Talk:Primeval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Primeval is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject British TV/Shows  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British TV/Shows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Find sources: "Primeval" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Superior strength?[edit]

Where is it mentioned or alluded to that Caroline had significantly superior strength than Abby? It's true that she pinned Abby at one point, but it wasn't long before she was rolled over, was she? It looked like a very close fight, nothing really claims that either was particularly stronger than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.124.49 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya i looked at it on youtube again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXe-CbkmCBU) and the only time Caroline clearly had the upper hand was when she flipped and pinned Abby, and she didn't manage to hold on to that advantage fo long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.124.49 (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point? The above isn't even mentioned in the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In the character list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.124.49 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Connor's former girlfriend who was secretly working for Leek during the majority of the second season" is all that it says. Nothing about strength at all. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please identify guns[edit]

  • Captain Tom Ryan, used an American M4 Carbine Assault rifle, which is the standered infantry weapon of the Australian, and English SAS (A well as many U.S Special forces soldiers). The other SAS Troops use the German H&K G36. The G-36 is not used in the English SAS. British Armed Responce Police force do not use it either, they use the MP-5 Sub-machine gun. Nath1991 (talk. The SAS troopers are also armed with Glock Semi-automatic pistols. Glock Pistols are also used by Cutter and Steven in the last episode where they both shoot the "future predetor".

In Episode 2, it is worthwile to note when the SAS troops are running down the Underground train tunnel trying to locate the "Spiders" a head on shot of the troops is shown, on one of the soldiers one of the weapons appears to be a Steyr AUG or a British made SA-80 , the british Bulpup weapon, based on the Steyr AUG design. Nath1991 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be difficult, considering the SA80 has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Steyr. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cast list[edit]

I cut down the cast list just to include the main characters, but the longer list has been reinstated with a request for discussion before re-deletion. My rationale was that just including the main cast would keep the list a reasonable length and give readers an idea of who was key to the series - this seems standard for TV articles. Perhaps the cast from individual episodes could be included in an episode list article or individual episode articles if/when these are created? I chose those listed in the opening credits and on the official website (though we could add more if some of episode one's other characters turn out to be reoccurring). Jihg 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've split the cast into main plus others for now. Could we restrict the list to characters that appear in the end credits? (Jill and Duncan would go...) Jihg 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the deleted characters (e.g. Ben and Ryan) had important parts in Episode 1. Anthony Appleyard 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Ideally we move them to episode articles if/when that happens. Jihg 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to spoil the fate of so many characters??? Many Wikipedia readers may not have seen the series as a whole, and without reading the sinopsis of the seasons in detail, they already know who's gonna die at the end of each one! It would be much easier to just mention "appears only in first Season", and saying nothing about the events in the Second Season Finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.185.92 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above is mine. Now I have created an account and corrected the section on my own. Wow, my first edition in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fassbinder69 (talkcontribs) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely a recurring character as important as Christine Johnston should be in the list? KeithC (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult[edit]

I removed the "cult" descriptions. It's an SF drama. No one is making Primeval into a religion. It's not the world's most serious show, but it's still demeaning to classify it with such a term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barsoomian (talkcontribs) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It meant Cult following, not cult. I've disambig the wiki-links. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mick Harper[edit]

Can I suggest we do a page on Mick Harper? Public interferance is a crucial story in Primeval, plus he is coming back. 06:08:08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primeval Demon (talkcontribs) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He's coming back? I thought he got eaten... must be my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.206.87 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment you replied to was written 3 years ago. Barsoomian (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian Series[edit]

I'm an avid Australian Primeval fan, but we only got the first series of primeval here in Australia. I have emailed the braodcasting station wether they would be showing Series 2 & 3, but they said they would not, because the ratings were low. (im personally upset by this). Now the DVD's are unlikly to be released here in Australia, because of that reason. Does anyone know if the DVDs are going to be released here in Australia, and if so when?. Also i they arnt, how can i get a copy. I think it will be difficult because i think there is a DVD code that is only playable in certain countries. If anyone could send me an Email at <email redacted> Thanks

If it does not show up legally in your country, Wikipedia is not the place to ask. For legal DVDs just tell your local video store you will buy when they show up. That is the sort of thing most businesses start tracking when more than a couple people ask.69.23.124.142 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see it in Australia, and don't get it on paytv, try JB's. If they don't have it, then your best bet would be Amazon.co.uk (as distinct from the American parent). You should get it reasonably cheap, and they deliver free to Australia if your order is over £25 on DVDs, CDs etc. You'll have to wait a couple of weeks for delivery, but the price is usually quite good. UK DVDs usually play on most Australian DVD players (they're both PAL system anyway) and even if they don't, it should be fairly cheap to buy a DVD player that does play them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.245.247 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Season 3 airdate[edit]

Reading the article, there appears to be conflicting information about the airdate of Season 3.. near the top it is indicated that ITV will air season 3 sometime in January, but further below it is redacted: "It has been put back for a release date of February 2009." So which one is it? January or February? Brynet (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears these edits are responsible: 11:30, 1 December 2008 87.97.203.95 (Talk) (24,942 bytes) (Production) 20:54, 22 November 2008 81.105.24.64 (Talk) (24,621 bytes) (Production) I'm reverting them.. I can't find any references to this February airing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.117.234 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Episode 1 (Primeval) and Episode 6 (Primeval)[edit]

The article for Episode 13 (Primeval) was redirected to List of Primeval episodes per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episode 13 (Primeval) in September 2008. The other episode articles were tagged for lack of notability in November 2008, but no improvement happened, so most of them were redirected as well. However, Episode 1 (Primeval) and Episode 6 (Primeval) may make some claims of notability, but contain no non-plot content that can't as well be covered in the articles Primeval and List of Primeval episodes. I therefore propose to merge them here/there and afterwards redirect them as well. Another option is to expand these two articles (and also the other ep articles) with so much sourced real-world information that a merger would no longer makes sense. I'll probably leave this merge proposal open for four weeks. Please avoid WP:ILIKEIT comments, as this neither improves the articles nor addresses why the current real-world content of the articles can't be presented in a parent article like here (WP:NOT#PLOT explains wikipedias view on plot summaries). – sgeureka tc 16:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added several referenced episode reviews to Episode 1 a while back and worked to shorten the plot summary (which is still too long), but was unsure where to find production information to balance it out. I will set up sandboxes to work on these episode articles further. Is there a central "wikiproject" for this show where it would be possible to set up a communal sandbox? »S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You can use the wiki articles as communal sandboxes, and the article's talkpages to drop usable sources so that other editors can use them. The articles already pass the minimum threshold for inclusion, and as long as I know that there is someone who is interested in improving these articles, there is no reason (for me) to merge the articles. – sgeureka tc 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

De-linking dates?[edit]

Shouldn't all the linked dates in this article be de-linked per WP:MOSNUM and WP:OVERLINKING? – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

writers?[edit]

Who are the writers on this thing? It's just unimaginably poorly executed at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So fix it! – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Augh! Augh! Augh! Augh! Augh![edit]

Is it my ears or does this show overuse the Wilhelm scream hilariously too much?! I bet the sound engineers love that scream sound effect a lot, because just about every episode uses it! --58.178.120.140 (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I agree, but I don't think that this is the place to discuss this. Jozal (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of shows and movies use the Wilhelm scream. It's probably something that they decided to include in each episode as a little continuity joke. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, I love the scream too. It's just something I couldn't help noticing. 58.178.120.140 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be intentional. The makers of the US series "The Middleman" deliberately used the Wilhelm Scream at least once in every episode. It became a signature for them. 69.201.159.57 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it notable that a british show uses an american spelling?[edit]

I always thought it was Primaeval.

The opening credits say Primeval. I think the original spelling in pre-production of the first seris was Primaeval (it was announced as such), but this was changed before the first airing for whatever reason. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it non-notable for this article; might be more useful on the article comparing British & American English and other spelling articles, but not here. Jon (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not particularly American either...just not UK. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxford dictionaries give Primeval first, and Primaeval as a variant. And they say if you spell it with an æ thingy they will come round to your house and tease your dog and disrespect your Mum and stuff. (I may have paraphrased that last bit slightly.) DBaK (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 3 in America[edit]

does anyone know where to find a source for the broadcast date of season 3 in america? I think it should be added to the article so people don't keep asking. Star Hound (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been revealed yet, and it really isn't any more important than the first air dates on any other channel. Only ITV is really necessary. If you want to see when it starts, I'd suggest checking the BBC America website. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard rumors about it premiering in October-November 2009. Star Hound (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumours are rumours. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, anybody know if there has been a confirmed series 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.62.130 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that season 1 just started airing in Sci-Fi last Friday, could be awhile for that channel. (Looking at May, it looks like they are going to run season 2 immediately following season 1.) But BBC America ran at least all of season 1 last summer, so they might air season 3 sooner. Jon (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does it take so long to go from UK to USA? They're both the same language, so there's no reason for a delay. 24.4.236.247 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be any number of reasons ranging from a full schedule listing for BBC American to a simple licensing issue for the series. There are plenty of reasons for delays, we just don't know what the actual ones are. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It is all licensing and marketing. The original funding market gets to see it first. Plus secondary markets like to see the ratings before committing to buying. And unless Primeval does amazingly well on SciFi...well I am pretty sure the big UK ratings drop for season 3 will prevent US markets from buying. Networks do not like to pay top dollar or reserve prime time for known ratings sinkers. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research on viewership[edit]

I'm concerned about the following statement that keeps being added in: Although episode 3.3 received low viewer ratings, it was running for the second half against a special edition of the very popular BBC programme Dr. Who, which meant that, in many cases, viewers chose to watch Dr. Who as Primeval is repeated many more times during the week. These figures do not take into account the viewing figures for repeats of the programme[1], the number of watchers who choose to record it and then watch it later, or the viewing of the episodes on ITV Player and Youtube. Therefore viewing figures may in reality be a lot higher, and the show's popularity may not have decreased, rather, the way that people choose to view the show may have changed.

If you check the article history, you can see I'm not the only who agrees that this is unencyclopedic. Contrary to comments posted in the rationale by the IP, my ethnicity has nothing to do with my understanding of either the series or how to edit Wikipedia properly. Comments such as "its only you who thinks that bub, and you're canadian so you wouldn't know!" and "shut up ass cheese" is also not conducive to a proper discussion. I suggest looking at several Wikipedia policies to see why the above content is unencyclopedic and should not be included. WP:OR, NOT, and WP:V, three of the projects most important policies, are a good place to start. If a source can be found that backs up the information it can be readded, but as of now it's inclusion violates these three policies. Keep in mind that sources need to be reliable; forums are not considered to be reliable sources and are always removed if added. If there is disagreement with my assessment, please discuss it here instead of edit-warring. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only comment on the history that agrees with your claims is the following. "(cur) (prev) 15:11, 12 April 2009 78.105.17.36 (talk) (26,919 bytes) (→Reception: I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic content, but fixed a few spelling errors and tightened a few sentences) (undo)" and guess what, all they did was change the wording slightly, so, you're making a fuss out of absolutley nothing! I actually couldn't care less whether its on there, but know you've started a war, you've got a war! And i warn you, i love arguments and i have to ALWAYS win! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.70.157 (talk)
Oh and btw, there are many references for this article taken from digital spy. hmmmmmm, let me think, isn't that a forum?! Eagit!
It's not just about "comments", but the actual content changes you have to look at; this edit for one. The fact is that the information that keeps being added fails WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:V. It's unencyclopedic, original research, and should not be added. The question is about quality, not whether you "always have to win", and should Dispute Resolution or reporting for violation of 3RR come into question, that kind of attitude will not work in your favour as you clearly have no interest in collaboration. And you're right, all the references from forums should be removed because they fail WP:RS. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected for one week. I suggest that you present your reasons for why the above content should be included, and how it does not fail the numerous policies I have listed above so that a proper and civil discussion can ensue. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever... i actually cant be bothered now... not if it involves me working hard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.72.118 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's your choice not to bother discussing it, but it does mean that this issue is resolved and the content will not be included. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like most of the paragraph as proposed would violate WP:OR. About the only thing that wouldn't from that source would be to simply state the Easter Special of Doctor Who was also airing during that timeslot and it had a rating of (whatever it was). Anything saying anything like Primeval fans are Doctor Who fans needs a reliable source. There does however appear to be a another problem with the source. It looks to me like the link will either become a dead link or worse yet the entire content will be replaced with the following weeks ratings. Jon (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you say that the paragraph (as it's currently worded in the article) is okay? I share your sentiments about the source possibly expiring; they may simply move the information to a different page (like some music charts do), and if not then maybe a search in the internet archives could help. What do you think? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the first few episodes of season 3 were directly in competition with the timeslot for Robin Hood on BBC One? I think this could explain the lower viewing figures. 86.136.219.196 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just does not make a difference as it can be assumed that Primeval would similarly run against big shows in the US and other secondary markets. This is just proof that it was a marginal program from a marketing standpoint. No network intentionally buys programs only suitable as fillers for off-primetime hours as that happens enough on their own new program experiments. Most networks prefer to fill with rerun of old cheap or free standards 20 or 30 years old.69.23.124.142 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Viewing figure[edit]

(Moved from top top page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

{{editprotected}} Can you please add in that the final viewing figures for season 3 episode 2 was 4.94. 92.20.155.76 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt your facts, but could you give me the URL which verifies this? I had a look at BARB but couldn't find the relevant page. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was on BARB. I looked on the Top 30 shows for the week ending the 5th April. Primeval was number 14 for ITV http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammesOverview?_s=4 92.20.155.76 (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

awards?[edit]

did primeval won any awards so far? i read it won something in CGI.--Rex92 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


^^^Have you seen the show? There's no way Primeval has ever won a legitimate award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.242.144 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

End of series[edit]

There are IDIOTS who are putting spoilers up for the final episode, which has not been shown yet in the UK. Stop it you stupid selfish people.(Discobadgers · talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Can we have the article protected for at least the next couple of weeks? Someone else is trying to spoil it now (Discobadgers · talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Per WP:SPOILER we do not prevent spoilers from being added so long as they are sourced. If you don't want to know what happens, don't read it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Useful info[edit]

Some useful information can probably be gleaned from this intervew with Adrian Hodges. Cheers. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: "List of creatures in Primeval" could be deleted[edit]

The related article List of creatures in Primeval has been nominated for deletion. If you want to express an opinion for or against, please do so ASAP, before 6 Jan 2010 at [1]. Barsoomian (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast[edit]

I think that the cast section should have everyone under one heading and show the seasons/series they were in. similar to Stargate SG-1 --Superchicken781 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

According to a tag someone placed at the top of the article, this article needs sources. My question is: where? So far I'm not seeing a swath of unsourced information.

Please, if you see anything unsourced, tag it or fix it. As it is I don't see anything that needs improvement. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Repititious[edit]

This article repeats a lot of information several times, such the dates of each of the series and of the filming of the future series. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of series[edit]

It may just be me, but isn't it a bit misleading to count the series that're currently being filmed, and thus not out yet, in the "number of series" stat on the infobox? ∫eb²+1(talk) 12:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, so I deleted it. They shouldn't be listed until broadcast. Feel free to delete if (when) someone puts it back. Barsoomian (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast Members[edit]

A cast member is a main character appearing in the majority of episodes in a series not just one episode so could LucyBrownFan stop inplying her as a remaining cast member by series 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marker10 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a citation in the article stating that she has returned as a cast member. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I added a citation saying she is returning as a cast member, as you should've seen.--LucyBrownFan (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Helen's 'death' is ambiguous[edit]

I noticed something at the end of season 3 that I dismissed at the time, until the premiere of season 4. At the end of season 3, Helen is supposedly killed by a raptor while she attempts to murder the human race before it evolves at Site 333, but even though the series' producers confirm her dead, there was no body, and her anomaly machine was sent backwards through time to the cretaceous. So technically, her death is ambiguous, even if the producers confirmed it (a statement which we don't have a source for, by the way) ggctuk (2005) (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The machine was not sent backwards. If you rewatch 3.10, you can see it being dropped while everyone is still in the Cretaceous. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, but I could swear she still had one though. It's possible she had another one in her possession. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Current and former[edit]

Please note that, per long-established convention, we do not split cast lists on the basis of "current" and "former" members. Acts of fiction are presented as a whole, not "in the moment", given that the "current" state depends entirely on what episode you are viewing. This is no different than how we treat films, books, and the like; one would not say Darth Vader was a character in the Star Wars films, even though he dies before the narrative is complete. We also list the entire main cast in the infobox per the same principle, and do not delete them when they leave the cast. In a similar fashion, we would not write "Primeval was a series" once the series ends its run, since it continues to exist as a dramatic work despite the cessation of production. --Ckatzchatspy 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the Plot[edit]

As is indicated in the above section, and as per MOS:TV fiction is always treated in the present tense and fiction does not necessarily follow real world timelines. A great example of this is That '70s Show where more than 7 years in real time represented just over 3.5 years in fictional time. Another is Star Wars where, despite airing 20 years after the original trilogy, the events of the "final" three movies occurred before the events of the before the original movie. The "Timeline of the Plot" section treats various events as happening on specific dates and while episodes may have aired on those dates, there is nothing to prove that the events actually occurred on those dates. Effectively, the whole section constitutes uncited original research with allocation of specific events to specific dates being WP:SYNTH. The section could be corrected by replacing the dates with episode numbers, but this makes the section effectively a summary of the episode sumaries and would be better included at List of Primeval episodes, if anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

the difference is, in some form or another, a date is given in the show in some stages, but I agree. This section needs to be condensed into a "plot" section rather than a timeline which unnecessarily lengthens the article. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to agree with AussieLegend, but the "Timeline" is 1) Original Research and 2) Uncited (no sources given) -- not to mention 3) Mostly guesswork (dates are hardly mentioned in the episodes)and unreliable. So no way is it appropriate in this or any Wikipedia article. Barsoomian (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides this, we have an episodes page for most of this info anyways. We have a synopsis there as well. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I'm going to remove the merge proposal tags from this article and List of Primeval books and novelisations. The nominator never provided any rationale for the move and there has never been any discussion that I can find at either article so there seems no support after over a year. If the nominator, or anyone else, still believes a merge is necessary they can always add the tags again, hopefully this time starting a discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Anomaly (Primeval)[edit]

While repairing the article after some peculiar and unexplained changes today I discovered the existence of Anomaly (Primeval). It had been redirected after a contested prod without consensus of having been nominated at AfD. I've restored the article, as the anomalies are significant to the series but they are not discussed here. I tend to agree with the prod concerns and think that the article should be merged to this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on merging, but I've added it to the Primeval template, delete it if it is merged. Barsoomian (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Our friend Fehér Zoltán has been extremely bold and gone ahead and merged the articles. [2] Then he put his pet edits (the "peculiar and unexplained" ones noted above) in for good measure. He doesn't seem to ever discuss his edits. Seeing the Anomaly article text together makes a very long and unbalanced article. So I think the separate article was a better arrangement, unless a great deal is cut out. So I reverted all that, as it hardly has consensus. The Anomaly article was in Limbo for a year, there is no urgency. Barsoomian (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile I had a look at the Anomaly article and reorganised it. Probably still likely to be described as fancruft, but at least it's more orderly fancruft now, and can be maintained and updated. Barsoomian (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice there were links to the original title, I just thought I'd make it more descriptive. Barsoomian (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Barsoomian about a merge making it look unbalanced, it is fine as it is. However, I do think that a brief description should be displayed (Quotations from anomaly page). Gazza-l911 (talk) 18:05, 4 February (UTC)

I tend to think that the show article should be basically about the show production, actors, ratings, episode list, etc... Science or deep explanations, especially if rather large like the Anomaly article, are better kept separate. A short summary or so here with a link is probably best. Andyross (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In general I'm in favour of merging articles, but I'm not sure this merge is the right one to do. I'd ask the question of whether it is worth having lots of articles about various aspects of the Primeval series, or whether it would be better to consolidate into one article about the Primeval "universe". Icalanise (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Such articles, like Primeverse, end up being redirected.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
"Lots of articles"? Aside from episodes, spinoff books, etc, and characters (as normal for a TV show) there is one for creatures, and this one about anomalies. Can't think of any other aspects that would deserve an article. And each of these is long and detailed enough to be best suited as a separate article, in my opinion. The "Primeverse" was presented as a platform for other shows, but nothing eventuated and it's basically forgotten now. Barsoomian (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge. What does it hurt? Leave it be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Renamed to "Primeval (TV series)"[edit]

Many articles related to Primeval were renamed with no warning or discussion by user Csimoon (talk · contribs) on 16 June 2011. I put a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to have these rolled back. Or if anyone else can do this expeditiously, please do. Such a dramatic change should be discussed before implementing. Barsoomian (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The article was named simply "Primeval" after brief discussion here in Feb, 2008. I can't find the archive of older discussions, but can be seen in the history of this page here. Barsoomian (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack to be released[edit]

Source: http://www.underscores.fr/index.php/2011/07/news-moviescore-media-en-direct-dubeda/

Translation: "The ads continue for the International Festival of Film Music of Ubeda held in this very moment! Mikael Carlsson has just announced the next title to be published by Media MovieScore before the end of this year, some eagerly awaited. The label soon will propose the division of the Joe Dante film The Hole Javier Navarette, one of the TV series Primeval Dominik Scherrer, The Celestine Prophecy by Nuno Malo, Pandemonium Dario Marianelli and finally the highly sought Man To Man composed by Patrick Doyle for the film by Regis Wargnier."

So it seems the soundtrack to Primeval is to be released by MovieScore Media later this year. Is this worthy of inclusion in the article, since I can't actually vouch for the source myself and there is no actual announcement on the website? Or shall we wait and see where this goes? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the track list confirmed on the Screenarchives site :
  1. Primeval Theme – 3:21
  2. Rex – 2:12
  3. Cretaceous Sea – 1:50
  4. Silurian Scorpions – 2:06
  5. Into the late Permian – 2:01
  6. Columbian Mammoth – 2:32
  7. The Mystery of the Anomalies – 1:30
  8. Chasing a Silurian Millipede – 1:51
  9. Coming Home – 2:00
  10. Connor and Abby at the Hospital – 1:38
  11. Gorgonopsid vs Future Predator – 3:17
  12. Stay with me – 2:34
  13. Pteranodon – 4:03
  14. Tom dies – 3:29
  15. Infected – 2:51
  16. Smilodon attack – 2:09
  17. Raptors at the Shopping Mall – 3:40
  18. Firechief – 1:32
  19. Taylor – 2:01
  20. Carnivorous Worms – 4:36
  21. Val revealed – 3:27
  22. Back to the Cretaceous – 4:10
  23. Sabretooth Battle – 3:21
  24. Jenny Lewis – 2:19
  25. Contaminated – 3:23
  26. Dracorex – 2:16
  27. Helen where are you? – 1:19
  28. The Merqueen – 3:38
  29. Primeval Titles – 0:39
This is just in case the tracklist is removed from the main page. Usually when a soundtrack is released it gets its own page to prevent cluttering up the main article, and this will help since you won't have to re-write the tracklist from scratch.ggctuk (2005) (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Last date= present: bogus[edit]

I see the illogical use of "last date = present" forever is going to be applied here, thanks to the gang at the TV episode template

And they've now thoughtfully removed the "status" option too, so now we can't explain what it means.

To state the the show is "present" when it is off the air is stupid enough. To insist it remains "present" forever until officially cancelled is misinformation. It's making an optimistic "Crystal ball" assumption about the future of the show and giving it the status of fact. That's about the worst thing you can do in an encyclopaedia.

TV shows don't just "exist" in the same state until cancelled. A new series is no more guaranteed than a sequel to a movie is. That will be made only if a major commitment has been made, in money, staff, talent, and if that is, it will be widely announced. Failing that the show is not going to be made, let alone aired. But no one is obliged to announce that a decision has not been made. They can simply say nothing. If it does manage to be revived again, great. Until that time, (which may be next year, or as pretty much as everyone thinks, never, we have no idea) it is NOT present in any sense of the word understood by ordinary English speaking people. Barsoomian (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. That means that if you give a date that it ended, you need to be able to verify that the series is ended/cancelled etc. If you can't prove that it has ended then you have to leave it at present until you can provide confirmation that it has ended. The template instructions say that "|last_aired=" is to be "present" until that time. You can't simply assume that it has ended because no statement has been made. Of course, if a reasonable period has passed and there are no more episodes, then it may be reasonable to change last_aired. This time next year, maybe even earlier in the year, there'd likely be no objections to changing it but for now, you can't resort to original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Being "present" is not verifiable. In fact it's easily refuted: it isn't on the air, it isn't in production. The template definition is illogical. And I asked the template cabal how long it must remain "present" failing any official cancellation: they refused to give a date. They in fact insisted it must remain indefinitely. "Reasonable time" is not an option. "Last aired" should simply be the date the show last aired, which was June 28. It is not a statement about the future of the show, if any. Saying the show is "present" is a crystal ball statement at this time and YOU should verify it before putting it in the article. It is unsupported opinion, not even OR.Barsoomian (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
For those unaware, the discussion alluded to, above, can be found at Template talk:Infobox television#Last aired.  Chickenmonkey  18:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you're aware that "Present" should remain. Then you should know not to edit war over it, especially since the reason you started that discussion was over this very article. You were told what you needed to do to change "Presnet" to a finale date. I suggest that's the best course of action. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're colluding to put unverified and false information in the article. Barsoomian (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As was explained at the discussion linked to by Chickenmonkey, that's simply not true. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You and your cohorts can enforce this on the article page, but you can't make it true in reality. You can't, and haven't even tried, to verify that the show is "present" unless you redefine the word, which is apparently the "explanation" you are referring to. And as you have looked at the "discussion", you will notice that your idea that a "reasonable time" passing would change this was rejected. If no one makes an announcement, this is permanent, according to the rule you support. Barsoomian (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought I made it fairly clear in this post why we continue to use "present". WP:V says everything must be verifiable; if there is no reliable source confirming that it has ended you can't say that it has ended without resorting to original research, especially when less than 7 weeks has passed since the last episode aired. Most TV programs are on hiatus for months and many don't provide any real confirmation that they're coming back until a month or two before the next season is expected to air. Putting nothing in the "|last_aired=" field[4] is inappropriate because that indicates the program is ongoing, usually that episodes are airing now. Something has to be in the field and consensus is that we use "present", or rather that we don't change from using present until we can confirm that the change is valid. We don't just assume, as you seem to want to do. I disagree that "present" has to stay there forever. There comes a time when it's clear that the program isn't coming back. For most programs working on the US schedule, that's around September of the following year. If there is no announcement about cancellation or the program being renewed, then it's usually safe to assume that it has finished. This is common with documentary series and some other programs, H2O: Just Add Water is one that immediately comes to mind. Some programs just fade away, like The Girls Next Door. We have WP:IAR to support changes like that. That's not to say that somebody will insist that present is restored, but you can make a fairly convincing argument after a year. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You "explained" it. It still is illogical. You are making a prediction about the future of the show. Citing no sources, reliable or otherwise. So I can't accuse you of doing original research, since you haven't done any at all. It's wishful thinking. I am not assuming anything. You are. I do not wish to state that the show has finished. It's verifiable that it is not "present" and I have tried and failed to understand why you insist on claiming it is. The "change of status"' from "present " to "not present" came on 28th June, the last show (to date) broadcast. UNDENIABLE VERIFIABLE FACT. You are putting "present" in a date field. "Present" as a time means "now". It is not on "now". And I have no idea why you are talking about American network schedules, since this in not an American show in any sense and none of their conventions for renewal or otherwise apply. You should know better. That you state that we must "ignore rules" to make a change to something rational later is a demonstration that you know the rules are wrong. What are you going to do about it? Just blindly apply them regardless, it seems. Barsoomian (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"You are making a prediction about the future of the show." - That assertion is incorrect. The point you seem to be missing is that we can't change the content until a reliable source has confirmed that the status of the program has changed. Until such time as we can prove that the show has finished, we can't say that it has. Adding a date says that the show has finished, removing "present" says that it's ongoing.
"UNDENIABLE VERIFIABLE FACT" - OK, add a citation from a reliable source that proves that the show has ended forever.
"I have no idea why you are talking about American network schedules" - I was using that as an example of when it becomes appropriate to change "last_aired" in the event that there is no announcement about cancellation or the program being renewed. I don't watch enough Pommy programs to know their airing schedule. The US schedule is usually obvious to everyone. Since it's obviously too hard for you, if there's no announcement about cancellation or the program being renewed in the meantime, come back on 28 June 2012 and we'll discuss changing "last_aired". I'll probably agree then that the time has come to add an end date, but less than 7 weeks after the last episode is too early.
"That you state that we must "ignore rules" to make a change to something rational later is a demonstration that you know the rules are wrong." - That assertion is also incorrect. The rules can't cater for every circumstance that arises. That's why we have WP:CONSENSUS. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Until such time as we can prove that the show has finished" I am talking about the word "present". You are talking about "finished". I'm not asserting he show has finished. I am asking you to support your assertion that it is "present". Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"proves that the show has ended forever." I never said either "ended" or "forever". Are you really unable to read what I wrote? Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"come back on 28 June 2012" So you're making a rule "wait for one year". How gracious of you. What authority do you have to do that? I asked your buddies at the template page, they wouldn't commit to any timetable. But they'll probably let you get away with it, since they know you. In any case, you would then have had the article falsely stating that it was "present" for a year. Happy with that? In any case, I'm not going to come to you to ask for permission to fix an error you made. How about you take responsibility for fixing it. Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I know about "consensus" It means you don't have to worry about logic, the English language, or facts, as long as you have some friends to back you up. You already know that your friends will help you enforce this rule, so you don't need to justify it. Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't edit comments made by others. Inserting your replies into another person's post is inappropriate. I have moved your responses to the bottom, where they should have been added. If you want to reply to specific points, quote me as I quoted you. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
How pedantic, I did not edit your comments. I apologise if you felt the integrity of your essay was compromised, but it saved having to put slabs of text in quotes and it was perfectly clear who said what. I signed my own words. How about you apologise for putting words in my mouth? e.g. "the show has ended forever". ? No? Barsoomian (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Primeval
Broadcast
Original run 10 February 2007 (2007-02-10)  – 28 June 2011 (2011-06-28)
Clearly, you need to familiarise yourself with talk page guidelines. Inserting text is editing comments. While you may have signed each entry, I only signed the end of my post so, to somebody who comes along in a few weeks or months, it looks like you said all except my last paragraph. Inserting text is inappropriate, this is something that has wide consensus. As for "putting words in (your) mouth?", I did no such thing. If you were more familiar with the infobox you'd understand that adding an end date is doing exactly what I said. "|first_aired=" and "|last_aired=" combine and appear as "Original run". Adding a date in "|last_aired=" results in original run becoming "10 February 2007 – 28 June 2011". The presence of "28 June 2011" indicates that the run is complete, and there is no evidence that is the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I already apologised. Don' beat a dead horse. Do I need to abase myself? No one could be confused in reality, and if they were, who cares? You said I had to prove the show had "ended forever" when I actually said only that it was "not present". That you continue to equate these two statements is absurd. Tell you what, even if "Original run" was 2007-2011, that is not wrong. That's what it is, now. There is no implication that the run has finished "forever". How is it different from "2007-present"? Regardless, "present" is false. You will not address that simple fact. Barsoomian (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Barsoomian, please refrain from accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being in "collusion" with one another. Consensus disagrees with you; you are aware of this. Consensus isn't going to always agree with you, and it's okay. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't mean it isn't the case. In the previous discussion, I informed you of ways to determine if consensus has changed. If you feel consensus has changed, please, pursue those avenues. In regard to when "last_aired" must be filled, Wikipedia does not have a deadline. If this show ends, someone, in some reliable source, is bound to say something about it. In the highly unlikely case that does not happen, we can cross that bridge, when we come to it.  Chickenmonkey  08:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not psychotic. You aren't literally conspiring, just backing each other up, for what seems to you to be a valid reason. It amounts to the same thing in the end though, whatever your motives. You just keep repeating "consensus says ..." There is never a re-examination of the principles, just just a headcount to confirm the status quo. Since I'm basically not a political person, I just make my points for myself and, foolishly it appears, expect them to stand on their own merits. Barsoomian (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course we're backing each other up. You may not always agree with consensus, but if there is consensus you have to abide by it. That's all we're doing. There was a "re-examination of the principles"; YOU initiated it at Template talk:Infobox television#Last aired and the result didn't please you. Regardless, you now have to abide by it if you're not willing to pursue the avenues suggested to you by Chickenmonkey. Being WP:POINTY, isn't one of those avenues. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to leap in to spew a load of acronymic putdowns on my head at every opportunity. You've done it several times in this thread now, as has Chickenmonkey. We all know you have the numbers. And we can all see the consequences. As for the specific "Being WP:POINTY," slur, raising and discussing an issue on the Talk page is not being disruptive. In fact that article explicitly recommends doing exactly that. Failing to agree with you and slink away is not being disruptive. Why not see Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule and then consider how reasonable it is to assert a television show is eternal until proven otherwise. Barsoomian (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If you feel you have been "putdown", that's unfortunate, but nobody has done so. Continuing to raise an issue on the talk page, when consensus has been shown to disagree with you, is disruptive; this is especially the case when you both admit consensus is against you ("We all know you have the numbers.") and you are admittedly arguing to make a point ("I just make my points for myself [...]"). Nobody is asking you to "slink away", but this continued discussion bears no fruit.  Chickenmonkey  18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As for "you are admittedly arguing to make a point" I refer you to WP:POINT: "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered POINTY". You can't have an argument (in the logical, not Monty Python, sense) without "making points". Don't accuse me of being "disruptive" just because you want the last word. Stubborn, yes. But I'm not disrupting anything by explaining my position and responding to others' comments on a DISCUSSION PAGE. That's the "D" in WP:BRD. Most particularly when they keep misrepresenting what I said. State your own opinion but don't attribute things I never said to me. As for putdowns, you did plenty elsewhere, but I was specifically referring to our esteemed colleague. Not that I want to butt heads about it, but I'm not going to bend over and accept all the snarky labels anyone wants to apply to me. If you accuse me of misconduct, as you both have done, I will defend myself. If you want to ignore me, that would be fine, and the "disruptive" discussion will peter out. I'm not going to shout into an empty room. But if you choose to respond, don't expect me to take it in silence. Barsoomian (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I respectfully refer you back to WP:HEAR. This discussion was had, at Template talk:Infobox television#Last aired, and the result was not to your liking. Then you chose to raise the issue, again, here, hoping to get a different result. I'm not attempting to label you; I'm trying to point you to pages that I feel could be helpful to you in the future. As for putdowns, if you reread the previous discussion, you'll see that I did not put you down and you acknowledged that. I don't want the last word. To that end, you are correct; I am going to exit this conversation the same way I exited the previous one. Have a nice day.  Chickenmonkey  07:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Prefacing a putdown with "respectfully" doesn't negate it, it just adds a sneer. So you blew the "no putdowns" claim there, twice. And added another: "forum shopping": 1) I noticed this problem in the template so I raised it in the appropriate page, 2) When you did your driveby edits here, an article I have been monitoring for several years, I reacted here. Again, you are complaining because I don't just bend over and let you have your way. You have made this article that much worse, I had to at least try to repair it. Barsoomian (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Impossible Pictures[edit]

The article Impossible Pictures was recently deleted due to a lack of external references. I have restored it and added a few refs. If anyone can improve the article, particularly by adding external references, please do so. Barsoomian (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Primeval: New Order?[edit]

This article on Digital Spy says :

Broadcast reports that Indie production company Impossible Pictures has secured an order for the "older, darker and scarier" Primeval: New Order from Canadian sci-fi broadcaster Space, which previously acquired the UK series. The 13, one-hour episodes - said to have a budget of $2.5 (£1.6m) per episode - will follow a group of North American scientists and animal experts who investigate the arrival of prehistoric and futuristic creatures in the modern day world. The show will feature a "younger, sexier" cast, while storylines will also explore characters' relationships.

But I can't find any confirmation from Impossible, Space, Broadcast. So I didn't put it in the article. If it's for real a reliable source should have the story in a day or two. Trolls have been posting similar rumours of new series here for months, maybe this is a hoax that suckered a reporter. Barsoomian (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the first time Digital Spy has commented on a Canadian version. I think older reports are still in the article, next to the film mention. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Series 6, a movie, a spinoff, have all been mentioned as "under discussion", but this is saying "secured". Which I find a bit odd without any press release from the principals to be found. Barsoomian (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Quotes from OMNI and Bell Media, with production information. I'd say it is official: link. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also a blog announcement from Space. You have to click blogs to get to it. Currently the top post. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
And here is the press release from Bell Media, one of the largest media companies in Canada. It's official. I've begun an article at Primeval: New World. Should be developed enough already to avoid any worries about notability/deletion discussion. Will try to keep the page neat and tidy as info becomes available. I'll turn it into an FA if I can (eventually). Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Special?[edit]

This edit by Aussielegend claims "Still a special to go". What "special" would that be? Why isn't it mentioned in the article? Barsoomian (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, it was me with too many articles on my watchlist. I got this and "The IT Crowd" mixed up. However, the discussion archived at Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 12#Last aired is still relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As I thought. So, 5 months off the air, no renewal in sight, yet you insist it's "present". Wikipedia looks more foolish every day. Barsoomian (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Futurama was cancelled and off air for 5 years while The Jetsons was cancelled and off air for 22 years. Both came back. Primeval's future has been in limbo for extended periods previously and it was off air for 17 months as a result. Five months is not a long time compared to those examples. As you're well aware, everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and we can't verify that it has ended forever. The discussion that I cited is a lot bigger than you or me. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, I would not respond on this if you hadn't again gone on about "verify that it has ended forever". No one said it has. And as your examples show, you can NEVER say that because any show can be revived. But I, and you, can verify the last date a new episode aired (28 June, 2011). You can't verify that it is "present". Yet you insist we must pretend it is. Forever. Setting a "last aired" date is not putting a tombstone on a show. It can be revised like any other information if and when circumstances change. But you insist it reflect an imaginary possible future rather than the verifiable facts. Barsoomian (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I refer you back to the earlier discussion, as well as the discussion above. This has all been said before. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
All you had to do was to cite the rule you were enforcing. When you tried to justify it, you invite debate. Since you can't logically justify it, that would have been a better tactic. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well then. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This article states that series 5 was aired on Watch and will be aired on ITV in 2012. The ITV site for Primeval confirms that series 5 will air on ITV, "Series 4 is now over but don't worry, Matt and the team will return!" I think that should suffice, at least until series 5 has finished airing on ITV. Then, we can see if the show is renewed or not.  Chickenmonkey  18:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Series 5 was shown on Watch, ending 28 June 2011. Reruns on other networks are just footnotes. The infobox records only the "Original run". Regardless, any renewal is just a pious hope by dedicated fans and cannot justify the bland statement that the show is "present". Or we should make Firefly present because I believe that Nathan Fillion will buy the rights and revive it. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears that AL was right about the "special" after all. Apologies. Barsoomian (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Series 6 ( not)[edit]

The Primeval Wikia has this:

February 2nd 2012

"Tim Haines says that it is very unlikely that a sixth series of Primeval will be commissioned in the UK. We won’t know for 100% certain until after it has transmitted on ITV in June or July, as they were the main investors in the series and will make a decision based on the ratings and success of series 5 for their audiences. But all signs are that it won’t be renewed which is, of course, very sad."

―Grant Bushby, Head of PR and Marketing for Impossible Pictures

I know that a Wikia isn't an RS, but I don't doubt this is true. Fans fake stuff to make their show come back, not kill it off. If anyone has a citeable source confirming (or refuting) this, please put it in the article. There's nothing on Impossible Pictures' site. Series 5 actually starts on ITV on June 16 2012. Barsoomian (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It was probably quoted from another website that might have been an interview. While we're on the subject of season 5, should we not add the ITV viewing figures too? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The Wikia seems to be the original source. Can't find anything older. Add the ITV figures if you want to and can fit them in. Barsoomian (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The original source was an email sent by Impossible Pictures to Primeval Wiki, or probably more accurately a member of Primeval wiki. Eshlare (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Where is that cited? Under the idiotic rules enforced here, despite the show last being in production almost two years ago, it must be stated as "present" in the infobox, until there is official confirmation that it isn't. So if they don't, it will be eternal, according to Wikipedia. Barsoomian (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Google directed me to this facebook page which made the above claim. I was trying to say that as it (allegedly) originates in an email it won't be in any RS. Would this June 2012 quote from H. Spearitt be useful? "If we made another one, by the time it's shown again, all the fans will have been waiting a couple of years and I don't know if that's entirely fair." It's the only thing that comes close to indicating that the UK series won't return.Eshlare (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the source, it's still playing in July so I there's hope they'll renew it - or at least state they've cancelled it for wikipedia purposes. Just wish BBC america would give us the last few episodes. CarolMooreDC 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Series 5... currently showing repeats, or are the listed dates wrong?[edit]

I just glanced through the air dates and noticed that series 5 apparently began and ended some point in 2011. Since there's still a lot of speculation about whether there will be a series 6, I have to assume the series that is currently being shown on ITV (which they appear to be advertising as first-run broadcast) is series 5 yet it's 2012 now. Can anyone please confirm whether the current broadcast is actually a repeat, or (as I suspect) the listed dates are incorrect? Pobatti (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Series 5 did air in 2011 on the dates shown. I'm not sure why you'd think the air dates are wrong, given that there's a source for the episode 1 air date in the episode list article,[5] and ratings figures for each episode dating from last year. The lead of the episode list also explains that series 5 "began on 24 May 2011 on digital channel Watch and was repeated on ITV from 16 June 2012." So yes, it is a first run on ITV, but not the first run for the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Series 5 hasn't been shown on ITV before so to them it's a first run. There isn't any hope of it being renewed for a sixth series. The only speculation is to when this will be admitted. According to Wikipedia, if no one does, it will be "present" forever. Barsoomian (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratings for Series 5[edit]

should we not list the ratings of series 5 for when it was shown on ITV1, as this is undoubtedly the more prominent one and the one which will have got the highest viewer ratings? Frogkermit (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of world "series"[edit]

The use of the world "series" makes this page very confusing. An entire "series" of a TV show contains one or more season. In this case Primeval is the name of the series and there are 5 seasons. Calling each season a series is misleading as it gives the impression that each season is a different TV show. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, the correct UK term is "series". "Season" is American. --AussieLegend () 09:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

After posting above, Jimv1983 changed the article to use "season" instead of "series", as well as changing "programme" to "program" in the prose, in violation of WP:ENGVAR.[6] I reverted with an appropriate edit summary,[7] but Jimv1983 has reverted without explanation or discussion.[8] I have left an appropriate warning on his talk page, noting "Primeval is a UK article and uses UK spelling and terminology, as explained on the talk page. If you don't like the use of the word "series" in UK articles, you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. You should also note the instructions for {{Infobox television}} which say that "series" is used for UK television series."[9] --AussieLegend () 16:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammesOverview/?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial