Talk:Arrowverse/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Supergirl

See the RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd say after the recent casual crossovers (Eve popping up on the Flash, Supergirl appearing in the four way crossover, the whole Duet thing) that Supergirl is an official part of the Arrowverse. Why are we still considering it an "other"? Scream4man (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Because "Arrowverse" refers only to Earth-1. Hope that solves your doubts. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But what about Freedom Fighters: The Ray taking place on Earth-X? Jester66 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not about Earth-1 or Earth-X or whatever. It's about franchises. Unless Supergirl is included in the Arrowverse franchise by the franchise runners, it's not part of the franchise. DonQuixote (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But isn't she now part of the "franchise" since last year due to the crossovers, the Supergirl character part of the Freedom Fighters show and having her universe be classified as Earth-38 in the Arrowverse? Or is this exclusion because the show didn't originate on The CW? Jester66 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Lots of different franchises have crossover. That doesn't mean that we combine the two franchises. (See DC vs Marvel of the 90s.) 2) The powers that be specifically said that Supergirl won't be part of the Arrowverse. DonQuixote (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole DC/Marvel thing is a separate issue from Supergirl and the relationship to the other shows on the CW. Didn't the interview say that Supergirl's Earth won't combine with Earth-1? Jester66 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not an separate issue because it happens all the time. See Bones/Sleepy Hollow crossover. Simpsons/Family Guy crossover. Mister Rogers/Captain Kangaroo. Also, they said the show won't be integrated into the Arrowverse. DonQuixote (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are incorrect examples to cite. And it doesn't matter what the creators may or may not have said at one time or another. What matters is how reliable source we can find report on these shows. See below. Jmj713 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, when reliable sources talk Supergirl, they often talk of the show as being part of the Arrowverse: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. That's just a more or less random sampling of some of the more recent news stories. Each one references Supergirl as part of the Arrowverse. Wikipedia has to go by what most reliable sources claim, and it's obvious to everyone that Supergirl is seen as part of the Arrowverse family of shows. It may take place in a different fictional universe, but it's part of the same franchise. It's on the same channel, most of the creative team is the same. There have been crossovers and will be next season. I do not understand how Supergirl can be considered in any way distinctly different from the Arrowverse (Arrow, The Flash, Legends). Jmj713 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Only two of those sources actually say that the show is part of the Arrowverse. The others just talk about the shows on the CW. At the moment, it's still fringe, and it's also contradicted by the primary source, the producers. DonQuixote (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmj713. How are they incorrect examples to cite?--they're examples of TV shows that have had crossovers. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read the ten cited articles carefully. I chose them each specifically because they talked about Supergirl in the overall context of the Arrowverse. Jmj713 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the text in each article that supports your claim. I only found it in two, and maybe three of them (on the fence on that last one). DonQuixote (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

With pleasure. Going in order, #1: Arrowverse: 4 biggest moments from the new Comic-Con trailers talks about the Supergirl trailer. #2: Comic-Con: Everything you need to know before the Arrow-verse panels talks about the Supergirl panel. #3: Which Arrowverse Show Do You Think Has the Highest IMDB Ranking? starts off with Supergirl. #4: How The CW's 4 Arrow-verse Shows Actually Compare In Popularity has Supergirl in second place. #5: Black Lightning Leads the Arrowverse in Comic-Con Trailer end with the sentence "The Arrowverse returns to the CW with new episodes, beginning with Supergirl on Monday, October 9." #6: Arrowverse heads back to work in behind-the-scenes photos, videos contains posts from Supergirl cast. #7: DCTV Shows Us Where The Arrowverse Heroes Come From starts off with "featuring the characters of the Arrowverse (Supergirl, The Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow)". #8: The Next Arrowverse Crossover Will Be More Emotional again ends with the note "The Arrowverse will return this October, when Supergirl Season 3 premieres on October 9 at 8 p.m. Eastern." #9: Why All The Arrow-verse TV Shows Will Be Darker Than Ever Going Into The New Seasons contains a slide on Supergirl. #10: Freedom Fighters: The Ray Trailer – Animation From Arrowverse Creators states that "With the premiere of Black Lightning next year, the Arrowverse will contain five live-action series". I can find more. Jmj713 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops on my part, just read the articles. (Sometimes titles can be misleading, though). I'm going to have to say that I'm on the fence on this one. If you can gain a consensus that these, and other sources, are enough then go right ahead. DonQuixote (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

We'll see what others might say but it's pretty cut and dry, especially now going into this new season. I would be surprised to see much if any coverage where Supergirl is explicitly stated as not being part of the Arrowverse. If there aren't any specific objections, taking the above into account, I might rearrange the article in a few days, unless someone else does it before me. Jmj713 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Supergirl is often broadly lumped in with the Arrowverse, as these sources clearly show, but it is not actually set in the Arrowverse and this is made clear whenever anyone actually gets into the nitpicky details of each show. That is why we don't state that Supergirl is set in the Arrowverse, since that would be false, but we do incude it in the article and discuss the way it crosses over with the other shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate and clarify how exactly Supergirl is not set in the Arrowverse? Does she need to appear on Arrow and The Flash every other episode? She's on another Earth. But it's still very clearly within the same overarching universe. And again, Wikipedian policy states we have to follow what reliable sources say. You may think it's "lumping", but most sources I am seeing are quite specific when talking about the Arrowverse and they're including Supergirl. Both in-universe and in the real world it is part of the universe. Jmj713 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The producers have been very clear, both in interviews and in the shows themselves, that there is a wider multiverse that includes all these shows, the other DC shows, and even the DCEU, existing in different universes within that multiverse, and one of those universes is the Arrowverse. It is called "Earth-1" in the shows, and that is the universe shared by Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, and Vixen. From the Arrowverse the characters can travel to other universes within the multiverse, whether it is Earth-2, Earth-19, Earth-38 (Supergirl's universe), or this new Earth-X that we are hearing about for The Ray. So obviously there are crossovers between the Arrowvers and Supergirl, characters have travelled between the two, and we discuss those here. But saying that Supergirl is set in the same universe as the other shows when it is clearly not, and when the producers have specifically stated that they do not want to do that at this time, is just lying for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to make it that complicated. We are talking about all these shows which are all part of a single fictional universe. Just because something takes place on a different Earth within it doesn't make it outside the overall Arroverse. If they decided to make a spin-off of The Flash based solely on Earth-2, but with intermittent crossovers wouldn't it still be part of the Arrowverse? Of course. And again, just a quick Google search will reveal dozens of articles when it is explicitly stated that the Arrowverse consists of four main shows: Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, and Supergirl. There's no gray area here, it's clear. And Wikipedia policy tells us to follow what reliable sources, which are independent and verifiable, say about the subject, not primary sources (the subject itself or the subject's creators). You are only taking into consideration in-universe logic, which is flawed anyway, but okay, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a DC Wikia. We have to consider what the real world understands when they think "Arroweverse". And independent reliable sources overwhelmingly confirm Supergirl is part of the Arroweverse. Jmj713 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It does need to be made that complicated. As adamstom97 greatly explained, the "Arrowverse" universe is not the same as the multiverse for which all these shows inhabit. The universe started with Arrow and slowly expanded to Flash and Legends. These series eventually were coined the "Arrowverse" (as we have sourced in the article). Then, CBS decides to make Supergirl, which the producers said was not part of the Arrowverse. The first season then established it took place on an alternate earth, existing in the multiverse of the Arrowverse. Once the series moved to The CW, it stayed on this earth and did not move to the Arrowverse. The key to all of this is, as has been confirmed by those related to the series, the term refers to a single universe (Earth-1), not the greater mulitverse in which it inhabits. At least at the time of this comment, that is not the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

But again you're treating this in-universe. In reality Supergirl is part of the Arroverse family of shows as I displayed above. The creators may not want to ever place Supergirl in Earth-1 for creative reasons but that's irrelevant to the franchise they've created. Jmj713 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Read more here: MOS:INUNIVERSE. Jmj713 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

In some places it's better to use independent sources over primary ones (e.g.: box office figures), but not cases like this. There's this interview where Riverdale showrunner Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa says, "you know how there’s the Arrow-verse and then there’s Supergirl, which kind of exists in a different universe — they still cross over, but they’re in a different universe". I'm not saying use this source, but I'm sure The CW/Arrowverse EPs told him this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For every source you find that says Supergirl is part of the Arrowverse, you will find one that contradicts that, especially those of last summer when Supergirl moved to The CW (now it seems many have forgotten what the producers said and what they have reported in the past): "The Flash, Arrow and DC's Legends of Tomorrow all exist in the same universe, while Supergirl resides in a different part of the multiverse on Earth-38."[1], "the upcoming four-show crossover will merely involve Supergirl traveling to the dimension of the Arrowverse. Many fans (including yours truly) had speculated that one of the side effects of The Flash‘s season 3 Flashpoint event would be a merging of the two universes, but apparently that’s not the case."[2], and from EP Andrew Kreisberg "Not for her entire world, but Kara will be traveling from her dimension to our dimension, ‘our’ being the world that ‘The Flash,’ ‘Arrow’ and ‘Legends’ lives in."[3]

But it's pretty clear from the producers and the initial reliable sources that the Arrowverse only refers to the Earth-1 universe for now. I'm pretty certain that near the end of The Flash's run they will end up merging these different earths in a major crossover storyline by bringing back all the main characters after their shows end. But until that happens, Supergirl and any other show not on Earth-1 is not in the Arrowverse.

I do think that this article needs some work so it's clear that Supergirl, Black Lightning, etc. are not part of the Arrowverse. Starting with the infobox image that shows Supergirl when she is not in the universe. This image would be much more appropriate or at least change the current caption. Also, we should completely remove the Supergirl characters in the recurring cast table. You cannot have it both ways; not include the series in the article's main series, but go ahead and list its characters in the universe's shared cast before it's the series is even mentioned once in the article! Mon-El, Winn, J'onn J'onzz, Eve Teschmacher have no business being in this article. (But that's being discussed below...) Maybe we could expand the "Multiverse" section explaining that Supergirl and BL exist in the DC Multiverse (so does the DCEU and the other DC shows like Powerless). - Brojam (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly when you say "Supergirl and any other show not on Earth-1 is not in the Arrowverse" you're viewing these series in-universe. I'm talking about the Arrowverse as a franchise of television shows, which are all part of the same fictional universe. Please read over my earlier points above. Jmj713 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing "Arrowverse" is not a franchise. Yes, we can say that the CW DC shows form a sort of franchise, but this franchise is not the "Arrowverse". - Brojam (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

So you agree, and that's what this article should focus on, because as the above-cited articles show, a reader looking for the Arrowverse but not aware of the various intricacies with the fictional universe and the various Earth will be confused, because they will be obviously expecting to see Supergirl as being a part of this series of TV shows, since most media is reporting on them as such. By the way, your own article is titled "20 Best Actors In The Arrowverse" and states: "When October finally rolls around, Greg Berlanti and the CW’s Arrowverse will be larger than ever. This fall, the CW will be home to four DC Comics properties. Arrow, The Flash, and Legends of Tomorrow will be returning for their fifth, third, and second seasons respectively, while Supergirl will move to the CW after its freshman run aired on CBS. With the Arrowverse continuing to grow, the four series are now showcasing more acting talent than ever before." Just another confirmation that Supergirl is almost always included when talking about the Arrowverse, at least since the move to the CW. Jmj713 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Supergirl is not set in the Arrowverse. That is a fact, and there is no point trying to dispute it. If you want to discuss whether this article should be about the Arrowverse, or any series based on DC properties produced by Greg Berlanti, then we can do that. But I think you'll find that the vast majority of the sources discussing these shows talk about creating or are in response to the shared universe, having crossovers of characters and plot lines, as well as full episode crossovers. That is what is notable about this, which is why the article is about the universe itself. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Then this article is incorrectly titled. I would suggest an article titled Earth-1 (Arrowverse) so that it can be devoted solely to what you are describing. But when regular people think of the CW DC TV shows, they think of them as the Arrowvere, that terminology has made it into the mainstream now. And that includes Supergirl as I have demonstrated numerous times earlier. This is the WP:COMMONNAME for this family of shows and that's what Wikipedia should reflect. What you are attempting is an in-universe half-measure. Jmj713 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Now you are the one trying to focus on the in-universe over the real world. It is called Earth-1 in-universe, but to us it is the Arrowverse, and it is the real-world idea of a fictional shared universe that is notable here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Brojam and Favre1fan93, can this interview with Katie McGrath be used to denote that Arrowverse, as a franchise, includes Supergirl? In that, she says, "That’s what Supergirl, and that’s what the Arrow-verse does, so well. You can have a wide spectrum of different types of people, and yet they’re all heroes." Kailash29792 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No. For Supergirl to be part of the Arrowverse, it either needs to move its setting from its own Earth to Earth-1, or the producers of the show need to make it clear that they intend the Arrowverse to mean the whole multiverse and not just a single shared universe (or that it means a "franchise" instead of any INUNIVERSE concepts, but I doubt that is going to happen). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? The Flash contains multiple Earths. The Arrowverse can contain multiple Earths under its umbrella, inlcuding The Ray. This is a silly discussion. To everyone just watching these shows, Supergirl is a part of the other four main series and vice versa. Jmj713 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Because we don't go off what "everyone just watching" thinks, we go off reliable sources and the creators of the shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "There is no word yet if the possible series would be part of the DC TV universe currently on The CW, which includes The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Arrow and Supergirl as well as web series on CW Seed like Vixen and Constantine". Can we stop this foolishness now? There are plenty of reliable sources placing Supergirl within the Arrowverse. Jmj713 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be a quote not directly from the showrunners, and only from the website itself, indicating their own personal beliefs. One source does not instantly negate what you call this "foolishness". -- Alex^TW 01:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, one source? Look at the top of this topic for many more. Jmj713 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, we need sources where any Arrowverse producer (like Berlanti or Kriesberg) says the term "Arrowverse" includes Supergirl, either as a franchise or multiverse. But as of now, it only refers to Earth-1. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As well as what Kailash29792 said, there is clearly WP:CONSENSUS that those sources do not support the idea of Supergirl being part of the Arrowverse and more that state otherwise. -- Alex^TW 14:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this gets back to the biggest issue with this article, as it covers a real world topic (a group of interrelated TV shows) in an in-universe POV, which is against Wikipedia policies. Moreover, Wikipedia policies include things like WP:COMMONNAME, which comes down to, regardless of what the show-runners may or may not say, it's what reliable sources covering the shows are calling this group of shows, and the majority of reliable sources, when covering the Arrowverse, include Supergirl in that. This is verifiable fact, and at the moment this article deviates from that. I've said this before, but some people are just intent on not listening, possibly just to be obtuse and claim ownership of the article, but if this was an in-universe article, excluding Supergirl, it would need to be renamed to something like Earth-1 (Arrowverse). Jmj713 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME? Did you link the right guideline? Just that I'm not seeing how it applies here, as we are not discussion the name of the article, but what is included in it.

Continue to throw around accusations of WP:OWN simply because you cannot understand the policy of WP:CONSENSUS and that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, and see where it gets you. I would also note that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, whereas WP:UNIVERSE is a manual of style, or a guideline. Your personal opinion has been noted; however, it's the people that have created and run this franchise, and the discussion of editors here, that ultimately decides what is included in this particular article.

There comes a time when it becomes a case of beating a dead horse... -- Alex^TW 02:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SUPERGIRL IS PART OF THE ARROWVERSE. END OF STORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.212.125 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus states otherwise. -- Alex^TW 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this even still being argued? Did you guys not see tonight’s episode? Supergirl is indeed a full on member of the Arrowverse. You can think that she is not if it makes you feel better but she is. A simple crossover was “Worlds Finest”. But then she crossed over again in Season 3 of Flash with Eve and then the Duet. And she appeared in the crossover event Invasion!. But tonight fully cements any doubt, considering that she is literally part 1 of Crisis on earth-X. A consensus is not needded, as it is a fact. Scream4man (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It's NOT original research at all. It's an evaluation on a talk page of a primary source to determine article content, and is allowed by policy per "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources...", which can be found in the first paragraph of WP:OR. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to mention Scream4man here just to make sure they see this and are aware that they are perfectly well within policy rights to post the above comment regarding a so called "original research violation". Huggums537 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Er...the comment isn't in violation of the original research policy--but it still is original research and cannot be used to justify including anything in the article proper without the citation of a reliable source. That last bit is what's going to violate the no original research policy. DonQuixote (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that last bit would violate all kinds of policy including WP:V. So, I can at least agree with you on that last tiny bit. Huggums537 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's textbook original research. You would need to cite a reliable secondary source that other editors can verify. DonQuixote (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way it’s written in the crossover section of the article let intends that Supergirl is part of the Arrowverse, but right afterward, it’s like if it weren’t. By the way, search all over the web for news of 2017 and its rather clear that Supergirl is part of the arrowverse (example: any article that review last night and tonight’s big crossover event). Also, I’m asking, but do editors consider Rotten Tomatoes like a reliable source? Cause these guys conside Supergirl as a part of the Arrowverse. If they do, why couldn’t Wikipedia? Here’s the link to the page : https://www.rottentomatoes.com/franchise/arrowverse/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.111.201 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What the media says isn't reliable in this case, only the showrunners like Berlanti or Kreisberg. Even though Katie McGrath (alias Lena Luthor) calls Supergirl part of the Arrowverse, the statement cannot be considered final and definitive. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Jmj713 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a question of due weight. The Rotten Tomatoes piece is a weak source because they're stating their opinion rather than a well-research article with proper fact checking. DonQuixote (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, could someone find a way to ask the showrunners in a way or another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.115.170 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it undue weight actually to go by what a showrunner may or may not have said on an occasion. Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to secondary sources, which are the media covering this television universe, and I've provided more than enough examples to show that in the eyes of journalists Supergirl is absolutely part of this television franchise which most people will call the Arrowverse. See multiple articles cited earlier in this topic. Jmj713 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You have to be careful with due weight. As I've said above, I'm going to remain neutral on this, but the question is, have you actually provided "enough" examples? That's the thing about due weight, is it too few so that it's still fringe or is it enough to affect (or reflect) popular perception? DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This type of thing is currently being discussed at MOS:FILM and WP:TV; permalinks here and here. As seen in those links, Hijiri88 is really concerned about the "continuity" topic. Looking at the current state of the article, I don't see that it's really excluding Supergirl. Yes, there are edits like this one by DonQuixote, which remove it from the infobox listing, but Supergirl is in the infobox image, mentioned in the lead, and is mentioned in the Crossovers section. It's not included in the "Main series" section, but it's not as heavily tied to Arrowverse as the other shows are.

Since this has obviously been discussed to death and is still being debated, I've started an RfC on the matter below to hopefully resolve the issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. I hope my little "sharing continuity with" discussion doesn't get overwhelmed with Arrowverse-focused editors claiming that those shows really do share continuity with each other. The problem with the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" topics is actually quite unrelated, and what I'm "really concerned about" is actually not so much "continuity" but Wikipedia parroting inaccurate marketing information from primary sources. For these shows, for all I know, the continuity is truly shared between them, so that even if Wikipedia is parroting marketing information, that information is at least accurate. With the Marvel shows, we have legitimate real-world concerns that, because the TV shows and films are controlled by different (rival) corporate entities, the films have a serious reason not to chare continuity the series. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Should Supergirl be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse?

There is a clear consensus that the Supergirl television series should be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One view is that the Supergirl television series should be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because a number of reliable sources state or imply that the show is a part of Arrowverse and because the show has been a part of Arrowverse crossovers. The other view is that Supergirl should not be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because the creators/showrunners have not identified it as being a part of Arrowverse. Thoughts?

For those viewing this discussion from the RfC page or an alert on their talk page, see the Talk:Arrowverse#Supergirl discussion for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Should – I think initially, it made sense not to include it because they made such a big deal about it being on a different network in a "different universe" but given the increasing number of crossovers with Supergirl since its move to the CW, and the fact that the Arrowverse is described as a "shared fictional universe", it is clearly in practice a part of the same group. When you have regular crossovers, characters that are "aware" of one another, and a fictional setup that already recognizes the existence of multiple universes... all this PLUS reliable sources that acknowledge the connection? I mean really, what with Earth-2 and Earth-X, etc., the Arrowverse is a shared fictional multiverse... and Supergirl is part of that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Should – So that I do not repeat myself, please see my posts on this topic above in July 2017 with plenty of reliable sources placing Supergril within the Arrowverse. Not to mention that taking into account that this fictional multiverse contains many different Earths, of which Earth 1 is just one but many more are mentioned and visited, it seems very inappropriate to exclude them. Technically, Freedom Fighters: The Ray does not take part in the "Arrowverse" as construed by the article, which differentiates (in-universe) various earths, while in actuality all these real-world series take place in the same continuity, fictional universe, etc. They share a network and creative talent. There is no case for Supergirl to be excluded. Jmj713 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe, depending exactly on what the sources say and exactly what we say based on them. "Imply" isn't good enough. I'll just repeat what I said at WT:MOSFILM: 'The gist: "set in the Foo universe" and "sharing continuity with" other things in the same fictional universe are not synonymous. Equating them is patently original research and not permissible. Numerous things set in a particular fictional universe have well-documented continuity forks, according to off-WP sources. We cannot second-guess these facts because we wish things were more tidy, or because we really just like writing the phrase "share[d|s|ing] continuity".'  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment - The crux of this RfC (and the larger discussion as a whole) is how this article should be formatted: is it either about the singular universe called by Berlanti Production producers as the "Arrowverse", which the series Arrow, Flash, LoT and Vixen reside, with additional mention of series existing peripherally to that single universe mentioned as currently; OR is it supposed to be about about the fictional multiverse that all these series inhabit, and has (incorrectly) been referred to by reliable third-party sources as the "Arrowverse"? Once a decision on how to present the article can be formed, "including" or "not including" Supergirl becomes irrelevant because the answer will be made. Given all of this, while I still support the idea that Supergirl is not a part of the Arrowverse, the article here may be benefitted more by reformatting it to discuss the shared multiverse these shows all inhabit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Favre, this depends on what we mean by "Arrowverse". Currently, we are defining the Arrowverse as a single shared universe, which is called Earth-1 in the show. That is why Supergirl is not considered part of the Arrowverse, because that show is set on Earth-38. If people want to include Supergirl in the Arrowverse here, then they need to provide a convincing argument for the term "Arrowverse" actually referring to the entire multiverse that is depicted in the shows. At the moment, our sources do not support that interpretation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But they do. At the beginning I provided ten articles that explicitly covered Supergirl as part of the Arrowverse. So, yes, I agree, this article should not focus on just Earth-1 but the entire multiverse, including Earth-X and Earth-38. It makes no sense otherwise, and sombody has actually already created an article for Earth-1 (Arrowverse). Also, if we need more recent articles with definitive statements, here are a couple: 1 ("Since then, the Arrowverse has doubled in size, adding both Supergirl and Legends"), and 2 ("DC has set up its CW TV shows – aka the Arrowverse – as a separate shared universe wherein the stories of Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow are told. [...] Now, with the DC TV universe deep into its sixth year, fans have come to understand just how the Multiverse works – that there are 52 Earths, each one similar but different.") This is explicitly stating that Supergirl is part of the Arrowverse which is a shared universe of TV shows all taking place within the same multiverse which contains 52 earths (well, 53 actually), of which Earth-38 is one. Jmj713 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Should The fact that it's supposedly set in a parallel reality that crosses over with the reality of the other shows frequently is in-universe trivia. This article treats "Arrowverse" as the name of the real-world franchise (the way most of the secondary sources seem to use the term), not the name of the "universe" in which most of the other shows take place (the way primary sources seem to use the term). Ideally, sources could be located to clarify the distinctioj, and we could rewrite the first sentence of the article to reflect how the name "Arrowverse" is already used throughout the rest of the article, and how articles on fiction are generally supposed to be written on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Not visiting cameo seems not ‘part of’. Only if it becomes frequently repeated would it seem part of the background reality. Markbassett (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Should: Clearly, all these shows are part of the same universe/multiverse (whatever you like to call it). Also, we have no [few] sources stating otherwise, but we surely do have [abundant] sources stating that it is so. (Didn't require much changing at all...) Huggums537 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I recommend that you read the above comments, because you'll find that your own comment will require changing after you do... -- Alex^TW 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out my oversight. In my defense, it was easy to overlook the sources since so very few are mentioned in the lengthy discussion. At any rate, I've modified my comment slightly to correct the mistake and I'm not surprised to find that the changes have little impact on the intended meaning of my comment after all. Huggums537 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Should - She has appeared in the last two crossovers, the last one of which started on her show. The Flash crossed over onto her show and she crossed onto his twice and Eve appeared once as well. She's even featured on the poster for the Arrowverse and The Ray (Which is being regarded as a part of it) has her evil doppelganger as a main villain. Why are we even still arguing this? Scream4man (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Should - The article treats "arrowverse" like a franchise, not as a subset of a larger fictional multiverse. Contrast this with Constantine, which is specifically noted as a "one-time deal". Argento Surfer (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support (i.e., should). Reliable, third-party sources are preferred to primary ones, and no local consensus here can override that. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand, they exist in the same fictional reality, isn't that the same universe? Why would that not be the same universe? South Nashua (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support It appears to me that people have to bend over backward and use the craziest of logic to claim that this show is NOT a part of the Arrowverse. It's ridiculous. It is SO obvious that it is part of the franchise.Rcarter555 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Should Summoned by a bot - agree with the conclusion above that it is much easier to cite and support the idea that it is part of the same universe than it is to disprove that theory. Comatmebro (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Should At this point, there is no reason to belive she is not part of the franchise 190.164.188.179 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Should Since Supergirl has crossed over with several episodes of the other shows, I think it should be included. Toshiba5 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question: Why is the Constantine crossover being allowed into the article as a main series, but not the Supergirl crossover? I don't understand why we are having this discussion, but nobody has seemed to notice this apparent contradiction? Huggums537 (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the web-series or the live-action series? I'm only seeing the former in the main series section. -- Alex^TW 08:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Does it really matter if it's "live-action" or "web"? You can still see the discrimination either way. Attempting to distinguish "web-series" from "live-action series" as if it somehow justifies the discrimination is an unfair comparison since Supergirl doesn't have a "web-series" to compare to anyway. Both Supergirl and Constantine are listed in the article under the crossover category, yet the Contantine "web-series" is being allowed, while Supergirl is not. I meant exactly what I said. Constantine is being allowed, while Supergirl is being excluded. Simple. Anyone can clearly see there is a contradiction when even Constantine "live-action series" is being excluded, while Constantine "web-series" is being allowed. That should make the contradiction obvious to anyone. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a Constantine live-action series which isn't part of the Arrowverse and a different Constantine animated series which is. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems counter-intuitive and contradictory to me. Constantine is part of the Arrowverse, but it isn't at the same time? It sounds like a case of wanting to have cake and eat it too. You claim they are "different", but according to the article the animated series has; "Matt Ryan reprises his role as John Constantine", "David S. Goyer will serve as executive producers, with Goyer having been one of the creators of the live-action series,", and discussions pending "regarding if any other characters that appeared in the cancelled live-action series to appear in the web series, or "how this version of Constantine will connect back to the live action storylines he's been a part of." Huggums537 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Constantine is part of the Arrowverse, but it isn't at the same time?

No, the animated series is part of the Arrowverse but the live-action series isn't--they're two different productions. Similarly, Never Say Never Again again isn't part of EON's Bond series even though it starred Sean Connery and involved Kevin McClory who were both involved with Thunderball--they're two different productions. You're the one conflating two independent productions and confusing yourself. DonQuixote (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is another inadequate example that fails to do a proper comparison since there is no "Bond universe" to compare it to. Besides, even if there were a "Bondverse" you can probably imagine I would still be arguing for the inclusion of Never Say Never Again into that hypothetical universe. I mean come on. It's Connery, it's Bond, it's based on Fleming's work, it's part of the "Bondverse". It's even mentioned on the Eon Productions and Thunderball (film) pages. That's a topic for another discussion though... Huggums537 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, it's adequate because Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. Saying that Star Trek (animated) is an Emmy-winning series while Star Trek (live action) is not an Emmy-winning series is not a contradiction because, in the real world, they're two different series. In the real world, Constantine (animated) and Constantine (live action) are two different series and saying two different things about two different series is not a contradiction, which was your argument. DonQuixote (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In the real world, it's not me who is "conflating" anything, it's this article and those editors who have been incorrectly summarizing sources to push their own POV who are "conflated". Also, if there is any "confusion" going on here, then it's not mine, but nothing more than the simple distractions which have been offered here so others won't see the obvious contradictions. All one has to do is take a look at my most recent edit to the article to see the POV pushing and I have no doubt it wouldn't stand up to much further scrutiny to see how conflated the rest of the article is either... Huggums537 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:TRUTH. DonQuixote (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:Truth, WP:TRUTHMATTERS and Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. Huggums537 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

From WP:Truth: Neutral point of view states that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. To emphasize: viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source DonQuixote (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, from WP:TRUTHMATTERS: So, NPOV directs us to state only objectively truthful things using Wikipedia's voice.

From WP:Truth, not verifiability: Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it.

Seriously, you really need to review these and understand them rather then throw them around like a bunch of buzz words. DonQuixote (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

From WP:TRUTH: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.", "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." and "It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.".

From WP:Truth: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.", "Some contributors have tried to get their preferred viewpoint enshrined as "the truth" on subjects dear to their hearts.", "A key Wikipedia policy is that articles should be "unbiased," or written from a "neutral point of view." We use these terms in a precise way that is different from the common understanding. It's crucial to grasp what it means to be neutral (in this sense)--a careful reading of this page will help.", "Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly...", "A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics.", "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct. And that is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here." and "We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of them.".

From WP:TRUTHMATTERS: "Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo, "This essay's position is that truth on Wikipedia does matter, and that claiming that it doesn't is at best disingenuous, and at worst, counterproductive to nuanced content dispute conversations.", "Our core policy of neutral point of view (NPOV) is primarily concerned with truth." and " Evaluations of the truth of a claim are central to following the policy of NPOV." [emphasis NOT added].

From WP:Truth, not verifiability: "It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)." and "It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but once you know that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge, most of the rest is more or less common sense."

So, while you are suggesting to other editors to read and understand essays before they "throw them around like a bunch of buzz words", perhaps you should consider the fact that it was yourself who "threw out the first buzz word" and I only followed suit to respond in like kind. Maybe think about that next time before you criticize others about things which you are guilty of yourself in how you lead by your own example. Huggums537 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you're the one pushing a POV because you're not citing reliable sources. It's your "private thought" that two different series being described differently is somehow a contradiction. There is no reliable source that says what you're trying to push. The fact that you haven't provided any reliable source to support your claims is why I mentioned WP:TRUTH. And the other guidelines don't support you either. If you read them carefully, you would understand that you would need to provide a reliable source first before evaluating the truth of a claim. The point is that to present each of these views fairly, we must first have the views of reliable sources--not the views of editors (content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors). Or another way of saying it: The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't). That's actually also what WP:TRUTH says, which you adequately quoted above--and we actually need sources before we can "cherry-pick" from them cos we can't cherry-pick from zero. So, fundamentally, the point is that we don't have to care about what you think is "the truth" but what reliable sources have to say. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that the animated series is the same as the live action series. The burden is on you to provide a source that says that. So, please, provide a source that says that the live action series is part of the Arrowverse or that the animated series is one-and-the-same as the live action series. DonQuixote (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you haven't provided any sources for YOUR "POV pushing" either. (A few ill compared examples don't count as sources.) So, yet again, we find ourselves in a situation where you foolishly make yourself look like a hypocrite by accusing me of the selfsame thing you yourself are guilty of. You seem like a rational and intelligent person, so you should not demean yourself in this way. It's your own "private thought" that my idea about there being a contradiction is "not correct". So, I can agree with you that we CAN'T pick from zero, so we could care less about what YOU think is "the truth" just as well. Also, I would kindly ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. I never at any point whatsoever made an "extraordinary claim that the animated series is the same as the live action series". So, please stop asking me to provide sources for claims that I never made. YOU, on the other hand, DID claim "No, the animated series is part of the Arrowverse but the live-action series isn't--they're two different productions." So, if anybody should be providing sources for claims, it's YOU. Also, if you were following all of this wonderful advice of your own that you are giving me about providing sources for claims to begin with then maybe we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now because you would have already proven to me that what looks like a contradiction isn't true because you've backed up your claim with reliable sources. As it stands, I can only assume that your advice must have very little value since you didn't use it yourself. This causes you to lose a certain amount of credibility since it now seems that you are willing to dole out advice that you apparently know to be of little value. Huggums537 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I never at any point whatsoever made an "extraordinary claim that the animated series is the same as the live action series".

So, then, what's your point exactly? If they're not the same, then your responses Does it really matter if it's "live-action" or "web"?, That seems counter-intuitive and contradictory to me. Constantine is part of the Arrowverse, but it isn't at the same time?, etc. don't make much sense. If they're different series, then comparing them to other different productions/series (as shown above) illustrates how it's not really counter-intuitive or contradictory, as you claim. To reiterate, Never Say Never Again shares two people who were involved with Thunderball in the same way that Constantine animated shares two people who were involved Constantine live-action. In other words, I wasn't pushing a POV but showing that "counter-intuitive and contradictory" isn't an "obvious fact" (ie, "the truth").

As for sources re:No, the animated series is part of the Arrowverse but the live-action series isn't--they're two different productions.: from Collider This all-new animated series from Warner Bros. Animation and Blue Ribbon Content follows DC’s popular comic book character John Constantine (voiced by the live action series star Matt Ryan), a seasoned demon hunter and master of the occult. or from IGN Cerone broke the news that the show was over and thanked fans for their continued support. Also, as I pointed out above, no one has ever considered an animated series and a live action series to be one-and-the-same but rather a spin-off or sequel: such as animated Star Trek or animated Planet of the Apes etc. And no source states that the live action Constantine is part of the Arrowverse, but for the animated Constantine: from IGN "[The relevant CW Seed shows are] all somewhat connected now to the Arrowverse for our purposes. We look at CW Seed as an extension," [Pedowitz] said.

So, yeah, the ball's still in your court. DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was content with just having my opinion about an existing contradiction, but you didn't want to just let me have my opinion without an argument. Despite the fact I wasn't even pushing for an idea of Constantine (live action) as being in the Arrowverse, you seem to have forced me into that position before I'm allowed to have my opinion about there being an existing contradiction. So, here goes...

From your own source: Collider) "Executive produced by David S. Goyer (The Dark Knight trilogy, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Constantine [live action series]." Suggesting production is in universe between both series. [emphasis added]

From the EP of your own source: IGN) "Many ingredients went into this TV series. From the dedicated cast that breathed these characters to life, led by Matt Ryan as the comic-made-flesh embodiment of John Constantine, to the exceptionality talented crew that put unreal images on screen, to the original Hellblazer writers and artists who gifted us a universe." and "The good news is that Constantine will live on for years in many more forms.". Suggesting the live show is in universe and hinting the show will continue in universe in another form i.e. the animated series. [emphasis added]

From your own source: IGN) "They're all somewhat connected now to the Arrowverse for our purposes..." Suggesting ALL the shows are in the Arrowverse. "We asked Berlanti if the animated Constantine could involve characters from the NBC series, and he replied, "At this point, I think so!" Suggesting there will be an in universe connection between the shows.

From TV Tropes: "Constantine seemed originally part of another universe, but a crossover was planned before it was cancelled. After its cancellation, it was retroactively made part of the "Arrowverse" with the titular character appearing in Season 4 of Arrow." So much for your claim that no source says the live action show is in the Arrowverse, Eh? You've really just lost all credibility with me and I see no point in continuing this silly debate over what was intended to be nothing more than just my simple opinion in the first place. Please go argue with someone else about their opinions. Huggums537 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you keep failing to understand that Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective and not in-universe. In the real world, these are two different series. And, as you've stated, the above is your opinion--which is against what you yourself quoted above from WP:Truth, not verifiability: The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't). And, yeah, no real-world source says that the live action Constantine is part of the Arrowverse. It's your unsourced opinion that what's applied to the animated series should be applied to the previous live-action series because of in-universe reasons. No one, especially an encycopaedia, has to agree with your opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

People can choose to agree with me if they want to. You can choose to take a hike and kick around some rocks if you want to. Huggums537 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

DonQuixote, I must apologize for my somewhat uncivil comment. I was getting frustrated about investing much more time than I thought was needed for my original post and I shouldn't have taken it out on you. I'm sure other people might have been way more uncivil to you in the past, but that doesn't mean I couldn't have terminated the discussion more civilly. Please forgive my rudeness. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we end this discussion, please? The evidence for Supergirl's inclusion is overwhelming. Here it is in plain English: "Supergirl originally started as a completely separate series. Now it has been incorporated fully into the Arrowverse, even though it takes place on another Earth." This is from a reliable source. And it's one of many I have cited here in the past. I can do a three-second Google search and come up with dozens more. Jmj713 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we cannot just end a discussion because you personally want to. Allow the discussion to continue to its natural end when a CONSENSUS is formed. -- Alex^TW 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s was a rhetorically question. But you didn’t address the substances of my post. Jmj713 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Because you're repeating yourself over and over again. Why reply to what has already been asked? -- Alex^TW 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further actions

If the consensus is to include Supergirl in our definition of the Arrowverse, then the article needs to be adjusted so that it isn't about the shared universe interpretation, and is instead about the media franchise interpretation. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What does "shared universe" mean? Traditionally, I would think it refers to a setting being shared by various writers, regardless of what the fictional, in-universe definition of "universe" is, and under that assumption he two would be synonymous. I can't figure out how "shared universe" (specifically the shared part) could refer specifically to Earth-1. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Universe means universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As several times before, I must ask you to please drop the tone. I asked you what you mean by "shared universe", and you answered a completely different question with a meaningless "X=X". You are clearly using "universe" in an in-universe sense that includes only one of several (very transversible) parallel dimensions, which is not how "shared universe" is normally used in real-world writing about fiction. In fact, "shared" is nonsense if we assume your definition of "universe". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't take part in the RfC because I unwatched the page due to how it clutters my watchlist. Hijiri88, in DC Comics terminology (and that of the DC-CW franchise runners), a "universe" consists of only one Earth. A set of universes make a multiverse. Hence, each Earth is referred to as a "parallel universe". Although Katie McGrath (a series regular on Supergirl) has confirmed that the series is indeed part of the Arrowverse (when the term is used as a franchise to mean DC-CW shows sharing continuity), I don't understand why no-one considers it reliable enough. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, as I explained above (You are clearly using "universe" in an in-universe sense). But "shared universe" only has a real-world definition that doesn't fit with the in-universe "only one Earth" definition. It wouldn't make sense to interpret it the way Adamstom is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not using any "tone", I am being completely serious. Whether we are talking about the real world or in-universe, universe means universe. There is no secret meaning.

I suggest we use wording along the lines of "The Arrowverse is an American media franchise centred on several television series set in a shared universe and wider multiverse", with appropriate hyperlinks and further explanations if required. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are using the word "universe" in an in-universe sense of (to quote Kailash29792) "only one Earth". I have never seen the term "shared universe" used with this definition of "universe"; "shared universe" almost always refers to a fictional setting shared my two or more writers, without regard to how many "universes" exist in said fictional setting. No one queries the claim that Enterprise is "set in the Star Trek universe" even though technically two of its episodes were set in the Mirror Universe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not using it in an in-universe way, I am talking about the real world. If you google "define universe", the first definition is what I am referring to and what I assumed everyone else was using as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried that, and I got MW telling me that it means the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; under this definition, two television shows that include in-continuity crossovers must be set in the same universe. And "shared universe" wouldn't work under the fictional, in-universe definition you are working wih under which "Earth One" and the setting of Supergirl are different "universes". How many times do I have to explain this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I got all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. That is what our universe is. In these shows, Earth One is a whole one of these universes, and Supergirl is set on a different one. So there is not a single shared universe. Most of the shows do share a universe (Earth One), and the ones that don't still exist within a shared multiverse that includes Earth One as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So, should we replace it with "shared multiverse"? It seems like most commenters interpreted "shared universe" the same way I did, and you are the only one saying that what the rest of us call a shared universe cannot be called a "universe" as it is instead a "multiverse", but I would not be averse to simply changing "uni-" to "multi-" if it will end this faster. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Joeyconnick: Would you mind commenting here? I'm assuming you are not using the WP:THANK function ironically and in fact agree with what I am writing, but no one else knows that as they can't see which edits you are thanking me for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: that's kinda a tacky move—if I had wanted to participate, I would have—obviously—participated. But sure: Wikipedia is not meant to be written WP:INUNIVERSE. In terms of a fictional universe, that means, as Hijiri88 has said, it doesn't matter how many "universes" (read: parallel dimensions) from a "multiverse" are portrayed in a show and/or multiple shows (be it *groan* 52 or otherwise): the entire endeavour (i.e. all the shows in which characters crossover to/from) takes place in one fictional universe from "our" perspective. I mean call it what you will: a "franchise space", a "shared fictional backdrop", I don't know. But from a real-world perspective, there's one "fictional universe" that encompasses all the CW DC shows... (except, just to be tricky/annoying, maybe not Black Lightning). The DC movies, of course, happen in another fictional universe (so far) as there have been no crossovers with the TV fictional universe. That's even if they portray multiple "universes"/Earths/dimensions within the DC films. The Arrowverse (hence its name: Arrow plus "verse") is a single fictional universe. Within that fictional universe, there's an "in-universe" concept of a multiverse with multiple Earths/universes. But from the perspective about collectively writing about the fiction happening within the context of the DC CW TV shows, there can be only one... fictional universe. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I'm the only person who saw the word "universe" and actually thought it meant "universe", then I guess that's fine. But since there is obviously room for confusion here, we should still be careful with the terminology we are using throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "universe" that you quoted above is practically (for our purposes) identical to the one I quoted, in that it doesn't allow for the possibility of "multiple universes". Parallel dimensions, assuming the exist (which, in the fictional Arrowverse, they definitely do), are by definition within, not apart from, "all existing matter and space considered as a whole". Your continued insistence that your variant (fictional, in-universe) understanding of what the word "universe" means is the meaning ([I] saw the word "universe" and actually thought it meant "universe") and that the rest of us are somehow "wrong" is not appropriate. The shows all exist within the same fictional shared universe, even if the characters within the shows use the word "universe" to mean only one of a number of parallel, traversible dimensions. The terminology is not tricky if we make it clear that we are speaking in real-world terms even while writing about fiction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I do know what the literal meaning of "universe" is, and it doesn't include all possible alternate universes (read multiverse for more). What I think is happening here is that while I thought a fictional universe was a literal fictional universe, others were using the general definition of universe (i.e. the car was the centre of his universe). Having a read of fictional universe I now see that this is the standard definition, so again I say that I no longer have a problem with this. But that still doesn't mean that our literal universe could possibly include multiple universes. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)