Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)

Dates in infobox

It is common practice to not include future dates in the infobox until the event has happened, no premiere dates until the first episode has aired, no finale dates until the final episode has aired, no episode count until the first episode has aired and only update gradually as episodes are released. Please stop adding them. Thanks. On the documentation note: it says "Date the show first aired." which is in past tense; as in, after it happened. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Common practice isn't always right, documentation should always be followed, since it doesn't say you can't put in, there must be nothing wrong in dong so. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you like to follow the documentation to the letter rather than consensus, lets lake another look at the documentation: "Date the show first aired." which is past tense, not "Date the show first airs." or "Date the show will first air." Indicating only to add it after the fact. Dates are only added when they have happened. This is common usage, and has consensus throughout the various articles, which might not be right but is what is followed. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

117, please do not add future dates to the infobox. By long-established convention, we do not do that; it falls under the "crystal-ball" concept in that we have no control over whether the event will actually occur as scheduled. Dates can be mentioned in the body copy, but we need to keep the fluid nature of television scheduling in mind there as well. Accordingly, we would say "is scheduled to air" rather than "will air", and use similar construction for other forward-looking statements, even if references exist to support the dates in question. One other note - template documentation pages are simply informational, and not the same as guidelines, and as such common practice (bolstered by related discussions) is typically a more accurate guide of what to do. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the date to the infobox isn't a CRYSTAL violation, we have a valid source. 117Avenue (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not do that, based on long-established convention and subsequent discussions. Note that we don't update episode counts prior to a new episode airing for much the same reason. While the network may well intend to air the event at that time, there are too many variables that can affect it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Lang Character

What's Stephen Lang's character's name? Is it Frank Taylor or Nathanial Taylor? It's a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.226.249 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary insufficient detail warning box thingy

I think the current summary about an unaired show is exactly 100% perfectly fine. If I knew how to remove it I would! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.8.165 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporal What Now?

Really? That's the plan? Go back in time to start Humanity again 85 million years ago? Instead of space, which is feasible, and doesn't require fraking with time.

On that subject the first trip back would destroy the future timeline - hence no more trips back, because guess what...you just Marty McFly'd yourself into Robinson Crusoe: Temporal Campout Edition.

Can anyone say "Alternate 1985" *underlines with chalk* Wolfe202 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually read that it's more like they are going to an alternate Earth that is way in the past. 66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I was thinking of all these things after finding out of the premise of this show. There would be a paradox in so much that there would be a whole new past that would almost certainly belie the ancestry of these would-be time travelers; thus, no one to travel back in time; thus, no messing with the past; thus, messing with the past. Also, if they go back 85 million years, or whatever, this would result in over-population sooner because, let's be honest, after a few generations the lessons of the past will be forgotten and people will procreate like normal. I would have to suggest, not having seen the show, that it must be an alternate earth otherwise this would be a glaring oversight by the producers and writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless, despite having travelled back in time to save the human race, humanity becomes extinct shortly after the events of the series. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if humanity becomes extinct in the future (i.e., the group of humans from which the time travelers came) then this would not disrupt the time loop. But, if the travelers who go back in the past all die (i.e. go extinct), then humanity does not really go extinct but rather it would proceed, presumably, in its normal fashion. Albeit, with the potential for later archaeologists to find some really odd artifacts of a very advanced civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While this conversation is pretty interesting, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please keep it to how to improve the article. Pretty please? Millahnna (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a link to a place where we can discuss it? Maybe someone's facebook wall?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

Why do we need to provide one for you, are you too lazy to use Google? I hear it is absolutely amazing for that. Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite; and there are so many of those, it really isn't too difficult to track a few down. They aren't exactly uncommon on the internet. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with Wikipedians wanting a forum?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Melican makes appropriate objections. It isn't difficult to find forums and, while "Wikipedians" may want a forum, it is not in Wikipedia's scope to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Haysbert & Raven Symone?

I see them listed as recurring characters. Is this true? I'd love to see Haysbert on here but googling him and the show brings no other matches. i think somebody messed with this page.66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's unsourced and the roles don't appear on either of their articles. I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Concept?

The series is claimed to stem from an original concept by Kelly Marcel... Hardly. This concept reflects a plethora of earlier sci-fi; Julian May's The Saga of the Exiles, Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder, ITV's Primeval, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus Dogsbody (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but those don't rely on 'idiot plot' and cliche dialogue... there's your difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.89.118 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added into the text that the major theme has been covered before - in the Star Trek (Original Series) episode All Our Yesterdays. By this I mean where people in peril go to the distant past to start anew. This is not an opinion, but a fact.

It was removed without reason. I re-edited it back in and it was removed again without reason. Is there someone protecting the series from edits that show that the series is no a truly original concept?

Montalban (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know who removed it the first time, but I removed it the last time. Your paranoid conspiracy theory about someone from the show notwithstanding, it's simple. Your personal opinions about what shows had similar themes is really WP:OR. If you find a reliable source that makes those assertions, then they might be relevent and added.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The theme of Terra Nova is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.

The theme of "All Our Yesterdays" is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.

I make no statement that one has a plot because of the other, only that the theme has been explored before. I made no inferences. I merely stated fact.

If one can avoid ad hom that would be great (paranoia being an inference).

It's a matter already discussed on fora around the world

quote

You know what's funny is Star Trek (TOS) already told this story with the episode All Our Yesterdays. In the episode the Enterprise crew encounters a planet where all the inhabitants have time traveled to the past because their sun is about to die out. I wonder if that's where they got the idea for this new series http://nightly.net/topic/69939-terra-nova/

quote

My main issue with Terra Nova tho is that ok yeah it's Speilburg but Brannon Braga is also involved. :/ But time travel always sound fun! Even if the plot is taken from the Star Trek ep All Our Yesterdays. http://forums.outpost10f.com/minibb/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=9592

Discussion

Terra Nova vs All Our Yesterdays http://www.freak-search.com/en/thread/5284781/terra_nova_vs_all_our_yesterdays

My noting a similiarity is what it is. I'm a sci-fi fan.

Montalban (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ad hominem? Get a grip sport. When you start with conspiracy theories about people from the show controlling entries, that is paranoid. It doesn't matter if you are a sci-fi fan or not. You're not a reliable source and neither are those discussion forums you presented. It might be in your best interest to read WP:RS. BTW, tough to take a "source" seriously when they can't even spell Spielberg's name correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, those fail WP:RS in a huge way. If you want to take them to the RSN, fine, but they will tell you the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Post Gazette article is a solid source, but we can't start making it the source for things the author didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Enterprise also had a Terra Nova episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.61.8 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting too is that two of the Terra Nova people worked on Star Trek

Montalban (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Except that the episode is not about travelling back in time at all. It's colonizing a new planet (the TV series is not another planet). So what is similar? The name. Gee......both used the latin phrase for "new land". Remarkable. Maybe this is all related to the Terra Nova (newspaper) in Cape Verde or maybe the Canadian destroyer HMCS Terra Nova (DDE 259). I mean, they have the same name, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The site I added notes it's a cross between Outcasts and Jurassic Park

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11268/1174360-67.stm/#ixzz1ZDpmrwcQ

Apparently one can't know why the writer would say this because he doesn't explicitly say so. That's the thing about 'pop' culture. Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well welcome to the trials of proper sourcing. Just relax and give it a few days and the media will start making the comparison in reliable sources and it will all be good. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all wonderful mystery that for instance I read in the news about President Obama, and 'cause it doesn't mention he's black, he musn't be

Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't even make sense. There is no shortage of sources that confirm his race. You might find it enlightening to read the essay WP:TRUTH. To use a simple illustration: If you personally saw a bridge collapse today and wanted to edit the article, what you have to say may be true, but that doesn't mean it can go in the article. You have to wait for a reliable source to print it, even though that reporter might not have even been there. It sounds weird, but that is how Wikipedia works. It's not a question of what people know, it's a matter of what we can show via reliable sources. Again, why not just relax and wait a few days? Chances are someone at a reliable source will make the comparisons. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources that are available today will still be available tomorrow. Sources that will be available tomorrow are not available today. It takes time to build a good article, and as the show progresses and the overarching plot becomes more evident more information will be available to add to the article. There is no rush. Take time and craft it carefully. Rome wasn't built in a day. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to enjoy 'sacred cow' status, even a hint that it's not original gets waves of re-edits. Now a single review that actually shows this connection and I note it's been changed from 'mixed' reviews to 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews.

The issue about 'reliable sources' is a non-issue. I posted that it shared a similar theme. I noted that amongst fan-dom this observation has also been made. These citations were removed - but they showed what has been observed. That a professional film critic didn't make the observation doesn't make the fact it was observed any less so. I made no point that the observations show a direct relationship between the development of one show to the other... although it is interesting to note that a couple of key people were also on Star Trek.

With so much money at stake I guess the studios are allowed to exert some influence on film critics.

Montalban (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that only four or five reviews are even presented, only one of which is negative. Given the amount of hype this show received, I'm sure it was viewed by more than five critics. Saying it received "overwhelmingly" positive reviews is, I note, flying in the face of WP:NPOV. We should present the facts, not summarize them; that's just original research. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several of the positive criticisms also note that the show has drawn on other themes with comments that it's a cross between Lost and Jurassic Park. I don't get why this was an issue. It's not a negative (nor a positive) statement, just an observation. I wonder if the editor who cited The Washington Post realises that they have now added an acknowledgement to this because it says it is a "Swiss Family Robinson-style" show. That is, it follows a theme of the Swiss Family Robinson - which incidentally followed Robinson Crusoe which itself is based on real-life events. None of these connections lessen my ability to enjoy a show.

critics aren't sci-fi fans

Montalban (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys on about? Most of Shakespeare's stories weren't totally original ideas. He and his plays are still well regarded. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the very thing I don't understand. Initially I noted that the theme of escaping into the distant past had been explored before – like in "All Our Yesterdays" (an Star Trek episode)

This was edited out. I don't see it as a negative. It's just a fact. However I get the feeling that some see it as a negative and they've tried to re-edit the article to give a spin that is nothing but positive. Even changing 'mixed reviews' to 'overwhelmingly positive reviews'.

Montalban (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing "original" about Terra Nova. The plot, the characters, the conflicts, and the political intrigue are so familiar as to be cliched. That does not mean it cannot be a good show. As long as the producers and writers maintain the production quality and can give new twists to old themes, I'll keep watching.PNW Raven (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All the ...interesting...chit-chat aside, this is not the place for it. Period. Bring a reliably-sourced, verifiable citation from a notable source that talks about the connections between ST and TN and we're in business. Without it, you are simply wasting everyone's time, including your own. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

not as credited

"However, they are unaware that the colony is in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs.[4]" This reference not only doesn't contain this sentence but doesn't even state the idea. Further, if you land in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs, possible consequences include getting stepped on or getting mingled with the animal's flesh. Move the reference to something it actually states and then rewrite this sentence to make sense. 4.249.63.28 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Receiving the "Glee" Treatment

Did this show come under fire when Fox said it would receive the "Glee" treatment?P3771 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

tenth?

How is the tenth pilgrimage the first colony when the sixth is already there? Wouldn't the tenth be, well, the tenth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading it. The colony, Terra Nova, is the first settlement established. Only one other (that of the Sixers) is, at this time known to exist. The tenth pilgrimmage is the tenth group of immigrants to that first colony. Each pilgrimmage doesn't set up its own colony. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot Hole?

I'm unclear as to just how it was determined that a colony could be established. If the time rift can only be traveled one way, how could the first person (presumably Taylor) let anyone know that he survived, what he found, that this was a gateway to the past, and that it was possible to colonize here. Did the people back in the 22nd century just assume he made it into the past and started sending supplies and colonist? Or is it possible for the two time periods to still communicate through the rift? If there's an explanation, I'm not seeing it. PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that will be answered as time goes on. There have only been two episodes so far. I think people are looking too deeply into the mythology at this early point in time for details such as this to be considered plot holes worth inclusion in the article. And again, please note the header at the top of the talk page: Wikipedia is not a forum. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware this is not a forum. My question specifically pertained to the series' overall plot structure, and whether or not this detail had been explained by the show's writers. This is to help me with future edits. I'm sorry if that was unclear. PNW Raven (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood. The only possibility that strikes me is that, when they said it was an alternate timeline because the beacon/message never reached the present/future, they were lying about it (for some unknown reason that will become clear later on). Whatever the reason, I'm sure it will crop up as the season progresses. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some searching in reliable sources would help you more than asking here. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant sneaky content?

In the Broadcast section we are told "Terra Nova was expected to premiere in May 2011 with a two-hour sneak preview..." I have two concerns here:

-Is there really any point telling us what WAS going to happen, but didn't? Is it encyclopaedic?

-What was sneaky about it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're right that "sneak" probably doesn't belong. The source simply calls it a preview and I've removed "sneak". However, the "what was going to happen" seems significant in this case. They planned an early preview, promoted it and then were forced to move it back due to production being more than they anticipated. That seems relevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely it is relevant and encylopaedic. It is part of the information on development and production, and those details are often hard to come by depending on what the subject is. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But in the long term, is anyone going to care? Did Shakespeare encounter any delays getting any of his productions onto the stage? You probably don't know. Do you care? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually. It's all part of being comprehensive and is essential to develop the best articles on here. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Shakespeare production was delayed? Why do you care about it? Sorry. Was asking three questions in one post too much? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was; the Shakespeare question was the one I was not replying to. But to answer your subsequent question, I care because it shows the development process of the play. Taking this hypothetical Shakespeare scenario, it would tell us about his writing process, and perhaps a little of the politics of theatre in his era. Was it delayed because of writer's block? Were elements of the play changed from the way he envisaged/first drew it out because of that? How did it change the theme, climax, or emotion of the show? Was it delayed because the people in power (ie. the theatre owners) disagreed with the play he had created (imagine their reaction if it centred around a homosexual relationship back in that day!)? Or was it perhaps the actors who disagreed with the roles they had to take on? Again that leads us into how Shakespeare worked around the writing problems so that the play could, eventually, go forwards. Or perhaps he had financial issues and that delayed aspects of production. I am not a fan of Billy Shakespeare, but I would find any and all of that information to be most interesing. I would counter that it is, in fact, essential information for the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• If this were the Shakespeare article, I'd be concerned. It's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have both missed the point. (I should have guessed three points in one post would be too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans.) We don't know if any Shakespeare production was delayed, and nobody cares. It's trivia. I'm quite looking forward to this show (t starts tonight where I live), but I don't want the article filled with fan column gossip. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans"? There's no need to be uncivil or degrading; there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate and, quite frankly, I would much rather discuss it here on the talk page, with respect, than edit-war over it and sling insults. The Shakespeare scenario was hypothetical; we both acknowledged it as such. You consider the fact that the premiere was delayed to be trivia. I consider it important information on the development process. Neither 'side' (for lack of a better term) is more right or wrong than the other. That's why we have discussions like this and consensus to decide what is to be included. If you want an opinion from editors more experienced than either of us in television articles, might I suggest opening a discussion at one of the relevant Wikiprojects? Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of counting how many (alleged) points you made in a single reply, you should concentrate on making one of them a good one. Just because a question gets asked doesn't mean it merits an actual response. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that valid points I made, and that were not meant to be read in isolation, were ignored, gave me an impression that you were either being rude, or not understanding. I am willing to admit that I don't always understand complex issues, but I don't just ignore what others say. That's where the rudeness started. Once you ignore part of a post, your argument loses credibility. It's VERY frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever dude. Pat yourself on the back about these imagined "points" all you want. The bottom line is that THIS article has info about the delay and so far, 2 experienced editors disagree with you. Now, you can try to discuss something productive or you can keep whining about what didn't get addressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

It seems some object to the term mixed reviews in the sentence Terra Nova has received mixed reviews

Some have re-edited this to overwhelmingly positive reviews, or generally positive.

As far as I can see one can only qualify such if one does a survey of all reviews given and then looks at the ratio of positive to over-all figures. And this has not been done. The best is one magazine surveyed five or so reviews. It can then be said that its survey showed 'generally positive' reviews, but that this figure is only related to the limited data of their survey. Montalban (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the exact same thing could be said for 'mixed'. Such a sentence is inherently original research, regardless of whether the reviews are deemed positive, negative, or mixed. I would think that the best course of action would be to remove such a summarizing statement altogether and just say what the reviews are. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Mixed means simply that some are good and some are bad - which is evidenced by the fact that some good and bad have been cited. Mixed doesn't suggest proportion at all.

It is the proportional factor that is original research - unless someone can show all reviews given and how many are positive.

Montalban (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I gotta go with Montalban on this one. "Mixed" doesn't really imply a proportion to me. And while Montalban knows that I'm no fan or OR :), this isn't OR to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one negative review listed, and the real crux of that review is ignored by the entry. Reading the actual review, he essentially says the series is good as long as they keep the production values up, but he doubts that they will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.199 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the comment "Stargate:SGU by Dr. Seuss" not positive -unless one likes Dr Seuss' contribution to sci-fi. However we'll end up disagreeing on whether we perceive it to be negative, or positive. And, I don't say that the Boston Herald review is typical of negative comments. However this misses the point that there's no survey of all reviews done, therefore one can't say that they're overwhelmingly positive.

Montalban (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it's received critical reception, especially concerning what many consider to be bland characters. There's been a lot of talk about the cliches in it. The rebel son, wanting a new life, black people dying like they were wearing red shirts, etc. I'd say that most reviews were neutral but hopeful about the future.

"A lot of talk about it" means nothing. What is being chatted up on sci-fi forums etc has no encyclopedia value. When a reliable source writes about the "cliches", then we'll look at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, plenty of RS and others here, http://www.google.com/#q=%22terra+nova%22+cliche&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=QtOkTprYOcfNrQf3mrDzAg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=243423c6f499f635&biw=1280&bih=857 "guy-eating cliches" "lazy plotting" "it's a bloated mess" "This show is so cliche it's embarrassing." "story lines are extremely boring and a convoluted mess" "The biggest disappointment of this show is how dreadfully boring it is" "The story-telling bogs down into cliches as soon as they arrive" hey well this is kind of fun, but frankly writing about this terminally dull Waltons clone isn't that much better than watching it. Greglocock (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Did any of these reviews say something similar to my comment above...?P3771 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a prime example of how Metacritic fails to accurately supply an accurate weighted value.. many of the critical scores are based on the pilot and are rather high.. then there are those who commented on the series so far.. who are naturally less positive.. many original critics don't come back and reevaluate (for whatever reason) giving what has to be a very skewed result... its a shame as in other mediums it is a reasonable system.--MRNasher (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Links to ACE and The Gold Coast need to be disambiguated to American Cinema Editors and Gold Coast, Queensland. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected against editing

Why is this? The page could do with some minor cleanup.

• Agreed. Semi-protect would have squashed most of the edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested, but full-protection was given instead. It should be lifted either later today or some point tomorrow I think. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.181.171.25, 4 October 2011

The character Reynolds is not fully described, it should add ",a soldier who seems to have a crush on Maddy" 69.181.171.25 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss changes before applying {{editprotected}}, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• A reliable source is needed to make observations like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AnonymousAnimus, 4 October 2011

3 episodes have aired now, not 2.

AnonymousAnimus (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The pilot was a single, 2 hour episode. Last night was S1, E2 according to the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong: see here. The Pilot was 2 episodes. The title says too! -- LAW CSI (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the Futon Critic.......Fox knows more about their own show. [1] Episode 1 Genesis aired on 9/26. Episode 2 Instinct aired on 10/3. If Fox says the 9/26 broadcast was one episode, then it was 1 episode. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's funny: In the Genesis episode even pointed out who wrote Part 1 and Part 2. So it must still be two consequences. -- 91.66.23.88 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two parts doesn't necessarily have to mean two episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Declining as there isn't clear consensus for this change right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the pilot was written and filmed with the idea of a two-hour premier, but later reruns can be shown as two separate episodes.PNW Raven (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@InsideTerraNova confirm that Genesis is 1 & 2 and there will be 11 episodes after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.66.226 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• And the show website still lists 2 episodes so far. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So two official sources are saying two different things. Welp, guess we'll have to wait until the DVD is released. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A link needs to be set up for Rene Echevarria (he has his own Wiki article). Executive producers Braga and Echevarria worked together on StarTrek. (see their Wiki articles for more info) Victorsteelballs (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

a 1 hour pilot was to air in may but it was push back to air with the 12 other ep which was order in 2 hour ep was cut in to two but they air it together so it 1A and 1b so their is 12 more after it not 11 besides it will end with a Episode 12/13 aired together so keep the ep list the way it is.. Genesis was only number 1 that was the pilot..... but something is missing i think this will be answer st the end of the season they say the end will be 2 hours long so let's wait for the answer(note i edited my comment to get some facts right due to forgetting the pilot airdate back in may )--Wjmdem (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Measuring time

They haven't explained how they measure time in "the past", but it was mentioned in the Ocotber 10 episode that Taylor arrived seven years ago. Also, they said in the same episode it is possible to communicate with people in 2149 when the portal opens. Now I assume time is progressing in both places. If Taylor went to Terra Nova seven years ago it was 2142 when he went. If they communicate with "the present" one year after Stepehen LangJim Shannon arrived, then "the present" will be 2150. And it will be eight years after Taylor arrived.

All of this, I suppose, needs reliable sources before the article can include it, but I think the seven years for Taylor could be sourced to the episode.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if I had taken time to look at the article, I would have seen that not only is seven years in the article, but it has a quote in the Toronto Sun as its source.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image

Now that the series has begun airing, shouldn't the image in the infobox be the intertitle, instead of a promotional picture used 17 months ago? 117Avenue (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be. Feel free to change it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good fortune that the Italian Wikipedia was already using it, I didn't want to figure out how to capture it. 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: All Our Yesterdays

I've removed the section that states that the Star Trek (TOS) episode shares a "similar premise" with TN, as it is filled to overflowing with Original Research - something we unequivocally do not allow in Wikipedia. I am fully aware of the forum-style discussion that took place a few sections above, and just posted a comment there before deciding that the point needed to be made without any hint of vagueness by initiating a section here.
Our policies do not afford us the opportunity to find our own connections to other material. When we mistakenly do so, it is called synthesis, a violation of NOR. We find reliable, notable sources that make the connection and cite them, If there are no citations can be found, the topic goes unexplored. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the See Also link toAll Our Yesterdays last night as well. I thought it strange, but wanted to chack it out. I consider myself a fairly good Star Trek fan, but not geek enough to have remembered the exact premise of that episode. I looked it up and decided that the similarities were close enough to leave this in. Remember that the shows themselves are their own sources, so its not really OR to make the link.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, that isn't our call to make as editors: we are not citable, and our opinion as to what belongs in the article is governed by the policies and guidelines all editors agree to when editing here. Find a notable, reliable source that draws those comparisons - and we can point to how that source being cited says those things. Without it, our hands are tied. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at WP:PRIMARY. The episodes are primary sources and so, any use of them can only consist of direct reporting of events within the episodes. WP:PRIMARY requires that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." "I looked it up and decided that the similarities were close enough to leave this in" is indeed original research. As Jack Sebastian has pointed out, you need a reliable, secondary source to make the link, like this, which makes the link between Terra Nova and Outcasts. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Think that's a bit of overkill, given the obvious plot similarities. Those similarities are easily verifiable, within the episodes, and any reasonable person would be able to come to the same conclusion. It has been very common for years to point out these type of plot similarities among movies, books, TV shows, and other literature. Why its all of a sudden become a problem here, is beyond me.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I find most of the "pointing out plot similarities" to usually be a bunch of OR about trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jojhutton's response: I cannot speak to how you think it used to be; I never encountered such that wasn't challenged and/or removed upon identification as OR or SYN. It's the way the encyclopedia is supposed to be, and one of the many things that separate us from blogs and forums. I won't go so far as Niteshift36 and call it trivial, but if it is as important/reasonable/obvious as you seem to think it is, someone notable and citable would have noted it. We aren't saying you are wrong, Jojhutton; we are asking you to find a reliable source for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With over 700 episodes, plus movies, it's easy to link any plot line to a Star Trek episode, science fiction or not. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very true and is one of the reasons why WP:PRIMARY says what it says. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a million (approximately) shows and books that have a "similar premise" to a greater or lesser extent. Trek isn't the beginning and end of its influences. You could write a short essay on this, which of course would be all WP:OR. It might include Primeval; It's About Time (TV series); The Time Tunnel; Saga of Pliocene Exile; Time's Last Gift (PJ Farmer); The Flintstones; Pellucidar; Caprona (island); The Lost World (Conan Doyle novel); Dinotopia.... Anyway, the categories it's included in, especially "Dinosaurs in television fiction"; "Time travel television series" provide plenty of "see also". Barsoomian (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Final thought I'm a bit surprised that there seem to be a few comments here that actually imply that the show has absolutely nothing in common with theStar Trek episode. Wanting it cited per WP:V is a very fair argument, given that verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Very hard to argue against that. What puzzles me, is that this particular similarity between the show and the episode is so spot on similar that even my seven year old pointed it out to me. Anyone here who is actually denying this similarity, either has never seen the Star Trek episode, or is outright lying, in an attempt to be pointy. It may not be in the article now, but eventually the show won't get picked up for a second season. (Its too expensive to produce, and the ratings aren't high enough to justify its large budget. Sorry for the reality check Terra Nova fans). When that happens, the readership, and eventually the watch list occurrences, will depreciate to hardly anything. The similarities between these two shows is so great, someone will eventually come along and add All Our Yesterdays, and since its almost a spot on match, no one will care or notice.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, okay. Could you perhaps take a peek into that crystal ball of yours and give me the lottery numbers for tomorrow? I mean, since you think this is athe last word on the subject and all. The problem is solved. No one is arguing that there aren't similarities. The point - as you've noticed - is that the deductive reasoning of a 7-year-old (or any of us) isn't notable enough to warrant consideration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tim? Curran

When exactly was he called Tim Curran, all that we know is Curran. Was there a behind the scenes snippet somewhere or did someone just run with it like the IMDb people did with "Dr Katseles"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosun (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a secondary source pops up with the character's full name, it's just Curran. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think someone on wikia made it up and the idiots there just didn't notice it. Gosun (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova Wiki

Also see the Terra Nova Wiki, the biggest and best reference wiki for the show (much better than the ~100 article one on wikia) so if you want to beef up some of the details look around. Gosun (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We tend to avoid other wiki's for the very reasons that you noted above - there is little in the way of provenance for the claims they make, making them little better than fan forums. Even if they cite their material, it is usually cited to forum threads - which Wikipedia pointedly rejects as reliable or notable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its cited to episodes, there are very few, if any, off-site citations or forum threads. Anything if not mentioned in an episode is cited to a place where such info can be found out. The one on wikia is all over the place and unreliable. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that isn't good enough, and I suspect you know that it isn't, anon user. Citing to an episode is a usage of primary sourcing (ie. you visually seeing something and interpreting what you see); we prefer secondary sourcing, like an episode review from a reliable source. And forums? Never, ever, ever a reliable source of information. When we have a source that fits the above criteria, we can use it. Until then, I don't see Curran's first name being a pivotal piece of information in the understanding of the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the TN Wiki does not use ANY forum citations, only primary and (as there is only a few) secondary sources. You also seem to be confusing the better Terra Nova Wiki with the crappy, mismanaged, very incomplete Terra Nova Wikia. Wikia are the ones who made up the name with no link to where such info came from. The better TN Wiki could help hammer out some details that the wikipedia page has WRONG because it uses old material from spoilers released before the episode is aired, as such TN Wiki could act as a secondary source, and it does not break wikipedias rules on linking to wikis as it is not an open wiki and has had constant stability since it started. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You make good points, anon user. I would suggest that if you wish to correct information that is wrong in this article, and you want t use the info from the TN Wiki, use the citations that the TN wiki uses. Again, avoid if at all possible any primary references - they get challenged and removed all the time, whereas secondary ones are far more durable. Durable is good because it helps to stabilize the article and move it along towards GA or FA status. If you would like my assistance in helping to you evaluate the 'wiki-osity' of the citations you wish to use to correct errors here, please feel free to drop me a line on my usertalk page or here. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Maddy's age

In the source used to support much of the intial content about the series' characters, Maddy is said to be "Josh’s endearingly awkward 15-year-old sister".[2] This was the only source used and, despite this, her age was changed several times by IPs and new users to "16", without explanation or a source for the change.(examples:[3][4][5][6]) I got sick of reverting these changes so I challenged the last change.[7] A citation was supplied,[8] but User:Jack Sebastian removed it, and other content, only two and a half hours later, stating in his edit summary, "The information about her age has come up at least twice in episodes, and is really not all that likely to be challenged".[9] Given that I had challenged this less than 11 hours before, and the swap between 15 and 16 had occurred several times, this was obviously a poor assumption. I restored the citation, with an appropriate note in my edit summary,[10] but Jack Sebastian removed the citation, this time without explanation as to why in his edit summary, on 27 December.[11] Again it was restored and again it has been removed.[12] Quite aside from there rarely being a good reason to remove valid citations, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy, "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Since the change was challenged, it needs to be cited in accordance with policy, and the citation should not be removed, as it is likely to be challenged again. Remember, not everyone who reads this article is a dedicated fan of the program who remembers every tiny thing that happens. All content needs to be verifiable, which is why we provide citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are quite right. Clearly someone out there is overly (and somewhat creepily) interested in the child's age. Please feel free to re-add the citation as to the child's age. I deeply apologize for seeking to address undue weight being applied to her age, when the same hasn't been done for everyone else. I wonder how old Tyler is? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Her age is given as 16 several times in the first few episodes. This is an obvious case in which the source is wrong in respect to details to a TV show/movie. Its happened before.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And something which has been pointed out before as well, "the litmus test for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If the observable fact is that we've heard her called 16, and it is opposed by a source that says otherwise, we use the source, and the source alone. As editors, it has been pointed out time and time again that we are not citable as sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The episode can be used as a source, when referring to information that is within it. Her age is given on multiple occasions as being 16. The other source is obviously wrong. we've seen it before. Isn't the first time that a source has gotten something wrong in a TV show,and it won't be the last.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is not "obviously wrong", it was merely reporting what Fox provided in a press release. The same is available at futoncritic.com,[13] as well as multiple other sources.[14] We have no idea where the change from 15 to 16, or vice-versa happened, and probably never will have. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As of today, the page on Fox (http://www.fox.com/terranova/bios/naomi-scott/) reads "The Shannon family’s brilliant and endearingly awkward oldest daughter is enthralled with everything Terra Nova has to offer..." No age specified. "Oldest" of two?--Gaarmyvet (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, the source must be correct, and the episode is obviously wrong. How could I have so mistaken. We must immediately get a hold of Fox and tell them that the age given for Maddy within the episode is incorrect, because reliable sources say so.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the horse is dead, Hojhutton; the point has been made that citation with trump observation. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. We have citations that say one thing, so we say that one thing. Period. Sorry if you disagree. Take it up with management. This is no longer the place to belabor the point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if the citation is obviously wrong. There is a thing called common sense. I think a little needs to be sprinkled around this article for a while, the wikilawyering is making me nauseous.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you feell the citation is wrong - and this is key - go and find one that contradicts it. It's that easy. If you feel this fairly straight-forward view to be "wikilawyering", you might want to discuss it with users who've been here longer than yourself. Now, if you are done following my edits around, I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the article already expresses the correct information, with a "citation". And what is being used as a citation? The episode. Because TV shows/films/books, can and have always been used as sources about themselves. If a citation said that Ilsa runs away with Rick at the end of Casablanca, we annotate that information, even if the citation is obviously wrong? We don't do that because works of fiction ARE citations about themselves. So a citation HAS been found for Maddy being 16.

Second, If two citations appear to contradict each other, which seems to be the case here, we use common sense, not constant wikilawyering the policies and guidelines.

Third,I think I need to pay a bit more attention to what goes on here at this article, in order to help ensure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not being abused and common sense is used when enforcing them. --JOJ ^Hutton 14:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really not necessary, and doesn't help. That there are two reliable sources that differ in the information that they provide is not at all uncommon. It may well be that her age was meant to be 15 and the script-writers screwed up. We don't know and we really don't need to now as it doesn't matter. She's said to be 16 in the episode, so a citation was added to the article 28 days ago. Confusion over this was resolved 3 days ago so I don't know why we're still discussing it. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my stalker was following me around, and felt the need to poke me. We are in agreement; the subject is concluded. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maddy was born in 2133 (She said so in one of the Countdown to Terra Nova videos) so in 2149 she is 16 years old. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

TN Wiki

Was going to debate but why bother. TN Wiki breaks none of the external links "Things to be avoided" but once again little wikipedia is only in love with their retarded cousin wikia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.177.192 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone put the Terra Nova wikia on there, it would stay, despite that wiki being like 0.002% complete while mine if like 99.5% complete. Terrible choices being made. 150.203.223.24 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

If the network and airing schedule is to be included in the lead paragraph (which I don't think it should because Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and the readers aren't limited to America,) the first two sentences need to be rewritten, because "Terra Nova ... airs on Fox on Monday nights" is incorrect in the present tense. I would like to propose:

Terra Nova is an American science fiction drama television series. It premiered on September 26, 2011 with a two-hour premiere,^[2] aired on Fox on Monday nights, and the first season concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour finale.

I hope this neither confirms or denies a second season. An alternative is to simply say it premiered on September 26, 2011, (let the North American broadcast section discuss Fox and America), and remove the American bias from the lead. 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly common to include the network on which the program originally aired in the lede but "airs on Monday nights" needs to go. The lede should follow WP:TVLEAD, where there is an example of what a lead paragraph should look like. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem of when it airs going away. But if it remains, since the show has not been canceled it would need to be "airs" not "aired." If we talk about the 2011 season then surely it is "aired" but otherwise we keep the present tense or nothing at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is original? It is simul-cast in Canada, and it is followed days later in several countries, including where it was filmed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with AussieLegend on this: the bit about what day of the week it airs is just not necessary. That it airs is encyclopedic; when it airs, not so much. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Terra Nova is" and "follows" are conditions; "aired" is now historical. It may or may not be back. It may or may not air of Mondays.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate universe

Spidey keeps adding the working of 'alternative universe' as opposed to the universally-accepted 'alternate universe', citing MOS commonality. The point is, there is no such thing as an 'alternative universe', or if it in fact used, it is used far, far less commonly than the simpler term, "alternate universe". Coupled by the fact that the more common term is used within the series itself, I don't think we should change it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary says that alternative universe is an alternative form of alternate universe. Noting A. di M.'s comment, [15] alternate is not uncommon in Australian English either. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Alternate" is common in American english. "Alternative" is common in British english. The section within MOS that I linked to specifically states that "alternative" should be used instead of "alternate" in cases like these. Spidey 104 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Both "Alternate universe" and "Alternative universe" redirect to "Parallel Universe;" let's use "Parallel."--Gaarmyvet (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The in universe term used in episode one is "new time stream". suggest we use that per the MOS and move on from this quickly.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, parallel works better. Since when do we use in-universe definitions of real world terms? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We really should be using a term that provides a real world treatment, since the plot should be understandable by all readers, and not those who are fans of the program and understand the in-universe terms. As indicated above, both "Alternate universe" and "Alternative universe" redirect to "Parallel universe", so that seems the least problematic term since it covers both spellings. However, Parallel universe is a disambiguation page and since we are talking about a fictional environment, the target should probably be "Parallel universe (fiction)", making the link "Parallel universe (fiction)|parallel universe]]". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care what term eventually gets used, but find a "reliable" source before including that sentence in the article. The citation given doesn't mention either term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this source or this source, which uses "alternate timeline"? Or this one, which uses "parallel universe"? Any way you cut it, "alternative universe" doesn't appear to be one of the choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, yes, no. The first is a blog...absolutely no. The second appears to be MSN... and uses "alternate timeline" and "alternate past", that's fine. The third is a homemade page...absolutely no. And I quickly found blogs discussing alternative timelines in terra nova like this so now your answers are suspect. Blogs cannot be used as sources. I pause in writing this to look a little more and found comic news editor "alternative". probably best to use another term to describe things but without sources it's useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the actual episode and have changed my opinion on this slightly. The term time stream is actually used by Maddie and there is an article on this, but it's a six-year-old-stub. Looking at the episodes and the refs it's not only "possible" that it's an alternate reality/alternative reality/parallel universe, it's well established that it is that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Fyunck; I did a qucik Googling, without clearly checking that the links were indeed blogs. My bad. But seriously, no one uses alternative history - well, except maybe for those sorts of knuckleheads who have misheard 'buck naked' as 'butt-naked'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Either use what reliable source actually says or use the term which is actually used in the episode. But everyone stop making up your own definition of what is said in the episode. "New Time Stream" is a real world term being used in a "in universe" situation. Better to go with that, then to argue over a few letters if another word. JOJ ^Hutton 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyunck, for helping us to find "parallel universe" as the best solution.

Jack, my changes had nothing to do with hearing but how the vernacular usage of terms in Britain is different than it is in America. For example: "fag" and "lieu" are used for "cigarette" and "toilet," respectively, in Britain. There was an entire category of articles that was renamed from "alternate" to "alternative" because of the MOS section I linked to. Now I am asking you to apologize for implying I'm a pre-pubescent boy who likes to hear the word "naked." Based on your typos and bad edits I would bet serious money that between the two of us I am probably the one with the higher level of education, so get off your imaginary high horse. Spidey 104 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No insult was intended, Spidey104; I think maybe you should grow a thicker skin. If you had come here to the discussion page the first time you were reverted (or the second...) explaining your reasoning in-depth, a lot of this would have been unnecessary.

And let's not get into an educational dick-measuring contest, Spidey104. Sure, I might be a lousy typist, but I am pretty sure that the term is 'loo', not "lieu". It's derived from 'gardez l'eau' , a warning to passers-by in medieval times when people used to throw their sewage into the street, and French was the language of court in England.

And for the record, I am a grown man, and I totally enjoy hearing the word naked. I am going to gallop off on my imaginary high horse now. Maybe I can bum a fag off a bird who's nifty on her pins. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been necessary to come here to explain my changes if you had bothered to really read the page I linked to in my edit summary (that is why they have edit summaries). If indeed no insult was intended (doubtful) then I apologize for my harsh response, but you sure picked an odd example for your comments. My skin is plenty thick, I just don't put up with unnecessary shit. I do apologize for my mistake on the spelling of a word I have only said before and never typed. Also, you should have used "spelling" instead of "term" since my meaning was obvious despite the mistake as you demonstrated by being able to interpret it properly. Spidey 104 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Spidey, you want me to be the bad guy here, go right ahead and think that. A little AGF goes a very long way, and wouldn't twist your knickers to provide. No insult was intended, and your proper response after my post should have been, 'gee, I just took your response the wrong way. Sorry.'

Instead you turned what could have been a pleasant, professional interaction into one where where I instead point out that a) when you are reverted, you bring your ass to the discussion page - otherwise you are edit-warring; b) if someone disagrees with your reasoning and makes more than a token effort to explain why you were incorrect, it isn't "unnecessary shit" - its learning, and c) you shouldn't call someone on their grammar and/or spelling if you aren't planning on making the effort to actually practice what you preach.

Now see? Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer of you to simply swallow your defensiveness and work with others? Now, since you are almost certainly going to be upset because I called you on your foolishness, feel free to take your tale of hurt feelings elsewhere. I am done cluttering up this article discussion page trying to make you feel better about yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If no insult really was intended you should bother explaining where your example came from, because it was so far out of right field that it was closer to left field of the next park.

a)If I did that every time some new editor or IP address did that I wouldn't have time to do anything else. Due to the lack of explanation for why it was "not the correct term" I mistook you for an inexperienced editor. Sorry. b)I was referring to your "not insult" and not the discussion; that is clear when taken in context. c)I do practice what I preach; I apologized for my spelling mistake on a rare word, but you have yet to apologize for your spelling mistake on a common word.

I did work with others. Notice how the word has been changed and I have not been a jerk and tried to change it back to "alternative"? By the way, did your horse grow? Spidey 104 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but my patience has grown short. I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Brevity" edits

I recently came across a series of bold edits by an anon user which I felt added excessive detail (1, 2, 3), so I reverted the changes, noting "the point is to summarize, without excessive detail. Want to discuss?" The idea was that the anon would then come here to defend the edits, arguing for a modification of the article.
That didn't happen. Instead, the same essential edits was proffered again over the course of two edits (4, 5), with the subsequent edit summaries: "Summarized with less detail. That better?" and "several edits for conciseness". Frankly, it wasn't, and I reverted again, noting in my edit summary: "Summarization means "brevity*, not excessive detail. Please use DISCUSSION page to work this out". Also caught up in the revert was one by AussieLegend, seeking to fix edits which - imo - shouldn't be there in the first place.
One can be concise and still brief. We are here to give an overview of the series, not just the pilot, and not a detailed and nuanced reliving of each episode. That means we do include the details of the end of season 1, even though the give away the ending (as per WP:SPOILER). That also means that we aren't going to get into the detailed histories and psychological makeup of each character. We have links at the bottom of the page for those users who want to explore more deeply the mythology and characterization of the program. That isn't our job. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what is your problem? It's basic copyediting to try and get the point and description across more clearly. You reverted the plot section -- again -- to something that's far more awkwardly worded. As for the Characters section, I actually made it less verbose and cut out unnecessary detail and you still reverted that for some reason. What will satisfy you? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel for you anonymous ip. I understand how it is to deal with Jack. But in this instance I tend to error on the side of brevity. Plot sections do not and should not have "beat by beat" descriptions of every single thing that happened in the series. To be fair, I haven't actually looked at the edits in question, but anything that keeps the plot section small and concise has my support.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In that vein, I want to thank AussieLegend, as at least they have been reasonable in this regard. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So ... tried again now. Hopefully third time's the charm. The Plot section is no longer than before, merely copyedited for less awkward wording and better clarity. The Characters section is significantly shorter, with excessive/unnecessary detail edited out from the entries on Skye, Maddy, Taylor, Kara and Curran, and minor clarifying edits on Mira, Josh, Malcolm, Deborah and Wash. None of the above are more verbose. Better? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked what my problem is; I thought I made that clear with my last post here. The problem with your text is that is doesn't actually address "awkward wording", but that it is rife with speculation, in-universe fancruft and totally extraneous information.

When you are asked via edit summaries not once but twice to come to the article discussion page to find out what the problem is with your edits, it would seem prudent to actually try that, instead of simply adding the same information three times in a row. Since you clearly seem to know where the discussion page is, your actions make it seem like you sim ply want your edits in, no matter what our policies, guidelines and editors think. That sort of behavior tends to piss me off. Not a great way to start editing, my friend.
Since you appear to need in-depth explanations as to the problems with your edits, let's look at them singly (I'll set aside the OR issues that AussieLegend dealt with):

• Original text:"Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of colonial separatists from the "Sixth Pilgrimage", who are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's own son Lucas, all of whom are determined to strip the distant past of its resources to send back to 2149."

Your text: "Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers", who arrived in the "Sixth Pilgrimage" and are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in an effort to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and send them back to 2149. At the end of the first season, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 to destroy the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to and from the past."

Feel free to tell me why you think this edit is better than the original text.

• Please explain the removal of all the information about Taylor, specifically the vit that explains Lucas. I think it needs to stay because it is the crux of the conflict within the series. (6, 7, 8)

I think that's a good start. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'm getting seriously mixed messages from you. First you want more brevity. Then you want verbose explanations left in. And all the while you blanket-revert my edit work like I'm some common vandal. From here, it sure looks like you are the one hell-bent on having their way. (Did I stumble upon a pet article of yours or something?) If you're not prepared to accept another person's edits in good faith, perhaps the PEBCAK does not solely exist on my end.

If I did not feel I could improve the written prose of the article, I would not have bothered. My criteria for an edit is: does it read better than before? Does it get the necessary information across better than before? And does it include everything that is necessary for an adequate understanding of the subject at hand?

Feel free to go back into the article history and compare the version just before I started editing with the article as it stands now. Despite our misunderstandings in the meantime, I can confidently say that yes, it does read better now, and yes, it gets the critical information across more clearly.

To wit, here is the entry for Taylor, before I made any changes:

• Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, then began building a community as new settlers came through; he has been the leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure to her. Taylor has a son named Lucas, who has abandoned Terra Nova and is working with the renegade Sixers. Lucas blames Taylor for his mother's death which Taylor was unable to prevent; Taylor, ashamed of his son's betrayal, has told everybody that his son has gone missing. In early development, Nathaniel Taylor was named Frank Taylor.

Here is my first attempt at a better entry, in which I attempted to make the distinction between "Lucas' mother simply died" and Taylor's actual "sadistic choice" which was spelled out in the episode. The "in early development" bit I felt was unnecessary and has no bearing on the show -- no other character has such a note, so why should he?

• Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. Later in the first season, it was revealed that in 2138, Taylor's wife and their son Lucas were abducted in Somalia and Taylor was forced to choose between them. He chose to save his son, leading to Lucas blaming him for his mother's death as well as for alleged resentment both before and afterwards. Lucas eventually came to Terra Nova on the Second Pilgrimage, but Taylor soon discovered that Lucas was in league with the Sixers and their employers, and Taylor was forced to banish him from the settlement in an attempt to stop his plans. Taylor, ashamed of his son's betrayal, stuck to the story that Lucas had simply gone missing.

After you reverted that, I tried again to say the same thing in fewer words, so as to not clutter the article with a TLDR paragraph ...

• Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. His son, Lucas, blames him for continuous resentment as well for as an incident in 2138 in which Taylor was forced to save Lucas at the cost of his wife's life. Lucas eventually came to Terra Nova on the Second Pilgrimage, but Taylor soon discovered Lucas' true allegiance and was forced to banish him from the settlement, claiming afterwards that Lucas had simply gone missing.

... yet you reverted it again. I figured, even that must not be good enough, so I tried to pare it down further, to the version that exists now, and which is actually shorter than it was before I touched it.

• Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. Taylor has a highly adversarial relationship with his son Lucas; after Lucas arrived in the Second Pilgrimage, Taylor discovered Lucas' true allegiance and banished him from the colony, claiming that Lucas had gone missing.

You're right, that doesn't get across the precise origin of their animosity. I do think that is a weakness but I felt you wanted me to cut down on the verbosity and a lengthy backstory did not seem useful (as their adversarial relationship is a constant in the series proper). Maybe, if we want to include more details, we should move all the character entries to a page titled List of characters in Terra Nova and the characters can be described at length there instead of cluttering the main Terra Nova (TV series) article. Other major series have character pages, so it is easily justifiable and rather practical.

On to your next point: the Plot description. Seeing as the first paragraph changed little, I will focus on the second/third. Originally, it read:

Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of colonial separatists from the "Sixth Pilgrimage", who are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's own son Lucas, all of whom are determined to strip the distant past of its resources to send back to 2149. The first season ends when Jim Shannon travels back to the future to shut down the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to the past. However, it is revealed that in an area called the Badlands, artifacts from history are ending up in the past as well.

This omits the name of the Sixers, as well as the name of the corporate industrialists (the Phoenix Group), as well as the reason for Lucas' betrayal of Nathaniel (in short, they are estranged). The Sixers are classic antagonistic figures, a well-established trope. The first season does not technically "end" when Jim travels to the future; there is a sequence of Taylor's group returning to the colony as well as the reveal of the ship's prow before the episode ends. Jim destroys Hope Plaza; he does not shut it down. The final sentence read awkwardly in my opinion. Lastly, artifacts from Earth's modern day cannot naturally turn up 85 million years in the past; therefore, their mere presence indicates that at least one other time fracture exists (and possibly more). Hence:

Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers". So named because they arrived en masse in the "Sixth Pilgrimage", the Sixers are working in concert with corporate industrialists known as the Phoenix Group as well as Taylor's estranged son Lucas in order to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and return them to 2149. For much of the first season, Lucas, a theoretical physicist, works to develop a mathematical solution to the problem of making the time portal function in both directions.

At the end of the first season, Lucas Taylor's efforts come to fruition and the Phoenix Group send their mercenary army through the time portal to take over the Terra Nova colony. In response, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 and destroys the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing the link between the two time periods. The soldiers of the Phoenix Group, now stranded in the past, make their way towards an area called the Badlands, where they have begun to discover artifacts from Earth's modern history.

This, I felt, better conveyed the coordination between the "villains", but you're right, it went too far and had a lot of verbose detail on the season finale, something that more accurately belongs in the synopses on the List of Terra Nova episodes page. But, you felt the appropriate answer was a complete reversion, so I tried to go shorter, seeing as details on the season finale were apparently unwelcome:

Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers". So named because they arrived en masse in the "Sixth Pilgrimage", the Sixers are working in concert with corporate industrialists known as the Phoenix Group and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in order to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and return them to 2149.

... but this got it reverted again, and it was made clear that you wanted the finale details kept. So, I felt this was an appropriate compromise:

Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of separatists known as the "Sixers", who arrived in the "Sixth Pilgrimage" and are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in an effort to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and send them back to 2149. At the end of the first season, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 to destroy the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to and from the past. However, the colonists discover that a nearby area called the Badlands holds an artifact from Earth's history.

Sure, I skipped over AussieLegend's edits, but I'm prepared to accept that he knows better than I do what is O.R. and what is not. Still, if Terra Nova truly is set in the past -- and we're willing to make huge leaps of faith to believe it's even a "parallel universe" at all with so little evidence -- then the only logical way the modern-day artifacts could have ended up at Terra Nova is through other, heretofore undiscovered time-fractures. That is not "speculation" or "fancruft", it is heavily implied by the very sequence itself. But yes, that is never explicitly spelled out in the episode, so I can see how it qualifies as OR.

This is incomplete but I have to run for now. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying you. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As an update, I have gone and restored the mention of the backstory between Taylor and Lucas -- you're right, it is crucial to the central conflict of the series. Feel free to further edit it if you do not think it is suitable. Again, I suggest that a List of characters in Terra Nova page be created to house expanded descriptions of the main and recurring characters, as well as (possibly) photos of the actors either in or out of character. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you found (right off the bat, so bummer for you) one of my major pet peeves while working in Wikipedia. When I suggest that discussion should take place in an edit summary, I find that someone disregarding that suggestion to be annoying in the extreme. Most of my AGF goes right out the window - which is what happened here. I will take more time in the future to not let my peeve govern my interactions so much. I'll re-read your post above and reply momentarily. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies also for not clueing in that you wanted the discussion done here (and not, say, on your user talk page or something). I was also rushing to redo the edits in what I thought was a more acceptable fashion without consulting first. Meh, we're all human -- something the Internet is lousy at conveying at the best of times. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this really O.R.?

In the interests of keeping the preceding section from delving too deep into the realm of TLDR, or reintroducing edits that were classed as WP:OR:

• In the first season finale, the Terra Nova colonists discover a ship's prow from the modern era, recovered from the "Badlands". Seeing as Terra Nova is 85 million years before human civilization developed, this is mysterious and sets up developments in the still-TBD second season. Now, the fact that modern-day sailing ships do not belong 85 million years in the past (the Terra Novans never built any) and the fact it turned up on dry land indicates that it must have been put there somehow by an unnatural phenomenon. Is it really O.R. to include what is heavily implied: that there are one or more time fractures in existence in the Badlands that were previously unknown to the characters?
• Also, in the series premiere, the only evidence presented that Terra Nova is in a separate time stream/parallel universe/alternate universe is the idea that the humans of the 22nd century sent a mechanical probe through the fracture and never found it in the present day. I might be more convinced if there was some statement like "the continents are shifting differently" or "there are species here that never existed on our Earth" or something concrete like that. Instead, we're supposed to believe that a two-foot-wide metal probe not surviving 85 million years on a geologically active planet is incontrovertible proof that TerraNova!Earth and 2149!Earth are in different timelines. The same premiere makes a big deal out of showing the probe perched atop a monument in the Terra Nova settlement; the first season finale shows that same monument destroyed in the Phoenix Group's attack. There is nothing that has transpired on TerraNova!Earth that can conclusively separate it from 2149!Earth. In the absence of any solid evidence, is there any reason why treating the "two time streams" idea as an unproven theory is O.R.? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, it is OR. You aren't allowed to make explicit an implication. If someone citable (read: reliable and verifiable) can see the implication, they will likely write about it. If not them, then we need to wait until the show does the same thing. We can cite them when they make the implicit explicit. It extends from the idea of remaining objectively neutral. We cannot cite our own deductions.

The answer to your second question is much the same as the answer to the previous one. We are not allowed to import our deductions, speculations or genius moments into the article. The fact is, you are pointing out major problems with the series that many others have. This article is not, and cannot, be about that. We focus on what reliable sources say about the program. I am sure some nerd at Wired or Ain't It Cool has performed the autopsy on the mythology of this series. Until we have reliable citation noting the discrepancies, we cannot include them in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fair. If the article were to delve into pointing out the plotholes, it'd be a massive Wall Of Text and no one would want to read it. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

85 million years ago

The article currently contains "they travel [[Santonian|85 million years into the past]]." Time being what it is, 85 million years ago could be any period from 85-85.99999 million years ago, covering both the Santonian and the Coniacian. Since neither of these periods was mentioned in the series, specifiying one or the other is original resarch. For this reason I removed it,[16] but it was restored.[17] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Late Cretaceous (99.6–65.5 Ma) is unambiguous, we will never get any source for a finer subdivision. Barsoomian (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I check Santonian again, I realize that 83.5-0.7=82.8, so it could be wrong. Otherwise my argument would be that 83.5 wouldn't be said as 83 in normal conversation. Sure, Late Cretaceous works. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree also.74.178.186.35 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

I just got spoiled by the section on "Allison Miller as Skye Alexandria Tate". Pretty big spoiler too. 213.100.90.101 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER and WP:NODISCLAIMERS, we don't list spoiler warnings in Wikipedia. If you don't want to stumble across a spoiler on a story (book, movie, television program, etc), then don't read the article about that subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, new editor for the spoiling. Look at the bright side: now you can estimate how well they lead to that point. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If we look at the progression of the storylines, Skye being a Sixer mole (and the reasoning behind it) is by no means a late revelation; it's actually a key plot point across several episodes of the season. Had the show lasted it would likely be considered background information instead of a mild spoiler. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think there is excessive spoilers in Skye's paragraph, I think Lieutenant Alicia "Wash" Washington's could be re-written. I had no problem when her death was added to the summary, when I expected a second season, but since she is alive for every episode of the series, her summary should be more balanced. Every appearance by her isn't mentioned, yet her last one takes up half the paragraph. 117Avenue (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but what in particular did she do that was notable, beyond being Taylor's old friend and second-in-command? I'd love to expand that paragraph but the biggest concrete thing I can recall (and I watched the whole series) was that she got captured by the Sixers for part of an episode. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Position of episodes section

Just where should it go? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the episodes are part of the broadcast history, it seems only natural that episodes be placed back in the "Broadcast" section. Placing them separately, sandwiched between the production and cast sections while all the rest of the broadcast information is in a different part of the article, seems silly. While MOS:TV guidelines may not be "sermons from the mount", they do make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It shouldn't be in either place, really. The most commonsense and intuitive place for it to be would be right after plot, since the episode list details the plot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is even an issue worth edit warring about. I looked at both positions and it really doesn't make a difference in the way the article is presented. In my estimation however, its better to follow the rule of the guideline or MOS, unless the guideline gets in the way of improving the article. If there is some esthetic reason why the article is improved by placing it above the cast section, I don't see it.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jojhutton. I don't understand the "since the episode list details the plot" argument. The episode list is merely a record of the broadcast history and DVD releases. It has nothing at all to do with the actual plot. Regarding the edit-warring, 117Avenue has quite correctly cited WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO in his latest edit summary.[18] While an issue is under discussion the status quo prevails. In this case the status quo has been restored by 117Avenue and the table should remain in its current location until there is consensus to move it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference section

Needs cleanup. Apparently, someone started the trend of refnaming references then listing the main cite in the reference section. I have fixed a few but need help putting them in the main body of the article. Please help in this as it's time consuming. Thanks. (To view the mess click on the edit tab of the section.) — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. That's an accepted method of referencing and it actually makes sense, as all the refs in the article are then in the form <ref name=refname />, so you don't need to move refs when they're later used earlier in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

International releases

The stations and dates the show was broadcast in 37 countries are listed.
Why have half a page of this, about 20% of the article, for an outdated TV guide?
The only date that's relevant is the first release. Barsoomian (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not for the people in those countries, where new episodes are still airing. 117Avenue (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are very few countries showing it as a first run now. Who ever checks Wikipedia to see what is on their local TV station anyway? WP:NOTTVGUIDE This is just completely trivial, and for the most part unsourced and of dubious reliability. Barsoomian (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As Barsoomian has pointed out, much of the section is unsourced. Until today,[19] the section had been tagged since December 2011 for that reason. Of the 37 countries listed, 26 are unsourced, which is hardly "references a plenty". MOS:TV#Broadcast says "simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged" and suggests that the section "detail English-speaking countries". TV guide information should not be included and some of the information badly needs updating. For example. the Australian entry still says "it will air within days of its U.S. release". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in light of it being trivia, and all the cited policies it violates, I deleted the section, moved the UK ref to the "Broadcast" section. Probably will be reverted in a few minutes, but for the moment, it's cut the cruft. Barsoomian (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it's trivia and "all the cited policies it violates" is an exaggeration. Only 1 policy and 1 guideline, that latter which advocates inclusion of an international broadcast section, were cited. Deleting the entire section is contrary to established practice and not in accordance with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So the strain of agreeing with me was too much. Go ahead and find references and put all 37 countries back just to prove I'm wrong. Not that anyone ever would refer to such a list, which is why it's trivia, not even of interest to a trainspotter. As for "deleting the section", I merged the UK and Ireland mention, the only English language countries with a cited date, to "Broadcast", where it made sense. If there are several notable countries mentioned an "International" subhead might be appropriate, but is hardly essential, since it's quite obvious. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

i changed the number of episodes to make it consistent with the episode list

the episode list contains 13 episodes so then the article should say that there is 13 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The episode list was modified contrary to discussion on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

13 Episodes

The series obviously has 13 episodes and not 11. The conventinal number of episodes for a season order is 13, then 22 then 24. You jus't don't get season orders for 11 episodes. 13 episodes were produced, that's why there are 13 different production codes. Just because the season premiere and finale were aired back to back, it does not mean that they count as on episode. It it counted and one episodes, why would it be genisis (part 1) and (Part 2)? It would just be Genesis. And why would the season finalle be called Occupation/Resistance? It would only have one name if it as one episode. But seen as they both have two names, it means they are seperate episodes. If it were a list of Terra Nova stories, then there would be 11 stories. Just because 2 episodes comprise a 2-part story, it does not make them the same episode! There are 13 episodes, and not 11. What network in their right mind would order 11 episodes of a season? They would order 13, meaning their is 13 episodes. Frogkermit (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wasn't the first season of the Walking Dead 6 episodes? Who in their right mind only orders 6 episodes! Seriously, since the (only) season is now on DVD, why not just properly source the 13 with the DVD's instead of just complaining and using your personal brand of "logic" that amounts to nothing more than OR? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I recall it was a 13 episode season with 4 episodes aired back to back on 2 occasions..? Although it was a long time ago. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fox ran 2 episodes together on two occasions and did NOT separate them on their website. The source for that is no longer available since the show is no longer on Fox. The DVD's now separate them. If some of these guys would quit complaining and fix it, this would be a dead issue. But instead of just sourcing the 13 properly, they keep using personal opinion and "logic". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that it is quite conventional to order six episodes of a series, such as to trial it, like in the US for The Walking Dead. In Britain, it is quite common to have 6 episode seasons/series, in fact, the majority of dramas do have six episodes per series. Frogkermit (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This source of Amazon.co.uk shows an episode list which clearly shows there are 13 episodes seperately http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terra-Nova-The-Complete-Series/dp/B004S67V3Q Frogkermit (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As Nike say....Just Do It. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a hint in {{Episode list}} as to how we handle numbering. The hint is a parameter called OriginalAirDate. Just like that parameter, we handle episode numbering based on how episodes originally aired, which was as 11 episodes, not 13. This was thrashed out at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment What the website did in the past is moot since that site no longer has those episodes no longer appear on teh website and this cannot be verified in any way. What can be verified is that the official DVD has this at 13 episodes and they are sold on itunes as 13 episodes.JOJ ^Hutton 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was one of those who sided with going by the Fox site. Now, with the series ended, the Fox reference gone and the DVD's listing 13, I'd have to go with that numbering. BTW, I conceded from the start that it might change at some point when everything got sorted out. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I realized last year that something wasn't right when I noticed that I downloaded (and paid for) 13 episodes from itunes and not 11. Seems every source has this at 13 now and since there doesn't appear to be any conflicting source to dispute this, the article should reflect the current sources.JOJ ^Hutton 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• While the website may be down now, it was available at one stage and it was verifiable then. We can't pretend it wasn't and we can't ignore the established consensus. Nor can we pretend that the episodes didn't air as a single episode with one set of credits. Even with the Fox site down, there are other sources that verify this,[20][21] so saying that it "cannot be verified in any way" is simply not true. This is something that I pointed out at the time.[22] We can certainly, and probably should, mention that since airing the episodes are now treated as 13 instead of 11, but we can't remove the 11. That's not WP:NPOV. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not "down", it's gone. It won't be back on the Fox site because they only list current shows. I don't see this as a NPOV issue. It's more of a WP:V issue. Additionally, at the time, the Fox site was the best source. Now, it's not a source at all. The best source now is the DVD set, which lists 13. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's non-NPOV because WP:NPOV requires that we present all views. We can't decide not to present the way the series was originally aired because one website is down. Verifiability is not an issue because there are still sites that show the original way that the series was aired, as well as Fox's own press releases. There's also the original, 3-month discussion that agreed we should present the episodes as such, which refers to the original Fox site's presentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The series aired as 13 episodes. It was marketed as 13 episodes and continues to be marketed as 13 episodes. The only reason why it was written here as 11 is because Fox briefly had 4 episodes merged together to be watched together for continuity. But thats it. I have no idea why this is still being considered as the best source for 11. Anyhow, looks as if a new consensus is beginning to form.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The series aired as 13 episodes" - No it did not. It aired as 11 episodes, which included two 2-hour episodes, as demonstrated by reliable source, which included the Fox website and the Futon Critic, which still reproduces the Fox press releases. This was thoroughly thrashed out at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes, where consensus was formed to list the episodes as shown in this revision of List of Terra Nova episodes. Nothing has changed since then and no evidence contradicting what was discussed then has been presented here. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not seeing those reliable sources you keep referring to. If Futon Critic is your only source its pretty weak, especially considering the overwhelming number of sources stating 13.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can hardly call the Futon Critic weak, since it reproduces the original Fox press releases and is considered a reliable source. Of course there are always more that show the first and last as 2-hour episodes.[23][24] And, of course, there's the fact that the episodes were aired exactly that way (Did you watch them?), which was thoroughly discussed at the discussion previously linked to. You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not only watched them all, but bought all 13 of them on iTunes. Unless theres more than just that one outdated source, its time to evolve the article to the current modern sources. That old consensus was a long time ago. A new consensus seems to have formed.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• NPOV does not require that all points of view be presented. That is a fallacy. If 25 sources said that an actor was born on April 5 and 1 says he was born April 6, we have no obligation to give that singular one equal weight to the other 25. THAT is giving the single one UNDUE weight. The Fox website is no longer a source. Period. Futon critic? Well I've never placed much stock in that one anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That means we have to account for the episodes airing as they did, as well as the fact that they've now been split up into 13 separate episodes. We knew that when the series was cancelled as they immediately aired Genesis as two separate episodes, but the consensus stood. Nothing has changed. That the Fox website no longer exists is irrelevant. You know damn well how the episodes aired. There's no denying that the episodes aired as they did and your comments regarding the Futon Critic are silly. The Futon Critic just reproduces the press releases so what you're saying is that you don't believe Fox. You can do a google search on phrases in the press releases and confirm that they're correct at multiple sites. As I indicated above, the field in {{episode list}} is titled OriginalAirDate because we list episodes based on how they aired, and they aired as 11 episodes, with the first and last having two parts that aired together. They've since been re-issued, like most shows, but that doesn't alter anything in the episode list. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change

I think that applies here. I am reversing my earlier position that we should list this as 11 episodes. The best, available sources, show it as 13 and I think we should go with that. So please do not count me as part of the "established consensus" that is being used to hold it at 11. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no, it doesn't apply. Straight after the series was cancelled they immediately aired Genesis as two separate episodes, so we knew they had split up the 11 aired episodes into 13 individual episodes but the consensus stood. Nothing has changed. A couple of people can't come along and overturn consensus arrived at by a greater number just because those people are no longer around. You'd really need to "get the gang back together" or open an RfC and get a greater number of people to overturn the consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um, I was one of those people. The consensus was truthfully split. You and I drove the bulk of that and I'm no longer on that bus. Just because a few people became disinterested doesn't mean that we can no longer change. At this point, the greater number, using verifiable sources, are saying 13. You are relying on a single source (don't say the Fox site because it's not verifiable) that is a clear minority view. Sorry, but consensus does and has changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• That you've changed your mind doesn't mean that consensus has changed. You're not above consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not. Nor did I say that. So please don't tell me what I said, ok? I DID say that my position has changed and it no longer part of this prior consensus that you are acting like is carved in stone. What I'm seeing, however, it you making a one man stand. If those previously involved editors no longer care enough to participate, their opinions can't be given full weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So consensus doesn't apply? Only your perception and POV applies? And yes Consensus can and has changed.--JOJ ^Hutton 10:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said that. I said that you need justification to form a new consensus and you haven't presented anything that wasn't already discussed when we formed the previous consensus. Therefore nothing has changed. A couple of editors now disagree the the previously formed consensus, but that doesn't override the consensus. Consensus doesn't have to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're acting like the previous consensus was a landslide. It wasn't. It was barely a majority and we arrived at a compromise. The source, Fox, that most of that was based on, however, no longer exists and can't be verified. With the level of WP:IDHT I'm seeing, I'm betting this will end up in some form of dispute resolution and ultimately show the number 13. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go one even further. It looked like it was just the two of you, and that wasn't even the majority. Looked like the majority of editors favored using the sources stating 13 rather than the Fox website that split them into 11 episodes for online viewing only. I think its fair to say Aussielegend, that you are the only holdout on this. You fought the good fight, but consnsus has obviously changed on this. You have done and are still doing a great job keeping up many articles and fighting vandalism, but I think its time for you to let this go, so we can move on.JOJ ^Hutton 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Saying that Fox can't be verified is ridiculous. The Fox press releases are still available at the Futon Critic, whether you like it or not, and we have the talk page discussion, where Fox's position was discussed. You can't conveniently ignore that just because it doesn't suit your present position. As Niteshift36 has said, we came to a compromise as to what should be in the article - that's reaching a consensus. I don't have a problem with mentioning 13 episodes - I've said that before, but we need to continue to mention the way that it originally aired. In particular, the transition between the parts of Genesis was so seamless, it's hard to know where part 1 finished and part 2 starts. I just looked at the original airing and still can't work it out. We may know the world is round, but we don't deny that people once thought it to be flat. By the way, "the Fox website that split them into 11 episodes for online viewing only" makes no sense. They were aired that way originally, it wasn't just online. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• We have a talk page where it was discussed. Since neither you or I are reliable sources, that fails. A press release hosted on a third party site? Sketchy. Regardless, let's ask a simple question here. Since we KNOW that consensus can change. (It can, so stop denying it), I'd like to ask who is supporting your position? Who supports that we leave it at 11? I'd like to invite them to contribute to the discussion. Please give me the names and I'll send the invitations. If it is, however, a single person, then I'd submit that fails when we have multiple editors saying 13. To be blunt, that "compromise" was because you and I dug our heels in and the other editors decided the fight wasn't worth continuing. the difference is that I knew this day would come. We used Fox because it was the best source. Now that the DVD's are out, they are the best source. They are current. Relying on an old press release reproduced elsewhere as the sole basis of resisting just isn't going to stand too long. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter that we aren't reliable sources - the point is that while the Fox website is no longer available, there is a discussion amongst Wikipedia editors that demonstrates that the source was verifiable at one stage and we don't ignore previous discussions. It's really no different to the Flickr tag at commons that is used to confirm the license of files - Even if an author changes a free license to "All rights reserved", if the file was confirmed as being free at the time of the upload we don't delete it because the author has changed his mind. We take note of past discussions. We don't ignore them because, while they can't be used in articles, they are evidence. Furthermore, MOS:TV says that articles must reflect the entire history of a series, and the fact that the series originally aired as 11 episodes is part the series' history.

"Who supports that we leave it at 11?" - Are you even bothering to read what I've written, or are you so intent on getting in as many instances of "consensus can change" (see Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change) as you can that you're ignoring what I've said? For your benefit, "I don't have a problem with mentioning 13 episodes - I've said that before, but we need to continue to mention the way that it originally aired." We can change it but we need to change it to "13 (11 as aired)" and not just "13" to comply with the MOS. That has to be reflected in the episde list article as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah Capt. Sarcasm, I am reading what you write. But since you want to start acting like that with me, I'll take that as a sign that you have nothing civil left to say. I'll note that you've produce no names of editors that support your position. The clear consensus now is to go with 13 and nothing more. You can keep editing against consensus but count on me supporting whomever gets tired of it and takes it to one of the noticeboards. I'm done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly, despite the feigned offence you are not reading what I wrote as you have clearly ignored what I wrote.[25] You asked "Who supports that we leave it at 11?" but I've already said that I don't mind mentioning 13 as long as we also mention that the episodes were aired as 11 (albeit in different words).[26] Since then over 2,000 words have been added to the discussion without anyone even acknowledging what I was suggesting. Your question was therefore redundant and I've already offered a compromise. What more do you want? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• The offense isn't feigned my friend. But keep making those incorrect assumptions. I saw your proposal, I simply REJECT you proposal. Your suggested compromise is not acceptable to me. Thus there was no need to ask the rhetorical question even more ways. And yes, it was rhetorical because everyone except you knows that the consensus is against you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you are welcome to reject the proposal, but may I ask why, when it is supported by MOS? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, consensus has obviously changed to the fact that there are 13 episodes. 1 editor disagreeing tith this does not mean that a consensus cannot be reached at 13, which it has by a number of other editors. The whole reason i joined wikipedia was to edit this page to it's rightful number of 13 episodes. I'm afraid to say that now a consensus of 13 episodes has been reached, AussieLegend, if you continue to edit these back to 11, it means that you will be editing against consensus yourself, which is what you firmly tell people not to do. Consensus doesn't have to change, that, however, does not mean it cannot change. I will be editing both this page and the talk page to 13 episodes, as per new established consensus.Frogkermit (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The whole reason i joined wikipedia was to edit this page to it's rightful number of 13 episodes." Ummm, that's pretty much admitting to being an SPA, which I'm sure is not true. I'm only mentioning it in case somebody gets the wrong impression. That said, the edits that you made to the two articles were inappropriate. While contentious edits are under discussion they should not be restored and the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. Please respect WP:BRD as other editors are doing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please respect BRD? Are you kidding me? You've reverted it more than the one time in BRD. More than one editor has changed it. You can't revert each editor and then claim to be following BRD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, I have not "reverted it more than the one time in BRD". We only started discussing this yesterday. Jojhutton added a tag, which I felt was reasonable, although since the link was dead, {{dead link}} was more appropriate. Jojhutton has not opposed the change. The restoration of the status quo, was appropriate per WP:STATUSQUO as the discussion is still underway, despite what you may think. Unfortunately I see you are now ignoring BRD by forcing the edits, that do not represent the full history of the series, and therefore ignore MOS:TV, back into the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're fighting a two front war. I'm including the episodes article in this discussion since you want to included a discussion that was had there. You've reverted more than one user and one users more than once. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I's hardly edit waring, you are edit waring by reverting something which every other editor apart from you agrees with Frogkermit (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate. I've only dne it once. You, however, have been warned. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• And now you are being warned. Watch the 3RR my friend. The Statusquo essay you keep linking to is no enforceable and does not exempt you from the 3RR Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please read policies before citing them. 3RR requires 4 reverts in a single article in a 24-hour period. In any case, since you're clearly unwilling to compromise and have offered no other arguments than "consensus can change" and a rehash of issues we discussed at the previous discussion, I've opened a DRN discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've read the policy sport. YOU should try reading it. 3RR is not limited to only 4 reverts in a 24 hour priod. "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Try reading it yourself before you tell me to read them. You'll look foolish less often that way. Keep telling yourself the blatant lie that I haven't explained why and just said that consensus can change. Everyone here can see that's a steaming pile of crap. And see, there you go again.........you didn't open a DRN discussion. You REQUESTED one. It hasn't been accepted yet, thus not open to our input yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. I just came back to the article and saw it hadn't been changed already. I didn't see that a whole conversation had taken place. My bad. I will throw in my penny. It was always ordered as a 13 episode order. Just that 4 of the episodes were shown as double bills. Which happens all the time in television. We don't discount an episode count just because it was aired as a double bill and say it was one episode when it quite clearly has two names and two production codes. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

why wasn't it picked up

I can't find this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.146.25 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the looks of this, which is the last citation in the article lead, the high budget compared to insufficiently high ratings was a contributing factor. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)