Talk:Firefly (TV series)

Disambiguation

Could someone please add a disambiguation link to the top? --Freiddie 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need - a search for Firefly will take you to the insect. The only way you will get here is by searching for the series Sammayel (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also no harm in doing so. -- saberwyn 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace "harm" with "reason" and it's still a true statement. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone prove to me that the only way people come to articles in by clicking on them, knowing exactly what article thay are going into? So if a reader enters this article by accident for whatever reason, they now have to do a search of "Firely" to go to the main article, then click on the disambiuation link in order to find what they want? Typical! I'm adding the link, as most readers are not experts on using WP. I think that is reason enough to break a guideline! - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an argument to abolish the guideline, not to break it, unless people interested in fireflies are less adept than other WP users. Can you suggest how a user would come here by accident while looking for the beetle? The reverse seems much more likely. —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I type "wikipedia firefly" in the address bar in Firefox, it takes me directly to this article. Since that was what I was aiming for, I don't mind, though. :) I'm not sure what this Firefox function is based on. Most clicked google hits for the same search terms? Tales (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a Fireflies (TV series) page, which could easily be confused with this one if a reader confuses the plurals. We coulnd link directly to that page if the infallible DAB-gods decree it is more useful. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A link to Fireflies (and vice versa) is a good idea ("This article is about the American series; for the Australian series see Fireflies (TV series)"). I'd add it but I don't know the relevant template. —Tamfang (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Will there ever be a: Season 2 ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:NOTAFORUM, but kept so the question (hopefully) won't need to be asked again. - BillCJ (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

So this column is for Firefly Season 2 questions, will it ever come etc. As it looks now it wont tho but you never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.2 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a fan site or a crystal ball. Fireflyfans.net or Whedonesque.com both discuss that issue every time someone starts a new rumor. Fact is, Serenity (which did happen) and the comics (which are happening) are likely to be the only continuations of the series. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14 episodes and a movie aren't enough for a series which was inteded to be run for seven years. Its such a shame FOX messed this series up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.71.25 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotation?

Under the heading, "Cast and Crew", the narrative switches from past tense to present tense in the 2nd paragraph. It appears to me the present part is supposed to be part of a quote and indeed, there's a final quote. Here's the part:

>Espenson wrote an essay on the writing process with Mutant Enemy. A meeting is held and an idea is floated …

It's possible multiple editors might have munged it up, so can someone who worked on the original fix it up?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I made a change as I think it should read.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke Ski's song

Ove the course of two edits User:Cpt ricard altered the content relating to Luke Ski's parody song by removing half the content relating to the song (relating to the whole 'being captured by FOX'), and altering the other half. Cpt ricard appears to have assumed that this was vandalism, but according to the lyrics, the content was correct.

I've removed the entry in its entirety, as the original paragraph has been around and unsourced for a fair while, the edited version of the paragraph incorrectly described the song, and because I personally believe that a single parody song isn't all that important in The Grand Scheme Of Things^tm. However, because it may be more important that I think, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Does Luke Ski's "A Man Named Jayne" belong in this article? -- saberwyn 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Luke well enough (he has a nice orange suit his mom made for him); but he's just another filker. I think it's a WP:UNDUE violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Followed by

The "followed by" in the infobox listed the Serenity (comics) as the following. To me, the comics seem more of side story and the Serenity (film) should be listed there. At the very least, the link should be changed to Serenity: Those Left Behind.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If its the case, it should link to Serenity: Better Days, which happens before Serenity: Those Left Behind, although there is no indication when The Other Half is set. This article should also mention that it is preceded by A Shepherd's Tale. jlam (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the great migration

What's the canonical support for generation ships? —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's stuff to be found elsewhere. We don't give a crap about canon, only citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on the Serenity Blu-Ray disk there is a large database section that contains information on the generation ships, the fact it's only one system, and a lot of info on the history. Since it's on the disk its citationable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it must also be notable, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It does however say there that it was one generation who grew up on the ships and never saw the other end. Is that really a multi generational ship? Canterbury Tail talk 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why the term is "generation ship": to avoid that kind of distinction-gnawing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for those of us who give a crap about citation if we can't get canon, let's have a citation. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

True 1080i or just upscaled?

Is it known whether the HD version actually stems from an adequate source or is merely an "improved" version of the ordinary 480i? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.164.66 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavy use of quotes

The article makes heavy use of quotes in the reception section. Instead of paraphrasing the critic's opinions (which is the preferred way), it just regurgitates whole sections of critiques. I also noticed various peacock terms (for quick example, since we're talking about the reception section, the use of the term "scathing"). I think that maybe some general c/eing is in order for the article, but I figured that those who primarily edit the page are probably better equipped to take care of this particular subject in that manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at fixing the sectionup a bit. More work should be done, of course. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good now. Now vs. before. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly does. I haven't go through the whole article, the reception section just caught my eye (was re-watching the series and wondered if there was any talk about the cancellation of the show). Anyway, a thorough sweep should be made for peacock and weasel terms, and we should probably recheck all the sources and make sure everything is well cited. Basically, we should probably do an unofficial FA review. It isn't that I think the page shouldn't be FA, it's just that it was promoted back in 2006 and a lot has changed in 2 years. Buffy was promoted around the same time, and it unfortunately was demoted June 08. I'd like to get this one preemptively tidied up so that we don't have to worry about anyone coming along and officially running an FAR (that puts us on a time-stamp for clean up, and it's better to be able to take your time than have to rush). Any concerns about maybe all of us (anyone who is active on the page, including myself) sweeping through the article and maybe making a list of all possible issues that we can tackle one-by-one?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Comprise" vs. "Make Up"

The very definition of comprise is "to make up". The Alliance is "comprised of" the two core planets. This is not personal preference. "Make up" is informal diction, "comprise" is formal, and we should always strive for formal diction. If you want informal diction, go to the Simple English Wikipedia. kingdom2 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the wording. Commentary for what episode? I don't remember anything like that, and it doesn't seem to go along with the series itself. My understanding was that the Alliance controlled a great deal of planets. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many planets. The sentence in the article says 2 primary core planets in the Alliance. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... reading the whole paragraph helps. :P I'm still curious which episode. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think its mentioned in dialogue in any episodes, but I'm pretty certain its in some of the published background material (primarily one of the two series Companion books). If you want, I'll try to dig out a specific cite for you when I get home tonight. -- saberwyn 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Comprise" and "make up" are not synonymous - in fact they're inverse. A whole comprises its parts, not the other way around. Lay usage notwithstanding, even the reference provided by the person who reverted my edit admits that usage is controversial. If you want formal diction (which I agree is appropriate) the word would be "constitute". --Aseld ^talk 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... read the dictionary a little more carefully, and I think it works this way: "The Alliance comprises two primary 'core' planets, one predominantly Western in culture..." Yes? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's how I understood it, yes (though of course I may be wrong). --Aseld ^talk 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted twice. I do not care whether we go with "comprise" or "constitute". My beef was that changing it to "make up" was nothing more than dumbing down the language.

And to Jomasecu: I do not know which commentary it is on, but it is considered general knowledge among most Browncoats and flans that the core of the core of the Alliance (I meant the repetition) are the planets Londinium and Sihnon, predominantly Western and Eastern in culture respectively. Londinium is the center of government and Sihnon is the center of culture, spirituality, etc. According to this [1] Joss once stated this fact in an interview clip on a long gone Fox Firefly website. Obviously not reliable now. But Inara does mention in the pilot that Sihnon - her home planet - is greatly populated and very beautiful. Mal also mentions in the pilot that he "would like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat." kingdom2 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), if one word or the other doesn't work, find a third choice. Its a big language, and there is no need to bicker about it. I have edited the option is composed of back in. Please find a compromise here first, and then implement it there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everyone here had agreed on "comprises" (not "comprised of"), then you came and changed it. I'm happy with "comprises" or "composed of". Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "composed of". That usage of "comprise" sounds weird to me. Besides, seeing as "comprise" proved to be such a contentious, difficult to understand word, it might be best if we do not use it at all. kingdom2 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With that being a valid use of comprise, either comprise or compose is fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That link lists the usage of "comprised of" as being technically incorrect (the third definition). At this point, I'm not caring a whole lot. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the article reads now with "composed of". I think that we should take Arcayne's advice and drop the discussion, unless we want this listed as one of the lamest edit wars ever. kingdom2 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• More like an edit skirmish. And yes, fine as is with "composed of". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

is composed of (or comprises) should introduce a complete list, and we know jolly well that the Alliance comprises more than two planets! Even the "core" also includes Ariel at the very least. (Is Tam's home planet named?) How about "The Alliance grew from ..."? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the way it is presented is that the seat of the Alliance is the two central planets I named above, and all other plants - from Ariel to Jiangyin - are simply "under Alliance control". kingdom2 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I trouble both editors to add references to reinforce their claims. While I am sure both of your are so big that you go to raves and push folk around by your sheer brainpower, but here, you need citations to make your argument. No cite-y, no include-y. Capisce? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I would be more than happy to, but I lent out my Firefly DVDs and I have had trouble getting them back. And yes, I can push people around with nothing but my enormous mental energies, but I would never be caught dead at a rave. kingdom2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, three problems remain:

• a) you need a refresher on citations, since your perception of information doesn't amount to citable info;
• b) from a merely observational aspect, your enormous mental energies are not all that impressive. Go discover a cure for ebola or hate or something: then we can talk about your intellectual might. Until then, operate under the perception that you aren't the smartest person in the room; and
• c) you need to find a better class of rave to attend. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to plot details, citations aren't generally given, and it's assumed that the source is the work in question. I think that standard can be easily applied here, as it's clear from the series that the Alliance controls far more than two worlds, and I agree that "composed of" (or any of the variations we've been toying with) implies a complete list. A quote from the commentary that the two-planet thing came from would be nice. I'm guessing that, depending on said quote, either "the seat of the Alliance government is composed of..." or "the Alliance grew from..." would better reflect both the quote and the plot of the series. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was speaking about citations here, Jomasecu, I meant as support for one's argument - in order to prevent this from degenerating into a crufty debate a step above slash fic and whatnot. As for your suggestion that instead noting that the "seat of the alliance" is etc. - that is a good middle ground, and we can walk away from the nitpickyness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "seat of" too. It works good as a middle ground in that both it fits for both interpretations, as opposed to explicitly excluding either one. kingdom2 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is indeed an improvement. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"presents an atypical backdrop for the science fiction narrative."

How is this necessary to include in the introduction? This is pretty clearly a POV, so the person expressing it must be stated or it must be discussed in the reception section. It may be included in the lead, but not the way it currently is. This is pretty clearly stating an opinion, albeit a common one among Firefly fans. If it is to be included in the lead it should have an appropriate qualifying phrase such as, "considered by many fans/critics to be x". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Word. If you want it there at all, get a reference. Weasel words aren't appropriate either. --Aseld ^talk 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I used the weasel words as a compromise, my edits were reverted twice so I decided to try and avoid a revert war. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course - I understand why you made the edits, and agree, but I don't think they should be the permanent solution. --Aseld ^talk 07:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding a revert war is always to be commended. Talking is always preferable to reverting. And while I pretty much disagree that they were weasel words - especially when the reception section pretty much says what what is covered as overview in the Lede. Maybe there is some confusion as to what the Lede is supposed to do. Its an overview of the article, not just an introduction to such. But, no fatal mistakes were made, so I took a specific quote from the commentary and ported it all the way back up to the Lede. I think its largely unimaginative to insisit on this sort of practice when paraphrasing works so very much better, but three folks tend to think its necessary, so there you go. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that. It wasn't the statement itself that was the problem for me, it was a) the lack of qualification (*who* said it?) and b) the lack of an inline citation (I had in fact thought that the statement had not been cited at all, having missed the reference way down in "Reception"). Now that those things have been provided it seems fine to me. --Aseld ^talk 08:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Add a {{Who}}, {{weasel-inline}} or {{Fact}} tag to the end of the sentence in the future to give others a chance fix or reference it. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really, really help matters. As for myself, sorry for being a bit snarky. I shouldn't edit late at night. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid the snark, but I agree that that would not be helpful in the least. Knowingly adding unencyclopedic content to WP is a bad idea, regardless of how it's tagged. --Aseld ^talk 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that I was paraphrasing the sources (which happens in an overview of a subject), not adding unencyclopedic content. As such, my support of the edit was the right thing to do, I'm bending in the wind of consensus to add a specific quote that says pretty much the same thing, even though I think that using hte same quote is redundant. Unless this is a 'getting the last word in' thing, I'll presume the matter closed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the matter is not closed, and no, this is not a case having to get the last word in. The sentence is still very clearly an example of weasel words. It is still a pretty strong opinion statement, albet one expressed by a considerable amount of people, but nonetheless a POV. This is why that quote does have a place in the article under Reception, but not in the lede. Why not include Tim Goodman's quote that Firefly is a "forced hodgepodge" or a Turkey City Writer's Workshop that criticizes the space western backdrop as incredibly cliched? None of those belong, just as the included text doesn't, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The POV goes in the reception area, and the weasel words go out of the article. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes, yes it is. The word "atypical" is no longer there to fire off your Weasel Word Detector (tm), and instead there is a referenced quote to briefly describe the tone as stated by notable reviewers or commentators. It is not a "soapbox" comment, it is a quote to describe tone/genre; your examples are completely nonsensical because they are not capable of simple description. Like all reviews they below with the reviews. Is "scifi western" now POV?--Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Following your argument, which is true to some degree, one must conclude that the second half of the sentence is entirely redundant since the first half of the sentence already describes how the series is a future setting modeled after traditional Western motifs. Thus the sentence should instead be worded, "It has been praised for its naturalistic future setting, which is modeled after traditional Western movie motifs." In fact, I plan on making this edit since it removes the quotation, which I am not alone in disliking.

Calling it an "oddball genre mix" has a much different meaning than simply categorizing it as a Sci-fi Western, and apparently the difference between the two has been lost on you. (To clarify, oddball mix suggests it is more unusual or unique, which is an opinion/POV, and it is an opinion/POV that some would strongly disagree with. I mentioned the Turkey City Writer's Workshop who have criticized the space western setting as tired and cliche. You also mentioned the genre of sci-fi western. Can it really be described as oddball when sci-fi western is such an established genre?) Also, I dislike using the quote in the lede, something even Arcayne, who made the edit, expressed hesitation about. Your other major mistake is that you described it as a "quote to describe tone/genre." Tone and genre are significantly different, and lumping the two together makes your argument a fallacy. Genre is based more on solid facts about the TV show. It is in space, it is in the future, etc. etc. Tone is trickier, having to do with things like the "emotion" and "mood" and "feeling" of the work. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, apparently I should have used "tone, genere". Perhaps then I would have saved you the time of typing up a silly little personal attack based on misinterpretation. Log on to a registered account and I'd maybe take the time to have to go into more detail of this with you; as it is I really couldn't care if you're going to jump to conclusions and attempt personal attacks.

Beyond that, stop it with the edit warring. You have however many people here with differing views on the matter, and several of them have gone out of the way to mention no edit-warring. The talk page is here so, among other things, people don't have to make five million edits back and forth. For wp:good faith, you can choose to either make personal attacks on me or not follow general Wiki policy; I'm not going to keep it with both.

Finally, if you are so focused on the word "oddball" now, then why not simply remove that lone word? The sentence would function exactly the same, and would still be accurately representing the quote itself. Seems an unnecessary amount in comparison to the viable option of removing a lone word.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, you seemed to have taken things rather personally and resorted to ad hominem attacks. You accuse me of trying to start and edit war, when in fact I started this section in the discussion page to avoid an edit war. I have made sure to avoid any violation of the 3RR policy, so how exactly was this an edit war? Certainly the article has been edited numerous times since the discussion started, but that is the point of the discussion! Discussion is not supposed to prevent editing entirely, but to facilitate healthy editing which ultimately improves the articles, rather than pointless reverts back and forth.

I am also confused about why you think I attacked you, because I never did. I did follow WP:AGF, but assume good faith does not mean I have to assume you are correct. I assumed you were doing your best to contribute to the article, but I also believed you were mistaken and did my best to clarify these mistakes. I even mentioned that your argument was true to some degree, which hardly sounds like an argument containing personal attacks.

Also, I assume you wrote your last paragraph before checking the most recent update to the article, because I had already done exactly what you suggested. It seems like we have come to an agreement, so I don't see why any further accusations that I am some sort of troll are necessary. Hopefully you won't take criticism and constructive contributions to a discussion so personally, I know sometimes with text the tone can come of as sarcastic and/or patronizing when that was not the authors original intent, but that is exactly why we have the Assume Good Faith policy so that tempers don't get out of hand when the tone of a discussion becomes ambiguous like that. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) First of all, calm the hell down, everyone. Second of all, user:129, you are new; it will behoove you to learn and understand our policies more in depth before applying them inefficiently. We are being polite, and you are better off addressing the edits and not the editor. We do not mess with quoted statements. Period. The consensus doesn't want a paraphrasing, so we aren't doing that. If the majority of the cited sources consider it an odd series, then odd it is. We aren't citable, and they are. If we choose to use one of those citations by quote, we should do so. If you think the reviews are unbalanced. go and WP:SOFIXIT; find other reviews and add them to reception. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Node 3

While I think it is blatantly obvious, are there any sources specifically stating that the naming option of "Serenity" is related to Firefly? As far as naming conventions go it is far from unique enough of a name to make the link automatically, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If there is a source (for something like this, even a NASA researcher blog would likely be enough) then I think that even a possible naming (pre-choice or post-choice in the case that another name is used) is a worthy enough nod for the article. If not, it's debatable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the name was proposed by anonymous Net users, we'll never know why. —Tamfang (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't, it was one of the four name provided by NASA to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.135 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to find any in my web reasearch for the Serenity (film) reference to node 3. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is not an anonymous suggestion, it is one of the original four official options. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be referenced as being included directly as a result of it being the name used in Firefly, then it can't go in the article. Verifiability. We need a statement from NASA, or some other reputable source, stating why they choose those names and directly linking it. And it's not blatantly obvious, Firefly isn't the first time in sci-fi a spacecraft has ever been called Serenity, and there have been real life sea-faring ships called that as well. Canterbury Tail talk 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase (even though I did mention, as the original poster, that it also falls into historical naming conventions): Barring official statements to the contrary, I personally feel that it is unlikely that it isn't a wink towards the show. That's entirely original research and/or my own point of view though, so my own thoughts on the matter don't much count. I also feel that even if it is not intended as a wink to the show, it would be obvious that researchers/NASA PR would be aware of the links between the two that individuals would make.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Fox News noted the naming similarity, without taking an opinion on whether that "Serenity" is this "Serenity". An NPOV article can do the same--please check out Serenity (film)#In other media. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly, but I think it should be the case here. Even if "Serenity" does end up being the node's name, then there is dubious need to include it unless a source states a link between it and the show/movie. It can be done, true; I just don't think that it needs to be done. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but including it well, with limited claims and accurate sourcing, is the best innoculation against folks feeling the need to include "missing" information. Besides, what can be clearly sourced is that plenty of people think that there's a connection and encouraged others to vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway, Colbert won it with the most votes. story here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Jolly"

The bit about FOX wanting the character Mal to be more "jolly" appears twice in the article.

scifi?

is this really sci fi? i would rather state it as a western set in space, or a neo-western, but to say sci-fi in the lead is a bit... eh. Sure its set in space and has a spaceship, but it hardly clings to any sci-fi elemets. The following article makes a good argument about star wars classification: [2]

So what you ppl think?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For starters, any discussions on the topic here would be original research. Firefly's classification as a science fiction show are very well grounded in numerous reviews and the like. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't crappy enough to be called "sci fi" (a pejorative); but it was definitely science fiction, by every definition of the word ever encountered. Star Wars is of course irrelevant to this discussion. (For what it's worth, I think Star Wars is SF; bad SF created by a scientific illiterate, but SF.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If Firefly were set on Earth in the present, the origin of the Reavers would still be sf; "Safe" and "Our Mrs Reynolds" would be hard to classify. —Tamfang (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)