches the show? I think those who do watch would actually agree it is a "loose adaptation" or "loosely based on". Just change it back please. (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, the consensus now appears to be 3-1 in favor of inclusion of hte term 'loosely' with respect to the nature of the adaptation from the comic book source material and the tv series. If you are sure that we cannot sway your opinion on the matter, your alternatives are to accept the consensus as it has developed and allow the inclusion with references, or opt to open an RfC on the matter. Let us know how you would like to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
If we were saying this is a "loose" adaptation of a comic book then that would make sense, but "loosely" based on a character is redundant and has unnecessary connotations. If reliable sources really are to be included in the lead like this, then wouldn't saying something more like "based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow, though the series' interpretation has been compared more to the DC Comics character Batman". That avoids this "loosely" based on nonsense (making changes in an adaptation is not unique) and gives the readers a clear idea straight up that some specific liberties have been taken with the character instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Adamstom 97. Yes, what I think we are saying is that the series is a loose adaptation of the comic book; there are so many differences that the term doesn't apply to any one character. Is that a more acceptable solution for everyone else here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Consensus isn't the result of a vote or a poll Jack. And again with giving out ultimatums! Seriously, not good editing practices or encouraging for editors to work with you on resolving issues. Jumping right to an RfC is unnecessary as that is also a last measure resort when all discussion has failed. The conversation is still moving and progressing. Adam, that was what I was trying to get at in my wording in a response above, trying to actually avoid including "loose"/"loosely". I like the direction of your suggested wording, though am thinking, since it is in the reception section, it should be moved completely to the fourth lead paragraph, where the reception is talked about, and left completely alone from the "based on" text. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agreed that talking about a RfC is very premature. I'm pretty satisfied with calling it a loose adaptation. I see no issues with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I just think that if there are problems with the "based on" statement, it couldn't hurt to stick that line in. We could then, in summarising the reception info, say "in addition to the Batman comparison..." or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There re problems with the 'based on' text without acknowledging the cited observation that its a loose adaptation. They've taken some major liberties with the source material, and that's a fact. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The idea of "loosely based" has largely stemmed from books to film, because films take lots of liberties at times with the source material. In those cases, it's a single translation that is loose, like, maybe a concept was borrowed. The reason that that doesn't apply here is that comic books typically don't have 1 hard set reality or cannon. So, to say it was "loosely based" becomes irrelevant, because all comics are loosely based on their original source material to a degree. Every time a character gets a revamp, it's something new. THink of the New 52. You could argue that that is loosely based on the original character storylines. THat's why I don't think it's best or accurate to say "loosely based" because we're not talking about one specific story that this show is based on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, Bignole, that's an inapplicable argument. Firstly, the reason that the "loosely-based" term has largely been applied in book-to-film adaptations has been that there haven't been a lot of comic book adaptations to the screen until recently. So, suggesting that therm belongs relatively exclusively with the book2film adaptation is a bit dated. And discriminatory towards the comic book medium.
Additionally, the material chosen from for this tv series is the Green Arrow material that has pretty much been consistent and continuous since the character's creation in 1941, adapting for the times. And how do I know that? Two ways: first, the showrunners have said so. Secondly, the New 52 comic book series was started in 2012...after the series premiered and is an alternate timeline created by Flashpoint. Now, if you are intimating that this is an alternate universe or an alternate timeline, we should say that.
Alternatively, we could simply say what is both obvious and cited - that the televsion series is a loose adaptation of the comic book character and series. Because it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This show is not a loose adaptation. "Loosely" implies that there are very, very drastic changes made from the source material, often to the point that there are little similarities besides the name. An example of this would the film adaptation of World War Z. Although the show does re-imagine the characters in a new setting, it is still a direct adaptation of the Green Arrow comic book franchise. DarkKnight2149 02:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, Darkknight2149 - you are using the term 'loosely' and believing it is a synomym for 'drastic'. It isn't drastic. The character is still recognizable as Green Arrow (with a hefty nod to the Batman thang), but there are notable, sizable and undeniable differences. the comparison could easily be made with World War Z, but I think you are looking at this as some sort of affront to either the series, the comic books or to geekdome everywhere. As a geek myself, I don't think that's the case. WE ARE FOLLOWING WHAT THE SHOWRUNNERS HAVE THEMSELVES SAID. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Darkknight, there are some pretty significant deviations between the comic and the show. Significant enough to recognize it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And that's just it. A loose adaptation does imply drastic changes. There are sizable differences, sure, but none drastic enough for this to be considered a "loose adaptation", especially given the changes made from the fourth season (such as him taking on the "Green Arrow" moniker and the city becoming Star City). But even before that, it wasn't a "loose adaptation". Most of the characters fill the same roles as their comic counterparts, and the same goes for many of the other key elements. Even the darker tone matches up with a variety of Green Arrow stories (he isn't always a comedic jokester). But all of that obligatory analysis aside, it takes more than a few "sizeable differences" for something to be considered a loose adaptation. As previously mentioned, much of the key elements of the comics and the character roles remain the same, even if a lot of it is changed. No adaptation is exactly like the comics. And (on a side note) if we are to consider this a "loose adaptation", are we to start taking a number of other adaptations that make a lot of changes into consideration (Tim Burton Batman films, Gotham, FANT4STIC, ETC)? I try to stay away from WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but this does seem like a can of worms that could easily be opened. DarkKnight2149 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Darkknight and Bignole have both presented the arguments I was trying to make above in better terms and examples. Thanks. I agree with what you are both saying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's go on the definition of drastic changes - John Diggle was never a comic book character in the first place (was put into the comics after the show, doesn't count). Felicity Smoak was never a Green Arrow character (she's a Firestorm character), Merlyn never had a son named Tommy, Shado was an anti-hero who raped Oliver, not the pure-hearted character they portrayed in the show. Oliver Queen is nowhere near as politically conscious as his comic book counterpart (pre-52), nor does he run Q-core (post-52). Dinah Laurel Lance is not a metahuman......I can keep going on. Sure, you can say that adaptations aren't meant to be 100% true to comics, and I agree with that. But NONE of the storylines on the show (aside from the island one, which is barely a nod to the comics as he's in and out there for 2-3 years max) are remotely comic book inspired. So no, the characters don't fill the same roles as their comic counterparts. At best, this is a LOOSE adaptation of the source material (which again, the writers pretty much don't care about). BTW, Tim Burton's Batman for all its leniency on the source material, still captures the very essence of Batman/Bruce Wayne (a man with a lot of darkness, struggling to balance two identities). Gotham still paints a nice origin story for all its rogues, with the overarching theme of why this city eventually needed a Batman. FANT4STIC....well that's definitely a loose adaptation. (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
IP, those aren't really "drastic" changes per what Darkknight said above. No one here is denying there are adaptive differences, but, again as Darkknight said, saying "loose" anywhere implies drastically different portrayals. And again, all mediums outside the comics will present their own portrayals of the material. It is also worth mentioning that the opening of the series says "Based on characters appearing in DC Comics", which tells you right there that the characters are from the comics, with some originals, but how they appear in this series might not be exactly as they have appeared on a comic page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC), I should also add that that sounds more like an opinionated analysis based on how you feel about how the show adapts the source material, rather than a relatively objective argument (especially when you said that the only thing keeping the Tim Burton Batman films from being a loose adaptation is that you feel it captures the spirit of the character). DarkKnight2149 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No, DK, let's not do that. Let's avoid addressing the editor and focus on the content of the post, please. Its going to keep matter a lot more civil, and that's the only way that we're going to get things done.
I think we are encountering drastic differences in how we are individually defining the terms 'adaptation and 'loose adaptation;. We cannot use the phrase frm the "based on characters appearing in DC Comics"; producers of shows can verify their product, but the cannot evaluate their product, which is why reviews exist. We are fortunate to have reviews that note the loose adaptation from comic book to series; indeed, they are even in the article. Is there the feeling that by noting the series is a loose adaptation, the series is less good? We are not making a value judgment of the series content, apart from noting that it doesn't match closely the source material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Sebastian, you bring up an interesting point - it does seem like we are defining the phrase "loose adaptation" differently. As such, I did a search for an official denotation of the term. The best I could really find comes from this official website from an American university. The university defines the term as follows "In a loose adaptation, a director may only use the original situation, story idea, or characters to create a film that bears little resemblance to the original text." The site then goes on to list a few examples. Although it was referring to film, I think the same would apply to a television series as well.
Going off that specific denotation, I don't think Arrow would qualify. The premise of an emerald archer acting as a street level vigilante is the same, the majority of the characters come straight from the comics and fulfill the same general roles (Black Canary still acted as a vigilante/potential love interest to the main character, Roy Harper still acted as a partner archer, most of the villains on the show were also villains in the comics, ETC), all of the major locations are the same (Star City, the island, Queen Industries). As far as story goes, although much of it is original (which is to be expected in any comic-based television series), Green Arrow's backstory is still a variation of his origin from the comics (being stranded on the island), and in the special features on the Season 1 DVD, it's directly stated that the first season was heavily influenced by the Year One and The Longbow Hunters storylines from the comic.
There are certainly a lot of major differences. Nobody is debating that. But looking at the core essentials (the specific characters, the general roles of the characters, the key settings, the premise, backstory, ETC), I don't think the term "loose adaptation" can accurately be applied here. DarkKnight2149 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for researching and presenting that Darkknight2149. And as I've been saying, a phrase or sentence would be fine to put in the lead discussing how the series has diverted from the comics material, but as Darkknight greatly pointed out right above me, using "loose" or "loosely" in front of the "based on" phrase is incorrect in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Okay, I am not entirely sold on jettisoning the 'loosely based upon', but I am going to keep an open mind. Offer some alternative suggestions.The Lede cannot remain the way it is currently especially when we have references that explicitly note the departures from the source material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In the context of the articles using the citations, most of the cases seem to just indicate the opinion of the person writing the article. There's even one point where it is said that Green Arrow killing criminals is a departure (because apparently he's never done that in the comic before...), as well as the appearance of Mia AKA Thea as Speedy (who also exists in the comic). One of the citations even stated in the title that it was from the opinion of a longtime comics fan.
I would be okay with stating in the Critical response section that reviews have observed a number of significant differences between the show and the source material. Perhaps we could do a section about the significant deviations between the show and the comic. But this doesn't seem to be enough to state that it's "loosely based" on Green Arrow as a fact. DarkKnight2149 21:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There will always be differences between the source material and the new media. Even 300 and Watchmen had some differences, and those were virtually shot for shot translations. The story of Green Arrow is a billionaire is stranded on an island, learns archery through various trainings, comes back to home town and acts as the local hero. That's the basic premise of Green Arrow, and that is translated here. That's not a "loose adaptation". The fine details of borrowing from Batman or some other hero don't negate that the show is directly based on Green Arrow. THe comics do not have one defined canon for him, so it is still "based". It doesn't say "adapted from", as that would indicate are more direct translation. "Based on" implies that the basic essence of the story is based on this character and their history. You can argue that a specific character is a "loose translation", as many of the villains are, but the show itself is plainly based on the story of Green Arrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I should also note that, even in the comics, Green Arrow has been borrowing from Batman since his creation. At one point, he even had an Arrow-Plane and a Arrow-mobile. So that is also nothing new when comparing Arrow to the comic. DarkKnight2149 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put on my comic nerd hat for a moment to point out that Green Arrow has killed approximately once. Inthe series, he spent most of his evenings being a serial killer - harsh truth, but if the shoe fits. Secondly, the comics Oliver Queen teaches himself on the island - not "learns archery through various trainings." There is no Thea Queen in the comics, as Oliver is an only child. Yes, the character was developed as a cookie cutter crime fighter as per Batman, and this series does try to rob as much as it possibly can from the Batman storyline (as per the intent of the showrunners).
It is an adaptation, but not a very faithful adaptation. I am open to hearing alternatives for how to term the adaptation int he Lede, since we already have references in the body of the article noting it as a loose adaptation and approximately as such by the showrunners themselves. I am also aware that WP:OSE, but I'm concentrating on this article, not another one. Let's find an alternative, because we have to note that the adaptation isn't a faithful one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Again putting on our nerd hats (which we, myself included, are probably doing more than we should to be honest), I beg to differ. Green Arrow has killed a lot, especially in the Mike Grell run on the series (one of the more famous runs that began with Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters, which the showrunners have stated to be a heavy influence on the show). Thea is implied to be an adaptation of Speedy (Mia Dearden), as her middle name is "Dearden" and she later assumed the name "Mia" (although she was not Oliver Queen's sister in the comics by any means). And the storyline of Green Arrow not being the only person stranded on the island was influenced by Green Arrow: Year One. But all that aside, I should stress that our arguments aren't motivated by some misplaced fanboyisms, although this conversation has brought up comparisons between the show and the comic for obvious reasons.
Regardless of our "nerd hat" arguments, I don't understand the logic of us absolutely having to change the word "adaptation" simply because a few sources have used the "loose adaptation" term in an informal manner. There are major differences, but not enough for this to be a genuine "loose adaptation" (per the university definition given above). Every adaptation is different from its source material, and this is an adaptation. I think it's really that simple. DarkKnight2149 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, almost every adaptation is different from the source material, but most of those don't have references that clearly state that its a loose adaptation. We do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, pretty much every adaptation is discussed in terms of its similarity to the source material, whether sources are mentioning a fan response, their belief that too much was changed, or too little, or discussing specific reasons for why changes were made. It is not that uncommon. So, if you want to add reliable sources discussing specific, major, noteworthy changes from the source material, then that seems like a great idea to me. But calling out the series as a "loose" adaptation, as if it is less like its source material than any other adaptation ever made, seems a bit ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue?[edit]

What's wrong with including Canada in location? The country is present in other articles. Not allowed in this article's infobox? Secondly, why use a redirect, when the article is "Vancouver"? Alaney2k (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Including Canada is unnecessary, especially in an infobox where there's limited space. There's no other "Vancouver, BC" in the world so Canada is not needed for disambiguation purposes and if people are really curious about Vancouver and don't already know where it is, they can, as has been pointed out before, click through to the Vancouver article.
As for why use a redirect, because at some point, the city in BC may not be the primary topic at Vancouver, but it's highly unlikely it will never not be the primary topic at Vancouver, British Columbia (or Vancouver, BC assuming that redirect also exists). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"Country" is not "Country of filming", it's "Country of Origin" and it's not a Canadian show. It's an American show, that happens to be filmed in Vancouver. Why? Because it's super cheap and almost every CW and Warner Bros production is filmed in Vancouver because of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Vancouver Location falls under "Production" section in the Infobox. Further up in the Infoxbox the Country of origin is listed as United States. Both of these seem correct here. I don't think Canada has to be listed after Vancouver, but it would be good to clarify for readers from other parts of the world, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not the job of "Arrow (TV series)" to teach people where Vancouver (a pretty well-known city anyway) is, especially not in the infobox. If they really want to know, they can click on the link and be taken straight to the info. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether the link reads "Vancouver" or "Vancouver, BC" doesn't really matter, as long as it is a single link going to the right city. Vancouver and BC should not be separate links and Canada shouldn't be linked at all, per MOSLINK. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why Canada needs to be listed. If you click "Vancouver", you're going to get Canada.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Arrow (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Arrow series viewers (in millions overview) is it wrong ?[edit]

Hi guys I visit very frequently wikipedia for information and I found something that propably is wrong on Arrow tvseries wiki information: [1] here it reports that the season 5 average viewers in millions are 2.21 but this must be wrong because in 23 episodes the viewers are not up of 2 millions except of one episode so I sum all viewers of every episode and I divide it with the number of total episodes and the result is 1,75 and not 2,21 (another source which proves that I am correct is here: [2] so what is the correct thing if my number is correct how can we inform wikipedia to update it with the correct number and if I am wrong how this number is (2,21) is comming? Thnx in advance

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrow (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^