# Talk:Crisis on Earth-X

The EW article announcing the crossover called it "Crisis on Earth X". However, in the premise part of the article, they say "villains of Earth-X" and the poster also has the dash. I think until more info is gained (ie episode titles are revealed), we should not attempt to move the article to include the dash. I have made a redirect of Crisis on Earth-X for the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to include the dash [1] [2] [3]. But there's no rush. We will get the Arrow and LoT production info from Guggenheim very soon. - Brojam (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I've moved the article since EW corrected the title of its article and [4] [5] [6]. - Brojam (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Brojam: Sorry, I was away for the weekend. Looks good. Thanks for making the move! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
So of course, The CW has to be difficult. In the press releases, there is no dash [7] [8] but in the first teaser there's a dash [9]. What do we do? - Brojam (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I say stay the course, and see once official social media channels start discussing the crossover, what they use. We can also see what home media and buy services (Amazon/iTunes etc) list it as as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. And for the LoE? - Brojam (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think keep the dash. Within the episode description from the CW they say things go awry when villains from Earth-X, and previous material from the shows talking about the alternate earths have used the dash designation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
They fixed the releases to have a dash. [10] So all good! - Brojam (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

According to these tweets [11] [12] by Stephen Amell‏, production began at least (for Amell) by September 20 and not on September 22 like the EW article states. Seems this source [13] about Supergirl starting on September 15, was probably the actual start of production. - Brojam (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be in support of listing the start as September 15, with Amell's "Day 7" tweet and Teng's tweet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In such cases, I would say, Principal photography began in late September 2017, then add a footnote explaining the contradicting start dates given by different sources. --Kailash29792 (talk)  04:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that it would be best served to have the customer cover as the main image. It's basically the same thing (a picture of all the characters). There isn't a lot of real world content on the image itself (it takes up more room than the actual content does) and allows us to keep with WP:NONFREE, which wants as little non-free content as possible in articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What cover are you referring to? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The one down in marketing. We have an image in the infobox that's a promotional poster, and then we have the one in marketing that was a customized one. They're both basically doing the same thing (showing the characters as a whole), and representing the episodes themselves. It seems unnecessary to have 2 non-free images that serve the same purpose, with the one in marketing have the added benefit of a few extra pieces of real world info on it. Seems like we would be more in line with WP:NONFREE by just using that marketing one in the infobox since it isn't like we have a lot of information about its development.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary to include two images with the same purpose. I would recommend removing the marketing image, and somewhere else in the article, replacing it with the customized title card that was displayed for the four episodes with some commentary on it. -- AlexTW 02:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I like Alex's proposal of removing the marketing image and replacing it with the title card in a new "design" section in production. Here it is animated [14][15] (I'm not exactly sure how to convert that to Wiki, but it would be nice to have it like that) and a source talking about the title sequence [16]. - Brojam (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the cover poster should probably be removed, we generally only have one poster in an article and special drawn ones like that are often the ones that we don't include, in favour of wide-release posters. I also think it makes sense to include the title card somewhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of this as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Then we should remove the marketing image. As for the new title card for a single event, I'm not sure how or if we should cover it beyond mentioning it. There isn't enough coverage in an article on comicbook.com. They basically just describe what the title card does, it's not really commentary on it and one source's opinion wouldn't really be enough to warrant a non-free gif of the title card.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AlexTheWhovian. The reason I restore the poster to the infobox as the image, over the home media cover, was because I felt the poster was more representative. If you look at the refs for the home media that show the full box, the poster is essentially the "wrap around" image. But as such, we are losing half the contents of the image, which I think the full image is definitely most representative of the series (the heroes charging to the villains). Also WP:TVIMAGE says a promotional poster or a home media image is suggested, and in this instance, I think the poster is better than the home media. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's why I kept the original marketing image and moved it into the article, so we could use both, keeping to the upright images we normally use in infoboxes in lieu of a title card. Speaking of that, weren't we going to use the custom title card for the infobox? I'd completely forgotten about that until now, seeing the previous discussion. -- AlexTW 02:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
But they are in essence the same image, with (in my opinion) the marketing one being the superior of the two (for the reasons I stated above). So I don't know why we should be keeping both. I think it should be the full "wide screen" marketing one over the "upright" home media one. As for the title card, I actually don't recall what the title card was, but I still would say the marketing image is the most descriptive for the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the wider marketing image is better for the infobox. There's really no point in having both in the article so if we have to choose, I'd go with the full image that is better representation of the crossover. Here is the title card [17]. I would remove the comic book style image and add a section for "Design" to include the titlecard. - Brojam (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Using both (at the time being) is also a WP:NFCCP#3a issue I believe, similarly to how we don't generally use an album cover on a film page, since that cover is generally a reformat of the film's poster. I would support a design subsection if we can find third party sources talking about the title card in some capacity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If there's a consensus to use only the full one, then who am I to argue? In that case, I recommend the same be done to the "Invasion!" article, and include the promotional poster in the infobox for consistency between the four crossover articles. As for the title card, even though it was agreed to be used in the infobox in the last discussion, if we include it, then we only need the end shot "Crisis on Earth-X" logo as an image, not the whole thing as a video or GIF. -- AlexTW 06:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree for the same change to "Invasion!", but the images are actually different, not just a crop or reformat of one another. Thus, I think "Invasion!" is fine as it is. I'm also going to make the change back here for the promotional poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)