Talk:Revolution (TV series)

Origin

The article states that the series is "based loosely on the series of novels known as The Emberverse series." Is this just spec, or has S.M. Stirling been involved in some way (even just having rights paid)? Because the basic premise matches, yes, but nearly every other aspect that I can determine seems to be different. Radagast (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the claim for now. I tried to find a source better than conjecture in forums, and couldn't really turn up one. Given that Stirling's premise wasn't that original, (it dates back to at least 1943), I think we need a bit more to support the possible connection. - Bilby (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope SM Stirling sues them because it's almost EXACTLY the story that he wrote to include the plane falling out of the sky in the trailer. What a hoax. I thought better of Mr. Abrams.----Scott Nyquist snyquist2@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.15 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the Revolution promo, I immediately recalled a British sci-fi story about electricity mysteriously and suddenly not working. The story takes place several years after the event, and is not a shoot-em-up, more an evocation of what it would be like to live in such a world where steam is the most advanced technology. (In that sense, it was a precursor of steampunk.). I read this story in the 1970s but it may have been a a decade or two old at the time. It was written by a reasonably noted author, but I haven't been able to track it down. That said, I agree that reversion to a primitive level of technology is a prototypical genre--at least as old as the Time Machine, or even Robinson Crusoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latichever (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stirling can't sue because he stole the idea completely from Steven R. Boyett's ARIEL. Latichever: You are thinking of "The Waverlies," by Fredric Brown.

Yes, that's the story I was thinking of. [1] Unknown phenomenon destroying modern ugliness and bringing us back to the beautiful simple days when we were young and hopeful. For people my age, the villain of modernity is not electricity but the transistor. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit warring

Not a big concern, but there seems to be an edit warring currently happening at this article regarding the external link for the Revolution Wiki, being kept or removed per WP:ELNO, and it is a as it contains nothing worthwhile not already covered in that article, between me, an IP (150.203.222.115), and Caringtype1, but I have stopped removing the link, as I'm unsure at this point. Should that link be kept, removed, etc? Just thinking about WP:ELNO. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the link should be included, its not noteworthy, and doesn't belong here.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree, per WP:ELNO. Regards. TBrandley 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...

• "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." - of course it would, wikipedia has ONE article with a single short sentence about the characters. There is no info on the other characters, locations or events.
• "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." - not factually inaccurate or unverifiable as it comes from the episodes themselves.
• "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida (since Wikipedia's servers are located there)." - As far as I know it contains none.
• "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming." - Promoting the site is secondary to its inclusion, i intend to give a link to more detailed info.
• "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." - Nothing is for sale.
• "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below." - No payments required.
• "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." - Accessible to everyone.
• "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details." - None of the above.
• "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." - Nope.
• "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." - Nope.
• "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" - Technically its a fan site i guess but its more an encyclopedia of information, just more specific than wikipedia.
• "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." - The wiki is not open, you can create an accounts but you would have to jump through some hoops to be able to access.
• "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." - Its entirely about the wikipedia article subject.
• "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." - Nope.
• "Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates." - Nope.
• "Links that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." - Completely functional.
• "Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information." - Nope.
• "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages." - Nope.
• "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." - Nope.
• "External links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists." - Nope.

As you can see it violates NONE of the rules, I bet that if the tiny, Revolution wikia link was supplied then it would remain, despite that site being nowhere near as complex nor detailed as Revolution Wiki. 150.203.222.115 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't have "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." You missing that. The link violates that. So, still WP:ELNO. Regards. TBrandley 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh its the first one. If this article is going to include info on Soldier played by Greg Sproles, then yes it dies violate that but I don't see that happening.... 150.203.222.115 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikia support. I personally think there is no harm in adding the wikia to this article. I didn't even look at the ELNO. As long as nothing similar here ends up there, meaning verbatim show/episode/character descriptions, there should be no reason to add it as a supplement to the article here, either in the External Links or See Also sections. No harm, no foul...till copy-pasting takes place. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea while im sure that the Revolution wikia is "great" it does not stand up to the independent one, it barely crawls. 150.203.223.120 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Main Char

It asks "by whom" and a quick web search shows this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/tv/story/2012/09/17/girl-power-fuels-revolution/57791714/1 proclaims Charlie or whatever to be the main character. I'm removing the "by whom" thing since USA Today is notable but I don't know the finer details of what might be needed or if a citation is needed and I don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuggler (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, why does it matter to list "she is considered the main character of the series"? That would be like saying Jack Shephard was the main character of Lost. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As a viewer, I for one think she is, if fingers had to be pointed the MAIN person, with Miles being an equally important, but not as important as her and the rest being very important supporting cast MisterShiney (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Billy Burke gets top billing, in all promos and ads his character is clearly the focus, Charlie is certainly a lead character, listed in the credits she is listed second.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Simulated reality premise

Upcoming edits (I'd like to see): As soon as high-quality sourced critics and other media start speculating that the action may be taking place in a simulated reality computer program code-named "Revolution," I'd like to see that included in the article. Once that premise is confirmed, we can add the series to the list of simulated reality in fiction. Oh, dear, I haven't blown the series' secret, have I? 5Q5 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

??? Well, if someone does say so, then feel free to add it. Otherwise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Grace's profession?

The article currently states she is a doctor, but at no point does she say so. Someone asks here if she is a doctor, but she says she had the inhaler from her son (and does not answer the question). She later says she was a teacher prior to the power outage. Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The section reads:

It has received favorable reviews from critics. It holds a Metacritic score of 66/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[22] Verne Gay of the Newsday gave the show a 5 star rating, noting "The cast is good, even excellent. But Perry's the one who sells Go On."[23] David Hinckley of the New York Daily News described the show as "Maybe the best new sitcom of the fall is one of the first."[24] Hank Stuever of the Washington Post praised the directing of the show, observing "Go On moves quite breezily--much like an NBC-flavored take on premium cable dramadies such as "The Big C" and "Enlightened." It's not as good as either of those, but it has the same happy-sad aura, with just a dash of "Community"-like absurdity to keep the speed limit up.

This is the Reception section from the Wikipedia article on the TV show, Go On, not Revolution.

--JBucknoff (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC) JBucknoff

NBC claims over 29 million people are watching this show while the ratings numbers for both episodes combined don't even add up to 21 million.--Subman758 (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really relevant, but curious. How do they really know who is watching? (Unless you have TiVo, that is)--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Matheson

Rachel Matheson is alive. can the page be changed to show this?

Wingman1 11:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)

Episode Synopsis

I had a guy delete my entire entry for a synopsis of an episode for it being too long. Fair play, but just deleting it all is just lazy. He should of edited it first.

Anyways, he also deleted the briefer synopsis for the first episode, anyway this can come back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterShiney (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you put a shorter version back in. While it should not have been removed, keep in mind that most episode summaries at least on pages like this should be within 100-200 words as per WP:TVPLOT. Think of how long this page would be with your original summary multiplied by 20 episodes? A better choice for lengthy plots would be to create an article for the individual episodes, but those must have summaries within 500 words max and also be notable (highly covered by the press). The pilot may be but successive episodes might not. A similar situation occurred here (scroll down to the last episodes). Note that those summaries remain but there is a "too long" tag attached? That is what should have been done here, rather than your work removed entirely. Also, remember that we try not to give every detail for those who have not seen the episodes. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I found how to do that by looking at an earlier version. Im still learning. Will make sure that they are shorter in future. MisterShiney (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Flashbacks

What is the point in naming all the flashbacks in every episode?? That can easily be mentioned in the episode section, and what if the stop having flashbacks in episode 4?? That makes no sense!Caringtype1 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Flashbacks are an important part of the episode and depending on how well the overview is written they can create confusion to the reader. It's just much easier to have them separate. Otherwise people get confused. MisterShiney (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)