Template talk:Arrow (TV series)

Television: Arrowverse Template‑class

This template 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. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Arrowverse task force.

This navbox is more about the Arrowverse than just Arrow, and I think it would make more sense to adjust it slightly to actually be an Arrowverse navbox, and put it on all the relevant pages. I know that there is no actual Arrowverse page (yet), but these articles do have sections in them dedicated to how they are related, and navboxes are simply collections of links to related articles that prefereably have been established as related in the articles themselves, so I hope that this will still be considered. I am proposing something like this:

I have not changed which links are present, just rearranged them into a more logical order. It just seems ridiculous to have an Arrow navbox that is more about the Arrowverse than the series; you could easily rearrange it another way to have a Flash navbox or a Legends of Tomorrow navbox, and there would be little difference because again it focuses on the wider universe rather than the actual series. So, does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a comic book reader, I just watch the TV programs so I think I'm representative of the general readership, and I can see the general readership asking why the template is called "Arrowverse" and not, say, "Flashverse", or something else. There was another template created not long ago, which I think had a better layout,[1] althought that's not perfect either. Normally, when we include several series we make the templates more elegant. See {{NCIS television}} or {{Chicago franchise}} At this time, I think I agree with Bignole, whose reason for reverting the earlier change was inappropriate, there other pages doesn't have enough and we don't need to rename this template at this time.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are moving towards a version of this template eventually, but I'd also agree to hold off on it at this time. While not the definite "change time", I think if Legends gets more secondary pages associated with it, it would be beneficial. Because at this time, Vixen was only the six episode, and there is no indication for more of it. (And even if there was, it would not necessitate a character or episodes page yet.) And who knows the thinking with Legends at this time. Is it just the one season, are they planning more? But even then still, more episodes might not require the need of extra pages. So I'd say we hold off for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But even if we don't get more pages, we are still dealing with a template that is pretending to be an Arrow navbox, but is really primarily an Arrowverse navbox. I'm not asking to make any big changes, just to do what is apparent to anyone who looks at this navbox and sees a couple of Arrow links, and then a whole lot of non-Arrow links. And somebody unfamiliar with the topic getting confused is not a concern for the navbox, as the whole point of the navbox is to provide links so that readers can learn more. If they follow the logical steps and read some of the articles, they will see sections specifically about the Arrowverse that can explain the name. Also, a FAQ note can be added to this talk page if required. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"somebody unfamiliar with the topic getting confused is not a concern for the navbox" - Actually it is a big concern. We always try to follow the principle of least astonishment, no matter whether it's an article or a template.

"the whole point of the navbox is to provide links so that readers can learn more" - The main purpose of navboxes is actually to provide links to related article to simplify navigation between related articles. The related articles don't even have to be within the "Arrowverse". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read WP:ASTONISH and it is not applicable here. This is a navbox, we don't need to explain anything. That is up to the linked articles, which it turns out do in fact explain this (and as I said, a FAQ section can be added to this talk if necessary). Remember that a casual user will only come across this navbox while on one of the linked pages, so if they want to know how that page fits into something called the Arrowverse, they need only look at the section of that article that is helpfully titled 'Arrowverse'. Also, what you and I said about the point of a navbox was the same, there was no need to get pedantic about wording. What I was saying there originally was that the navbox solely provides the links; it is up to the articles to give any information. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASTONISH does indeed apply: most importantly to the heading of the template, which in your version doesn't link anywhere. That's a clear violation of WP:ASTONISH. If you had actually read the guide you'd note that it links to Principle of least astonishment, which explains the principle further. Readers shouldn't have to come to the talk page of the template to find a FAQ so they know what is going on. The information should be clear without having to go anywhere. That's how WP:ASTONISH applies.

"if they want to know how that page fits into something called the Arrowverse, they need only look at the section of that article that is helpfully titled 'Arrowverse'." - That section isn't even linked from the template. Again, readers shouldn't have to go looking in order to work out what an Arrowverse is. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be picking and choosing specific parts of my responses to read, or just plain ignoring my explanations. The full quote, that you attempted to argue against only partially, is "Remember that a casual user will only come across this navbox while on one of the linked pages, so if they want to know how that page fits into something called the Arrowverse, they need only look at the section of that article that is helpfully titled 'Arrowverse'." - adamstom97 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a separate page about Arrowverse too. MasterRugs13 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add more of the relevent articles however It would be far too clutered so I am going to reformat the list. If anyone wants to contest this idea I'll revert it back. (with the update list) OLI 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]