Talk:Sanctuary (Canadian TV series)

Cast list in the infobox

Okay, I take back what I said. It's not the redundancy, you're right. I mean that the Cast list adds un-necessary room to the infobox, and if more regulars are added, it gets longer and longer. I prefer it so it is not so long that one must scroll down to see all the information, which may actually happen, as we have not even seen this show yet, and things like a screenshot, etc, could be added, which would make the infobox even longer. I will not revert again, unless we come to an agreement. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe if the infobox is too long, cutting out the starring cast is far from the first thing that should be done.

Taking a quick look at a few other series to see what they've done: Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) includes the regular cast, but comma separated rather than each on a separate line. This reduces the length of the infobox while keeping the information there, though arguably in a less usable form. Stargate SG-1 has a link to a cast list in the article. Babylon 5, Star Trek: The Original Series, and The X-Files have regular cast listed, one per line. Going by this sample one might conclude people want to see the regular cast list in the infobox.

I note that the Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) infobox fits comfortably on the smallish screen on my laptop, at a font size comfortable for my 5-decade-old eyes to read, so I don't think it can be regarded as too long. It includes: screenshot; Genre (2 items, 1 line); Created by (1 line); Starring (7 entries on 4 lines); Country of origin (2 entries on 2 lines); No. of episodes (4 entries on 3 lines); Running time (1 line); Original channel (1 line); Original run (2 entries on 2 lines). It does not list Executive producers, nor is there a list of links, nor is there a link to a list of episodes, all of which are present in the Sanctuary infobox. Since the latter two do not really qualify as summary information about the show I think they can be safely relegated to the article proper, and as for the Executive producers, I think most users would rather they were omitted from the infobox before the regular cast is. -- Rsholmes 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on how the exec. producers would need to go first. However, I propose linking like the Stargate SG-1 infobox, which I have done, not omitting the section. I will leave the cast list alone for now, unless we can come to an agreement.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling as to how this should be done, generally I only remove the cast list from an infobox if it's impeding the article in some way. At present I wouldn't consider it too long. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't object to linking to the section (which contains a more thorough overlook). Matthew 18:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I see the description has undergone some changes. When first announced, this was to be an Internet drama series, but I see we're now describing this as a "television series that airs on the Internet." This is not clear. To call it a "television series" implies that it will air on television; if this is so, on which network(s) will it air? If it will only be available on the Internet, then it simply isn't a "television" series.

Many current television series are also available on the Internet: episodes of Lost and other ABC dramas are available via iTunes after initial broadcast; NBC and its affiliate cable outlets make most of their primetime dramas available via streaming online; etc.

The official site isn't much clearer. If the intent is to suggest that this is somehow "better" than other Internet series (by virtue of length, cast, production values, frequency of release, what-have-you), I think this could be done more clearly and without confusing the venue. 12.22.250.4 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed for you :) . By the way, you should register on Wikipedia, we could use people like you :) ..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "internet series" -- aside from the fact that "Internet" should be capitalized and wikilinked -- is that it does not really tell you what "Sanctuary" is: it's a series on the Internet -- but a series of what? Cartoons? Articles? Songs? I believe "television" is not an inappropriate term to use here -- look in the television article, the term already is used not only for radio-wave broadcast programming but for programming distributed on analog and digital cable and on DVD; distribution on Internet isn't really so much different. But if you don't like the term, then you need a better one. If it's not "television", then what is it? It's not "Internet". -- Rsholmes 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want, you can change it back, just trying to satify that IP. I have no problem with 'television'.Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case we should probably defer to WP:TV-NC#Series in different formats. The page makes the suggestion to use "(series)". Matthew 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just look at the title of this article: Sanctuary (web series). Web series appears to be the term to use. Then again, the name of the relevant category is Category:Internet television series (and this article should go in that category). I will edit accordingly. -- Rsholmes 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "video series"? That's the term used at lonelygirl15. --DocumentN (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's perfect, great going !Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sci-fi?

This looks like a fantasy series to me.

I agree w/ you there, but let's wait until 14 May, when things will clear up... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, changing it to fantasy. ikh (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Define the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. The show creators themselves, and actors, refer to the show as sci-fi in the videos that can be fund here [1] As long as I've seen the show, it deals with mythical creatures, but it doesn't does so in the usual fantasy and magic style, instead using a scientific aproach. Where those beings later said to be aliens would the classification change from fantasy to sci-fi? Sci-Fi is pretty much fantasy with scientific-like explanations, which seems to be the point of the show. (After reading Sci-Fi article on wikipedia I would suggest the most appropriate classification would be Science-fantasy. However, I believe the article should sustain the creator's point of view.) Changing to reflect the creators point of view. 67.203.142.82 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticism section was removed without any justification for doing so. I think it should be included, so I'm adding it back for now, at least until some justification can be given for omitting it. --Lachlan Hunt 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't read the edit comment. The "criticism" isn't even criticism: it's complaints about web site glitches, pricing, and so on -- all of which is likely to be extremely ephemeral, and is peripheral to the series itself and completely out of place in an encyclopedia article. If in fact six months or so from now any of these issues turn out to have important and lasting consequences, then that will be the time to mention them. At this point it's unneeded, and arguably not NPOV. -- Rsholmes 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More importantly perhaps, anything added to wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced. I'm doubtful the criticism section was reliably sourced. Most criticism sections of that sort are usually unsourced or use non-reliable sources like forum posts Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Any mention in reviews of Amanda Tapping's terrible, atrocious English accent? --68.103.143.23 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of your unnecessarily redundant adjectives?

Intertitle image

Why was the original image that I uploaded and included in this article replaced with a lower quality one? If it was due to copyright issues, note that screenshots are permitted to be used (I've updated the description of the image I uploaded to state that). I've asked them for a more official copyright statement that explains these issues, as there doesn't appear to be one available yet. --Lachlan Hunt 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what their website says unless the image is released under a free license (which is unlikely). We can only use non-free media under US fair use law, which among other things, requires we keep quality to a minimum required to serve it's purpose. Whether this is the reason for the old change I can't say Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

According to the Webisode 2 Preview, Sanctuary has achieved the record for the "Highest Budget Direct-to-Web Television Production" in Guinness World Records 2008. I searched the Guinness website and it didn't show up, but that's probably because the 2008 edition hasn't been published yet. This will be worth mentioning in the article as soon as the claim can be verified. Lachlan Hunt 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do think we should wait.. I hope it is true though :P Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Slice of Scifi has more info about this record. It will be in the 2008 edition that will be published in August 2007. Lachlan Hunt 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Guiness website only shows a selection of their records anyway (when you search it clearly states so) Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanctuary Wiki

Fellow editors and contributors, I'm looking for people to help build the Sanctuary Wiki. If you are interested in contributing, please feel free to do so! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Page title

Small warning: Sanctuary (TV series) currently already has inbound links referring to a different series that ran from 1967 to 1968, so it's probably best to not move this page there without at least deciding on what title to use for the '60s series. --DocumentN (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information about webisodes no longer being available

I had originally edited in information about the fact that the Sanctuary series sold online at the web site, but when the TV deal came along, the webisodes were no longer being made available. This is important information relevant to this site, as it's primary claim to fame was delivering content through the web. It's also critical information, as the site originally stated that the webisodes would remain available for later download.

The information has been "edited" out anonymously. I could reverse this specific change, but I'm not interested in an edit war. I also don't think it's appropriate to allow a site to insert a link offering these webisodes for sale at 2.50 a pop. Shelleyp (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• While the webisodes are no longer available through the website, they are still being officially offered for sale through Vuze, who have been carrying them since early-mid 2007. I'm not sure how that relates to the section that has been reverted, but it does mean that the claim "the SD and HD versions of the show are no longer available for sale" is problematic. - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• The webisodes are currently being shown on TMN OnDemand in Canada.Sykobabul (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I know and care almost nothing about the show, but it seems relevant to me. It was enough to make beta test enthusiasts Laura and Cammy stop doing fan commentaries. --Tysto (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"We met some great people, had some laughs, and then it all went to hell in a hand basket and we're left with a lot of people hurt and disillusioned and struggling with the fact that the project we'd supported so heartily was nothing like was promised and that at best we were misinformed and at worst we were lied to."[2]

John Druitt from the future?

I've watched Sanctuary 1-8 and I saw no indication that John Druitt is from the future. He can certainly travel through time, but I saw no indication that he wasn't born in Victorian(?) England. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed this statement. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

According to another user, in the character list article, in the web version he was from the future. this however changed in the Television version. Since I have no access to the webseries, I cannot verify this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.142.82 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know he can travel through time? It appeared that he can only travel through space. If he could travel through time, would he not have changed things? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

he can't 66.183.44.117 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Web vs. SciFi

How will the differences between the two be recorded? --The Virginian (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article and given the webisode information its own section and infobox. Since there are no more webisodes planned, I think that'll work (for now). If they do produce more webisodes, we might want to integrate the information again. — BrotherFlounder 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some major differences between the 2 hour premier and the first 4x15 minute webisodes. I'm not really sure on exactly what to write, but it seems fitting that something be included,if anyone has a decent source. Trocisp (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I not the only one who noticed that at least two scenes appear to have been reused from the webisodes? A flashback sequence and a subway sequence are taken from the webisodes and have been reused in the Sci-Fi show. Worth mentioning? 80.195.146.94 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, I just didn't think it worthy of mentioning. I was actually expecting more use of the webisode footage than there was. --The Virginian (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be reliably sourced in any case, so it doesn't matter how many people noticed it if the right people didn't notice it and write about it Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

American-Canadian?

Quote: "I want people to know that this is the first all-Canadian show. There is nothing in there from the States at all. It's all done here in Vancouver with Canadian people, money, equipment, everything," from hxtxtxpx:x/x/xwxwxwx2x.xcxaxnxaxdxax.xcxoxmx/xcxoxmxpxoxnxexnxtxsx/xpxrxixnxtx.xaxsxpxxx?xixdx=x7xaxfx4x8xax4xbx-xax3x9x4x-x4xexbx7x-x9xcx0x5x-x4xax0x8x0x8x9x9x7xexdxcx&xkx=x2x8x0x2x5x&xsxpxoxnxsxoxrx=x 85.216.118.31 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I take it that URL is supposed to be http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=7af48a4b-a394-4eb7-9c05-4a0808997edc&k=28025&sponsor=

Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So SciFi doesn't have to pay any money, they just get the show for free? I mean if they pay anything, then some of the money isn't Canadian anymore. What a dumb thing for the guy to say.76.226.141.60 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Druitt's insanity

This article states that Druitt's insanity was cured by the blood transfusion, whereas the show states that Druitt's insanity is cured by the electro-shock torture that he undergoes at the hands of Tesla. Can this be confirmed/changed? Ajax040 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.85.223 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sure Magnus says to him that he was insane before the transfusion she just didnt see it. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Connections to other series

I discovered this today while watching S01E08 that one of the drawings the kid drew stroke a similarity from a character from Stargate SG-1. More specific, the unas Chaka, first seen in season 4, episode 8. I made a comparative screenshot > http://pistasj.net/r/t/sammenligning.jpg If there are several more connections to other series, this might expand to a section. 95.169.59.231 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to provide a reliable source (or sources) for the connections. --Pi zero (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no other kind of source I can give other than a screenshot. The real source would be to actually watch the episode then compare. 95.169.59.231 (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching and comparing would be original analysis on the part of the watcher; in the terminology of Wikipedia policy, that's one of the kinds of original research. Now, if (for example) a reliable news outlet published an interview with someone involved in the production in which the interviewee remarked on this connection, that would probably qualify. --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

its an easter egg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.110.76 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Emilie Ullerup still regular cast member?

As of last nights episode, season 2 - episode 4, Ullerup is no longer included in the opening credits. She also no longer appears in the 'Sanctuary' logo shot which used to include her, Tapping and Dunne. She has been replaced with images of Hyderdahl, Darshi and Robbins. It appears she was let go. [3] White43 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)