# Talk:Gorilla City (The Flash)

Since these are just The Flash episodes, not a crossover with another series, the two episodes should get their own articles. As with any series, a small storyline within a season does not mean they all episodes part of that should be in one episode. The information that is already here can be reconfigured for each article individually to indicate there is a storyline between the two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Since both episodes are being shot simultaneously, I think the production details won't be so different from each other, therefore making both episodes not long enough to have separate articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem if you want to split it, but I feel like most of the content would be the exact same since the episodes were shot together and most of the interviews talk about both episodes together and do not differentiate between episodes 13 and 14. So if you can find enough info to make two separate articles then perfect, if not, I think it would be better to keep it as one article. Brojam (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked at all the material in depth, but I feel like the info can be split adequately, at least after seeing the episodes themselves. But I do feel the option should be kept open and not fully dismissed just yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Brojam (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that it needs to be split. I understand's Favre's rationale, but the isn't a lot of information here just for one episode really, so splitting it is really going to thin out both episode articles and it functions better as a single page. Given that it was filmed by one director altogether, one production schedule, and is really just one big episode split into two separate viewings, I think it is best together. Especially when you start to go through the information and realize that some of it isn't something you would normally put in an episode page. For instance, commenting on a tagline for the episode, which was only discussed by one person identifying it as a reference to boxing (and we don't discuss "taglines" unless there is discussion about said taglines, and supposition about it being referenced to boxing isn't really relevant).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would be fine keeping the episodes as one article. I just don't want this to become a precedent that all small storyline arcs in series should receive one article, over multiple for each episode involved. Yes, I understand it may be better sometime when episodes have a similar title and "Part 1"/"Part 2" appended to them, but this didn't feel like that situation, and I don't want this to become an example pointed to to justify such other single articles in the future if multiple would be best. That was really the standpoint I was coming from in my initial request to split off the articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand that point, and I wouldn't want that either. But I look at this page and if you split it, and don't duplicate information, then you're basically not going to be able to justify having 2 stand alone articles. Not unless there becomes an influx of reviews out there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There actually is a bunch of reviews, I just haven't had the time to go through it all and add them.    Part 1: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]    Part 2: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]As well as more interviews: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] ‒ Brojam (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are, though a few of those are not useable because they are not professional reviews but part of fansites, that said, I don't think it would be best to split because there is more neutral info (info that would be present in both articles) than independent info when it comes to production. It resides better in one article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, agree to both your points. Brojam (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with keeping the one article. I voiced my concern above and I think we can avoid it at this time. I will remove the split template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I switched "guest stars" to "Recurring", is because they are recurring guests on the show, and this is just 2 appearances for them in that role. Just like the "main" cast isn't about it being the main cast for the episodes, but for the show. A "co-star" makes it appear as though they have a role on equal status as the main cast, when they are just regular "guest roles".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

But in the scope of the episodes themselves, actors only received "Main", "Guest starring", or "Co-starring" billing. So while your thinking is correct, it isn't necessarily correct for headings in the "Cast and characters" section. We could, however, in the "Casting" section, rework this sentence It was revealed that Violett Beane would be reprising her role as Jesse Chambers Wells / Jesse Quick, with Cavanagh reprising his role as "Harry" Wells from Earth-2. Jessica Camacho returned for part two as Cindy Reynolds / Gypsy, while Tom Felton also guest stars, as Julien Albert. to this: Violett Beane and Tom Felton reprise their recurring series roles as Jesse Chambers Wells / Jesse Quick and Julian Albert, respectively, while Cavanagh once again portrays Harry Wells from Earth-2. Jessica Camacho also guest stars as Cindy Reynolds / Gypsy. That will keep the indication you wanted Bignole, but still allow us to use the headings in the section above that are appropriate for the focus of the episode themselves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, then why are Poague and Jarrett listed, because there was no "co-starring" credit for the episodes. They aren't even listed in the opening credits.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
They were listed at the end of the episode, same as Sobolov (but he was as a guest staring role), while they were as co-starring. I like the revised text above; just a note about Camacho, she will become a recurring character since she will appear in a future episode (18), which will make it 4 episodes this season. Not sure if that makes a difference for this article since she is still a guest for now. Brojam (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
So here's how the listings go after the main cast in each episode: 2x13 Opening guests: Felton, Beane, Camacho, David. 2x13 Ending credits: Guest starring: Sobolov; Co-starring: Arpad Balogh as robber #1. 2x14 Opening guests: Beane, Camacho, David. 2x14 Ending credits: Guest starring: Sobolov; Co-starring: Quyen Bui as soldier, Paul Jarrett as General McNally, Sean Poague as Accelerated Man. So the order and headings should be as follows, based on this: Guest: Felton, Beane, Camacho, David, Sobolov Co-starring: Jarrett, Poague. The co-starring doesn't have to be under "Cast and characters" if we don't want it to be, with both of these actors mentioned in prose in the casting section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a need for a list anyway? The main cast can and should be listed in the lead, since they are the stars. We do it for most episode articles and film articles. The recurring/guests can go in the casting section. You already have some listed in the infobox. Why is there a need for a 4th area?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

After posting the credits and thinking a bit, I felt the same way as to why a cast list is needed. Episode articles generally don't have them, and this isn't a situation where one would be necessary. I'd support removing them and having all info be prose-based. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Was also thinking the same thing after you added the guests to the infobox. Better to have it all in prose. Brojam (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I would support that. You have the main cast in the lead, the "recurring/guest stars" in the infobox and all guests (no need for main) in prose in the casting section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the cast list and made it into prose. We currently did not have anything in the lead in terms of wording for the main cast, so I just moved them as well to "Casting" with their source. Move around or adjust as you guys see fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Just one question, should Sobolov be added to the guests in the infobox? Brojam (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe so yes. My initial edit to the infobox was before I examined the credits closer and saw he did get guest credit, despite being at the end. I'll add him in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking over this article for the Wikicup. It reads fine, but the use of quotes is rather excessive in my view, and should be trimmed and/or paraphrased where necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)