Talk:Warehouse 13

Question

Does this show have any relation to the GURPS book Warehouse 23? The underlying concepts (what little is described so far) sound identical to the concepts of the sourcebook. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I believe a citation of similarity to The Librarian should be added since Friday the 13th: The Series is noted. When I watched the pilot I definately got a X-Files, Librarian, FTT:TS vibe from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GURPS Warehouse 23 = This Show. Of course, Warehouse 23 = the warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones first movie. Regardless, though, it's like these guys read the Warehouse 23 book and said, "Hey, look, this is a functional script." 65.16.205.188 (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Terry Whisenant (Austin, TX)

This show seems a little like the FOX show "Fringe" doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.90.189 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009

How do we know the cloak is "Fox" skin? It looks like deer to me. Sheherazahde (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

May be this music is close to the Opening titles music? 95.19.4.9 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Stone Monkey - Kazu Matsul ( http://open.spotify.com/track/5TzNbNtwBozHIlyshZk5K2 , 0.40 to 0.46 )

Accompanying books

Is there a book to this series or are they just not out yet. I checked Amazon and could only find "Data Warehouse" suggestions (Darn preference history settings I guess - I hate those.)71.236.26.74 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilot (Part I and II)

I think that both pilots should be put under the same heading in the table, though I'm not sure how one would go about formatting that properly. There are several reasons for this to happen. It wasn't really two episodes. Yes, it took 2 hours, but it was essentially just one, double length, episode. There was only one episodic story, and there wasn't a clear definition of where one "episode" would end, and the next begins. Furthermore, the plot description for the second pilot is lacking substance (because it's the same plot as the first).

Does anyone know how they could be merged properly? I've tried looking on other TV show pages, but most of them have only one hour pilots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.248.22 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty premiered with a three-hour episode that was subsequently split into three episodes for syndication and the DVD, and it is listed as three episodes here. The reimagined Battlestar Galactica premiere is also listed in parts here. Though we obviously don't know yet how the Warehouse 13 episode will be packaged for syndication and DVDs, I don't see an issue with it staying listed the way it is; it seemed to me that the episode was somewhat clearly split, with the whole "welcome to the warehouse" thing in Part 1 and the Borgia comb story in Part 2. I'll get it out of the TiVo, watch it again, and report back ;) — TAnthony^Talk 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So I took a look, and what I would call Part 2 (where the Comb story begins) starts slightly sooner than halfway, which makes me guess that it would be difficult to break the show into equal halves for syndication. Also, it aired all at once, while the Battlestar Galactica premiere was over two nights. So for now, I actually think it should be listed as one episode until we have reason not to. I'll make the change.— TAnthony^Talk 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

when looking at isohunt.com the pilot is listed in one file but labeled as episode 1 & 2. episode 3 is called resonance. the listing on wikipedia is confusing because of the difference. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.41.192 (talk)

Scene release numbering isn't always the correct one, if you look at any other source the pilot is labeled as just one episode. There are a lot of shows which have episodes that are seen as a double episode and not as a two parter. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this, if it is official, present a source. For the remaining time, every episode list on the internet displays it as one episode. Using the torrent naming scheme is not really considered reliable. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing the show has to an "official" website is their corner of the SyFy.com website, and there, the pilot is treated as a single episode. http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/#/episodes/season1/episode1 Nolefan32 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Scene" numbering is what fans expect to see when they come to a wiki, get with the times man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostMK (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Benign" objects

Out of curiosity, what indications do we have that the rugby ball is special? To me, on first viewing, the impression was given that that was an effect of the Warehouse and not the ball. Seems that 'items' would be too important to leave outside like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.202.221 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, though it seemed to me like the ball was empowered or whatever but harmless enough not to need to be locked up. It definitely seems like a number of "benign" objects and contraptions like this will be worth noting in some manner (perhaps not in the same way as the "bad" ones), like the "Thomas Edison Concept Car," the video communicator device, the neutralizing agent, etc. etc.— TAnthony^Talk 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If an object like the football is indeed powered but is not dangerous, then it's not an artifact. The point of the warehouse is to house items that are potentially dangerous simply because they're potentially dangerous and shouldn't be out where they can possibly hurt someone. And I agree with the first poster, the potential exists that the football might not be an artifact at all, but gets its power from the warehouse - I simply don't see Artie being willing to let an artifact leave the warehouse for any reason, but he himself has thrown the football. 75.66.233.184 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "rugby ball" and an American football? Sheherazahde (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You must remember that there are many other Artifacts that are taken outside the warehouse. The tesla gun and the communications equipment for example. The warehouse is for devices that still need investigation and study before other's are ready to accept them.

The tesla gun and communicator aren't "artifacts", they are "steampunk" inventions made specifically for use by Warehouse agents, similar to Artie's ancient as heck computer. Nolefan32 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the ball was an ordinary rugby ball, and Artie and Pete were using the magnetic field surrounding the Warehouse to accelerate it fast enough to circle the earth. Just my impression, although there's no canon evidence either way...Kt'Hyla (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. There's not evidence either way that the football is an artifact, so I would recommend not listing it as such, or listing it separately as "might be (or might not be) an artifact". If it's truly an artifact, that would mean that it's powers aren't fully understood, and I don't see Artie being comfortable sending it around the world where at nearly any point it can hit an airplane or a satellite and be intercepted by non-Warehouse agents, thus exposing its existence to the general public. If it's the power of the Warehouse that makes it go, though, then it's just an ordinary football, and if it's ever knocked down from its trajectory, there's nothing special about it, so no threat of exposure. But that's just my theory, certainly not proof one way or the other. Which is the point - there's no evidence that it's an artifact, as there's another possible explanation of what makes it go. Nolefan32 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

Given the steampunk style and 'feel' very similar to that of Sanctuary (even the theme music!) it would be nice to have a citation for such a link. Anyone come across one though? --AlisonW (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Item lists

The items in every episode don't need to be listed, especially since only one or two actually have any relevance to the plot. Unlike The Lost Room, where the items are the focus, this show focuses more on getting the items. Things like the mirror, the football, laughing bell, and so forth have no effect on the plot, no more so than M. C. Escher designing the Warhouse's electrical grid (at least at the moment). As WP:TRIVIA notes, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." These item lists apply. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As I agree that it maybe isn't the best solution to put them in the episode list, I do however disagree that they are irrelevant to the story. These items are as important to the show as the objects from The Lost Room. Over half of those items where never named or even seen in the show (the belt, second cufflink, …) and had even less to do with the show, items like the mirror were actually used. Perhaps a new section with the items as a prose paragraph is more suitable. As WP:TRIVIA notes: "…it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Xeworlebi (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good position to argue from. The object list has its problems, but those objects are quantifiable and for the most part relevant. The objects in this show are potentially limitless (whatever they happen to think up, basically) and almost meaningless to the plot at large. You can't tell me that Lattimer playing ping pong with his reflection has any bearing on the episode it appears in. I would agree that the primary objects (the head, comb, etc), would deserve mention, but listing things for the sake of listing things is what trivia explicitly warns against doing, and that is what these item lists are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the comparison because the shows are so alike. A Warehouse 13 article without the items would be weird, because it's the core of the show. I agree that items that are just mentioned or seen should not necessarily be mentioned but the items that the episode is about definitely should. But then the problem presents what items should be included? I would suggest only the core items, those that they look for or play a vital part in the episode; Aztec Bloodstone, Lucretia Borgia's Comb, Unreleased Record (camera?) and James Braid's Chair. Perhaps add a new column like this example with just the item and no explanation. what it does/how it works should be in the summary of the episode. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the football belongs on the list. It hasn't been expressly stated that the football is indeed an artifact. Another theory is that the football's ability to travel around the world when thrown may have more to do with the collected artifacts in the warehouse or possibly the location of the warehouse, but not the football itself. And that theory does bear argument since Artie is pretty anal about bagging, tagging and storing away even the most benign of artifacts, but he himself has been willing to throw the football. Ergo, until it's made clear outright that the football is indeed an artifact, I suggest taking it off the list. Or at least adding a line that it might possibly not be an artifact, but is instead affected by the other artifacts. Nolefan32 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well seems that that effort went nowhere, it seems that people really want this detailed list. I'm going to move it to a separate page since it's getting pretty ridiculous, taking up half the article. Probably to Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode List

I think that the Episode List should be annexed into a separate article to avoid the main page getting longer than it should be. At the moment it is unneeded but doing it preemptively could be beneficial in the long run. Besides, this is how every other show I ever look at on Wikipedia does things, the have an article regarding basic plot, history, and characters (which are also annexed beyond the main cast) and then they have an article for an episode list (sometimes giving an article per episode but I don't think that is needed for this show). Thoughts? Jaj43123 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you were to make these changes it would leave it as a cluster of small pages with little information, I can see the sense of splitting a multi-series episode listing to a separate page, but if you were to split the characters and episodes to separate pages this early they would probably be too small - perhaps this would be better left until nearer the end of the series/the next series? (the only bit i can see that should be split at this stage is the item list, although trimming might be better, see above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.248.44 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate episode list would be warranted if and when there's a second seasons worth of episodes to include. If there's just the one though, it makes sense to consolidate it all in this article unless it gets so large WP:SPLIT comes into play. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode writers

A lot of the writers are on Twitter, and their tweets often mention who wrote which episode—particularly, with regard to the ones that this article currently lists as "TBA". Here's one from Bob Goodman, talking to Tamara Becher:

Thx @trbecher! "Implosion" is a goodie. W/"Burnout" 2nite, "Duped" by B Raab & @dblackanese in 2wks, & then your "Regrets", WH13 is ROCKIN!

This quote doesn't make it clear who wrote "Implosion" or "Burnout", but it does show that "Duped" was written by B. Raab and D. Hughes, and "Regrets" was written by Tamara Becher. There are also other sources that I recall coming across that corroborate that latter fact. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Other warehouses?

I've watched this show a few times, and I once heard them mention the "other 12 warehouses"? In my opinion that is significant enough to be mentioned, isn't it..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.134.3 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 September 2009

I believe one of the recent episodes mentioned that the previous 12 warehouses had been destroyed or met some other untimely fate. Whether or not this is worth mentioning, I don't know. I'd say not, since it has barely been mentioned. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned under Artifacts and gadgets "As the name suggests, there have been twelve incarnations of the warehouse prior to the one in South Dakota. One of the oldest warehouses was at the Library of Alexandria. Throughout history, the warehouse has moved to whatever country has the most power at the time (Mesopotamia, Rome, Russia, England, etc.)." _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the show's website at syfy.com there is a link that talks about each of the incarnations at http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/history.php Kluckie (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also an inconsistancy with the origin date of Warehouse 13. In the pilot is it stated that it dates back to 1898. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redknight (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (I can't believe I forgot to click the signature button --RedKnight (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for putting "At the end of the first season finale, it appears he may have been killed. His fate, however, is uncertain." on the main page. Asshats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.134.73 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 September 2009

Wikipedia is uncensored, and it does not use spoiler warnings. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Wikipedia is the confluence of what a bunch of different people editing an article want. Do YOU like it when the plot of a TV show is ruined before you see it? I didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.12.36 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SPOILERS!

Deleted the MAJOR spoilers in the characters section, if you want to put things like "it is revealed that ______ is working for _____ in the finale" please put it in a separate section so people who have not yet seen the episodes can still be surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.12.36 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot" WP:SPOILER. I always wonder why people read wikipedia entries about characters or the plot and expect it not to have information from the show in it. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go further, I hate reading a WP article on a book/film/series and someone's just written it as a teaser. If I wanted an advertisement I wouldn't be reading a bloody encyclopedia! -- PaulxSA (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

H.G. Wells

In reality, Wells is not "revealed to be a woman" on the show - instead, they established in the show that there were two H.G. Wells, Herbert George the author, and his sister, Helena, the creative genius that gave him the material to write about. I'm not sure if the entry here and in the H.G. Wells entry need to be re-written accordingly. Nolefan32 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually she referred to her brother as Charles. (Bry2006 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bry2006 (talk • contribs)