Talk:Ascension (miniseries)

Timeline section

While others' diligence in adding information to Wikipedia is appreciated, I feel that the Timeline section could either be fancruft or trivia and should be removed. That said, I would not be against a brief mention of it being listed at the series website. In addition, none of these events occur in the series, merely mentioned or alluded to. — Wyliepedia 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your suggestion of a brief mention and a link to that section of the series website is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Alternate Present"?

The article describes the show at taking place in an alternate present. I see nothing that indicates it's an alternate present, any more so than other shows with some government conspiracy or something going on behind the scenes, such as The X-Files or Person of Interest. And for that matter, if that term is so loose, then really almost any fiction could be considered alternate present, including just about every drama and sitcom on TV. In fact, I can't even think of a TV show that I would consider an alternate present, although you could argue that something like Continuum is. There also might have been a Quantuum Leap or The Twilight Zone episode or two that would fit the term. Off TV, one need look no further than Marvel comic books and the Marvel movies; they definitely take place in our world (same history, same President of the USA, etc.), but with the addition of super-heroes (which one could argue are all the result of the creation of Captain America during WWII since he then serves as inspiration for other people to take up the super-hero business and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taed (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, when I checked in just days before this, I sat for a while looking at the term "alternate present". This comes following the "science fiction mystery drama" and before the "generation ship". We get it. The a.p. bit seems odd, even if it is the setting of the show. — Wyliepedia 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not an "alternate present". That would describe shows like the new The Man in the High Castle, where the Nazis won WWII. This is a Secret history, i.e. "history which is claimed to have been deliberately suppressed, forgotten, or ignored". No indication that any "publicly known" history is different -- e.g. mention of Snowden and other current events. I will therefore change the description, though I'm sure someone will revert it. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, see Alternate history: "alternate history requires ... a change that would alter history as it is known". (In the show, the ship's existence is not known to the public; so fails to fit this definition.) And further, the article has "'Secret history, works that document things that are not known to have happened historically but would not have changed history had they happened, is also not to be confused with alternate history". "History" in both definitions is "known history", not the events themselves, since as others said earlier above any fiction would then be "alternate history". 202.81.249.151 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition of a demo column

User Helmboy is attempting to edit war in a column adding U.S. demo figure for this series. He will discuss via edit summary or on a user's talk page, but refuses to discuss here. His only rationale for including the figures is common sense (whatever that means) in the face of no consensus and standard practice on TV articles. Given he refuses to abide by consensus and discuss policy, I'm opening this discussion in the hope we can avoid a trip to ANI and get the matter settled. I see no need for adding U.S. demo figures to an article on a Canadian TV show. Viewership is informative, demo is esoteric, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Drmargi (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Commonsense in not adding another table for one column and second demo figures despite your opinion is what advertisers looked at to determine the success of their advertising reach and as such is the main indicator of a show's success to the network. Also the success in the larger and first broadcast TV gives an indication if any future series or miniseries will be commissioned. helmboy 01:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the demo is required until the series gets picked up for another season. Something similar to what we used on the Falling Skies season pages with regards to tables would be ideal if it happened. It's not too complex, the episode name, the airdates and the rating and 18-49 number. I don't personally have much experience with how people do cable updates but was heavily involved in the Season 3 and 4 pages of Falling Skies so I'm speaking from that perspective. So with that being said I'm in agreement with Drmargi. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a miniseries, if something similar got commissioned from those demos which I doubt, it would be in a new article. And I am unsure what your reasoning is, given Falling Skies seasons 3 and four both have demo figures. helmboy 02:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Syfy have mentioned that it could pick the show up for another season depending on how well it does. Assuming things go well for it, and it gets a proper order that's when I think it should be seriously considered. As it stands now, it's just a mini series. We don't need that much detail with the ratings. Just the basic number reported would be fine. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a basic (if that) cable show that got bubkus numbers, regarding viewership. Yes, that includes the coveted demographic numbers, which also barely registered. A casual visitor (read: someone here just for show information, i.e. character and episode descriptions) probably doesn't give a toss about the demo ratings, nor what they mean. As stated above, the viewership numbers are simple and descriptive, demo percentages are not. That said, I'm not against listing anything in a prose section with informative links, but also think that is indiscriminate. I don't think this "limited event" will have life in another time to add extraneous numbers for visitors to ponder if that will happen. This isn't Fargo nor Under the Dome. — Wyliepedia 02:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Viewer figures are far from simple and descriptive, they give a even more false impression of how a show has been viewed due to how the sample is selected and it's limited size, as well as the estimated number of TVs in homes. So as I see it either drop Viewer column as well or include the just as indiscriminate and more important demo figures. helmboy 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong tree to bark up for that. — Wyliepedia 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Helmboy, I've never personally seen a TV show page with an 18-49 column on Wikipedia. I think you're just trying to over complicate things. CAWylie does have a good point, the status quo as the page stands now reflects pretty much every TV show page on Wikipedia. While ratings tables are virtually everywhere for broadcast network shows, this just a mini series on cable. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

All you are saying is you don't want to deviate from the status quo, no matter how nonsensical and flawed it may be. helmboy 06:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bark up? It's simple either both figures in the ep. list or none. helmboy 06:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Bark up" - to address a global standard usage change where it is used locally or singularly. Simply put, take the issue of the standardization to the template's page and/or WP:TV. Good luck with that. — Wyliepedia 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple Helmboy, I suggest not trying to take ownership of the article, that never works out well. When there's a universal agreement among editors that this is how things go, then people will follow that. Anyway this will be my last post on this subject, I would hope you would see reason, if not I'm sure other editors will enlighten you further. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And that pretty well sums it up. There's no consensus for any of the changes Helmboy has proposed, and no good reason to make changes. From here, Helmboy, I'd head for WikiProject TV. But you'll have to up your game considerably and make a better case than "common sense" or take a more collaborative approach than "my way or the highway." If there's a passing admin, this thread could/should be closed. --Drmargi (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: You don't have any responses from named editors who weren't involved in the reversions. How is this fair and impartial? helmboy 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone who has reverted you can be named. That's enough for this thread. If people are reverting you, it's completely fair to count them. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: No you can't be counted because you are not impartial and all notable replies are from the three editors who started this whole non-issue. helmboy 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a non-issue. It's been summed up that it'll stay how it is by multiple editors who have a say in this, and yet you're the one who keeps pressing on. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: No, adding the column was a non-issue until you were the editor that didn't like it. helmboy 04:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed it not because I didn't like it, but because it was necessary and not standard practice. You don't own this page - read WP:OWN. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: No you seem to be owning this article which is why you removed it, also as stated, the demo figures have more value for basic cable and broadcast shows than the viewer numbers. Only including the viewer figures, gives the reader who is interested that those were the sole indicator of the shows success or failure. Premium cable shows are the only ones that don't take much notice of the demo figures. helmboy 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to own the article because I removed one column, with MULTIPLE users agreeing with me and reverting your attempts to put it back. But it's ME who owns the article, declared by a user who has NO support by ANY other users for his edits. Logic? If they want your info, it's not hard to go to Google. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Yes, you have done the first and most of the other revisions. The other two based on the comments were just playing follow the leader. helmboy 04:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Because they're not needed. And my view can be backed up by the above users. This is now simply you wanting to get your way by ignoring other users who have had far more experience than you. It's not going to happen. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: As stated the two revision editors were following your direction on what columns are allowed to be added. And as stated the demo is more important when judging a broadcast or basic cable show's success or failure. The viewer figures only used to aid in determining audience drop-off when the show's time-slot changes or when a show comes back from hiatus. In general the viewer figures are less important. And I agree I prefer to be open minded in discussions and not just a sheep in a flock, but then if that makes one less experienced, so be it. helmboy 05:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Those two users aren't following me, they're far more experienced on Wikipedia - I've been here a few months. So, if a far more experienced user is agreeing with my edits, then obviously they're the best for the article. This is barely a show - it's a miniseries. If it's extended to a full series, then a table can be created for a demo. The miniseries has been and passed, it's finished, so there's no need for any success or failure. If they need further information, they can simply look online for it. I'm pretty sure that the viewer figures are rather important. If a show has 0.01 million viewers (10k), then it's obviously a failure. If it has 15 million viewers, it's obviously a success. See? Nothing else required. Given that it was I who reverted your edits, I'm not the "sheep in a flock", though calling advanced users as such is rather insulting to them. Anything else? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Based on the comment by CAWylie referring to you first revision As stated before, the ratings numbers do not belong here. They are also not notable enough to bear mentioning., that is clearly following and not acting like a seasoned editor and as for the other editor, she is known to follow a pack mentality and be extremely rigid in her views on policy. Also whether it's a limited series or full series order make no difference. And you fail to understand the simply fact that in terms of ratings on basic cable and broadcast in the US it's the demo that matters before the viewer figures. If this were a premium cable or UK series then the viewer figures would be fine. helmboy 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Helmboy, firstly, I am asking you nicely to stop pinging me. Secondly, personal attacks will get you nowhere. Thirdly, none of us, I believe, are against adding them on the page, just against adding them into the episode table. Lastly, and finally, making an exception for this six-episode miniseries episode table is not gaining a consensus in your favor, so, respectfully, you should just let it go and move on. I've lost a few battles myself in my "seasoning". I'm out, y'all. — Wyliepedia 06:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Figure rounding

Limiting an already rounded and adjusted figure to two places just because that's how it was first done gives a false impression that the episode has done better or worse than was reported. It also calls into question the accuracy of the figures on the site. helmboy 01:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also figures will never be greater than 3 places. helmboy 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Two words: Standard practice. And guidelines, which I run by. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly a thought out answer from the one who reverted. helmboy 02:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're going against consensus. The burden is on you, no matter how many insults you fling in an attempt to be right. Your sarcasm and petulance, along with your edit warring does nothing to strengthen your arguments, just to make sure people will not be on your side. --Drmargi (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How this then, standard practice means not open to improvement and so called the guidelines were NOT specifically referenced, therefore the stated guidelines are invalid. helmboy 02:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Also, it's broadcast network shows that a rounded to 2 decimal places, cable ratings are rounded to three decimal places due to generally being lower. The U.K. BARB viewer figures follow the same practice as US cable. So editor rounding to keep the figures the same as the US broadcast figures makes the other figures inaccurate. helmboy 04:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide links to multiple Wikipedia articles, proving that the apparently standard practice you propose is three decimals for US TV shows (not UK). Thank you. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: What? So you can go an head off and change them to the broadcast US standard of two! You just need to look at the tvbythenumbers site to see that US broadcast uses two and US cable uses three. Also cable doesn't use the pointless share figures, making a comprehensive table pointless. helmboy 04:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware, and if you're not, this will help you out greatly, but I must impart to you the knowledge that this is not TVByTheNumbers. This is Wikipedia, where policy is key, and the key to all is policy. I hope that helps. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: And you have yet to earn any trust or respect for disrespecting others ideas and contributions. Also two places is far from policy, it only came about due to US broadcast figures being two places and not more. Do you want to make article like List of Downton Abbey episodes comply? Then don't do the same to cable numbers. helmboy 04:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Also going by the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television#Rounding_audience_numbers, the number of decimal places shouldn't be enforced. helmboy 04:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you feel the need to enforce them? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Huh? Enforcing is what you are doing by self rounding to two places. helmboy 05:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Enforcing is also what you are doing by self rounding to three places. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm rounding nothing, it is three places already because it's a cable show. helmboy 06:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Duration: 1 hour episodes?

The article claims the show "consists of six one-hour episodes". SciFy's website lists three one-hour episodes. It seems to me that there are six half-hour episodes merged into three one-hour episodes.

The opening titles for each of the 3 episodes clearly refer to two original episodes (101 & 102, 103 & 104, and 105 & 106) per screened 'episode'. Jaruzel (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The original editor's point remains, there are not six one-hour episodes whichever way you cut it. So the article is wrong.121.73.221.187 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This is how it was originally billed. The article is correct. Alex|The|Whovian 13:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It was also mentioned during the broadcast, the 1&2, 3&4, 5&6. It came up on screen, it didn't last long though as the credits fade out after a second or two. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't correct, I'm looking at the episodes right now, there aren't six one-hour episodes. Any pre-release reports to the contrary were incorrect and mistaken, there's no direct citation that supports it. The lengths are here, via the link to Amazon (which I can't link directly); Part 1 = 1 Hour 7 minutes, Part 2 = 1 hour 20 minutes, Part 3 = 1 hour 27 minutes.121.73.221.187 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is. The episodes are considered 1&2, 3&4, 5&6. It even comes up at the start of each episode. This was a 3 night event. 6 episodes aired in 3 parts.86.15.195.205 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. I've provided an link to the actual episodes themselves, I'm looking at them right now. They aren't anything like six hours long whether you divide it into three parts or six, that's the point. You're demonstrably wrong. Ad breaks aren't episode time.

And in regard to the separate second point, as the original editor stated, the official site itself lists it as three episodes; here 121.73.221.187 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the official website calls them chapters, not episodes. See here for example http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/ascension/listings/ there are a lot more places that can verify that it is a 6 episode series, but Futon is widely recognized on here. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A chapter by definition is a division in a series, and the official site lists those three parts under 'episodes' and explicitly calls them that in multiple places, so yes, it does. It uses 'chapter' synonymously throughout as demonstrated here. This is an objective fact.

And you're still ignoring the main point that however it's divided it's nowhere near six hours long. As demonstrated at the already provided link. As per the image here.121.73.221.187 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue still not resolved. As per the references and sources provided, the length of this series is not six hours. As well, as a secondary point the official site explicitly presents it as three episodes. Regardless of the fact that it may have original been announced as six as appears to be the case. It is probable that they made it so it could be played either way as is the case with a number of other shows.121.73.221.187 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see this issue still isn't resolved, please review the links above. The fact that the official site lists them as three episodes, and that the times of said episodes is not six hours is demonstrated.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How many crew?

Having just watched this, it constantly refers to the crew being 600 people - Unless I missed a piece of early dialogue, I question the number of 350 in the article? Jaruzel (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri

Not sure if this should be added to the main article text, even as a footnote, but it is worth noting here at least: Proxima Centauri as a destination is an odd choice, because it is a dim flare star (still not known to have planets as of 2015). The show presents Proxima as being visible only once one does a "close-up" of the Alpha Centauri AB pair; this is wildly at variance with Proxima's reality as a distant third partner of the system. A possible explanation is that this is part of the lie told to the crew. Unfortunately, this misrepresentation will be passed on whole to the public at large. Urhixidur (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be like this is entirely original research, which Wikipedia does not condone. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ascension (miniseries). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729130927/http://www.bradcarter.me/bradcarter.me/BOOKINGS_AND_NEWS.html to http://www.bradcarter.me/bradcarter.me/BOOKINGS_AND_NEWS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218171933/http://db.scifind.com/people/22751-elias-toufexis to http://db.scifind.com/people/22751-elias-toufexis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

User Boomer Vial has repeatedly restored unsourced content stating that "The plot is copied from the story "The First Star [Expedition]" of the Soviet writer Boris Lapin". This needs a source, or it needs to be removed because it makes a potentially libelous claim. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)