Talk:List of FlashForward episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 List  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by the episode coverage task force.


A redirect from flashforward episodes, following the normal redirecting scheme for episodes lists would be great. -- (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not protected, so I removed the {{editsemiprotected}} that was here before. Please feel free anybody to improve this article. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge episodes list (for now)[edit]

I've merged the List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1) with this article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either the list or the season 1 page as separate spin off articles, it's simply the fact that there's no need for them at this time. They both still exist as redirects to the main article (which is extremely simple to change), and the benefit is that all of us editors who are interested in the show can concentrate our efforts on a single article for now. The real benefit is to the reader though, who won't need to navigate through multiple articles for a while. We can easily switch back to separate articles next year, after season 2 starts. Note that there was an AFD for the List of FlashForward episodes article, which I NAC'ed after merging since the AFD is then a moot point. Deletion never made much sense for that anyway.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to merging the articles, but I edited the redirect to go straight to the section of the full article that has the episode list.--ThomasSixten (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of separate episode list[edit]

I'm copying this discussion, which I originally posted on the FlashForward (TV series) page, in an effort to head off an edit war. Let's talk about this, not start reverting first and talking later, given the confounding problem discussed below.

I was not involved in the decision to restore the separate episode list, but would like to speak in favor of it. There was an AfD discussion to merge the various episode list pages into one "List of FlashForward episodes" page when one user pre-empted the process, which should have been allowed to run for seven days, and merged all the pages back into the main article. Given we know the season will run 25 episodes, and that there are quite a number of single-season "List of.. " pages, it seems reasonable to leave the recent edits restoring the separate episode list page in place, as was the growing consensus on the inappropriately foreshortened AfD discussion that started all this. Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Episode Believe[edit]

Surely what music is playing at the end of an episode is not notable enough for a Season page on Wikipedia? (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Is the airing date of the 10th episode 1.12.09 or 3.12.09? it is different in the table and in the text.

The episode airs December 3, 2009 in the US and a week earlier in the UK and OZ. It was delayed here because they show special programming on our Thanksgiving holiday. Drmargi (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Move and WP:SNOW. JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List of FlashForward (American TV series) episodesList of FlashForward episodes — The article name "List of FlashForward episodes" is unique and does not need disambiguation, especially not in the middle of the title. Since the page has been moved multiple times already, and my proposed title is already a double redirect to this page, I cannot make the change myself. --ΨΦorg (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Restore it to its original page. "FlashForward" is not the same as "Flash Forward", nor do the shows have any bond (sequel/spinoff/remake/…) that would require disambiguation. Just a {{Template:About}} would suffice. Xeworlebi (tc) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I saw no need to disambiguate in the first place since there is that minor difference in the title. If someone was looking for the Canadian page they could click on the disambig link at the top. I doubt anyway that someone looking for it would type it in as one word and get this show in the first place. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: There was no confusion leading to the move, a variety of naming conventions were overlooked in moving the article to its new page requiring fixes, and I see no compelling need for the move to begin with. The article on the show should be moved back as well, for the same reasons as cited above. Drmargi (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: Old Names Too Confusing. (for comment strike-through rationale, see my reply in the discussion below dated Dec. 5th.) Prior to the moves, there was only a minor spacing difference between the titles of the two articles: FlashForward, and Flash Forward. I found this to be quite confusing. By clarifying in the page titles that 'Flash Forward' was (Canadian) and FlashForward was (American), I know that this helped me to be certain that I was at the right article. It seems to me that by having the episode article page titles match the main page titles, this also helps to clarify things for all parties concerned. Certainly for those who are return visitors to these pages, these moves might seem to be a bit disconcerting at first, but for those of us who are just coming to them for the first time, I think they are quite helpful. Thus I oppose a return to the old confusing article naming conventions. Scott P. (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There are naming conventions in the Wikipedia that would better resolve the problem. Separating the two shows using nationalistic designations rather than the usual use of the year of premiere carries an inappropriate connotation, if indeed there is an issue of confusion at all. Drmargi (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Yes, but previously both articles did not have their years in their titles. So are you proposing a third move to have both articles with the years in their titles instead of their nationalities? Scott P. (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Not explicitly, just making a few points for consideration. The titles to which the show was moved were poorly chosen given the naming conventions typically in place for TV shows, and that's a relevant consideration when determining the next step. Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply A third move would be fine with me. So long as both titles, and their matching episode pages, use uniform naming conventions, and their titles clearly differentiate the pages. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I really don't see it as confusing. A simple about message would guide a person who got to the wrong page to the correct one, like this is normally done. Additionally a search for flashforward will end you up on main page. Which has a link towards the disambiguation page, with a clear overview of all the related pages. If the page-name is available use it. If two articles want a same page name, then you start disambiguating. This also counts for both the shows main pages. Xeworlebi (tc) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply So you are advocating having the two articles named simply FlashForward, and Flash Forward then? When you said where your search took you, I was confused as to which page you meant you had gone to and had to test it myself. Scott P. (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I'm sorry if my attempt to clarify in initially moving this page may have caused more confusion than clarity. I suppose that like some other important things in life, Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. Another way to put it might be, One man's clarity is another man's diddly! I humbly defer to the wisdom of others here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. As Grk1011 points out, the FlashForward page specifies in the first sentence that it is both American and produced in 2009, and a link is provided to Flash Forward, which has the same specifications and link, so no one could be confuse the two for more than a few seconds after looking (possibly not even after just glancing) at the page. CB...(ö) 02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the main article is not FlashForward, it is FlashForward (American TV series); this article should match the naming of the main article, since obviously, there's another FlashForward TV series. Even if this were the only TV series, and the only other choice was the book, it should still match the naming of the main article. That said, the proper disambiguation format recommended by WP:NC-TV is FlashForward (U.S. TV series), so this article should be named List of FlashForward (U.S. TV series) episodes... but the main article should be renamed first. Further I think that the book is still primary topic, so it should redirect to the book or the dab page, failing that. (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. FlashForward and Flash Forward are two different spellings. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Very strong support. These pages should never have been moved in the first place, certainly not without discussion. FlashForward and Flash Forward are both unique names, and therefore do not need to be disambiguated to avoid confusion. This should be dealt with on the main pages. Therefore this page should be List of FlashForward episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why delete pertinent info regarding remainder of season episodes?[edit]

Why should duly referenced and pertinent info about the remainder of the season be deleted? (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be conflicting references. Variety states that ABC extended the show from 22 to 25 episodes. A more recent site, Zap2It states that in addition to the 10 already aired only 12 are remaining. Xeworlebi (tc) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's also not the form to put this information in the episode list. It could be added to the opening narrative instead. As noted above, there is also the question of the accurate number of episodes in the season. The span of time in which the remainder of the season is scheduled to run is 22 weeks (based on a May 22 finale.) 25 episodes would take the show into June. This needs to be clear before the addition of any content beyond the return date. --Drmargi (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This information has been moved out of the table and up to the beginning of the Season-1 section as requested. Thanks for bearing with my unfamiliarity with TV series article conventions. Regarding the question of the extension to 25 episodes, it appears that the Zap2it info was not accurate. Apparently the Zap2it article author was writing based on the old assumption that the season had not yet been extended. By doing a Google search on the terms: "25 episodes", Flashforward, ABC, several other websites confirm the extension to 25 episodes. Scott P. (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We can't be sure right now. There are only 22 weeks left in the season with a March 4 return date, the show is in ratings trouble and the decision to put it on hiatus was sudden. ABC may not have announced a reduction in its order, but simple arithmetic suggests that's exactly what they've done. Zap2it as cited is more current than the references you're citing, and they're very reliable. At the moment, we can't be sure of the length of the order, and the most prudent choice is to leave it blank. BTW, happy editing. It's helpful to know you're a newbie so we can support your efforts. We've all learned to do this by doing it wrong, believe me! Drmargi (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


While not being outright spoilers (ie. it doesn't explicitly reveal the information), the summary for the last episode listed seems to me to be a spoiler in that it is easy to infer that Demetri is not the mole. Should this be hidden or contain a spoiler warning or be removed completely? TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warning are not used, nor should it be removed because you feel it is a spoiler. This is an encyclopedia containing factual information unbiased by opinion and not a fansite. An episode summary should summarize the episode indiscriminately. Xeworlebi (tc) 15:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Xerworlebi. I just went through all the episode descriptions to make them summaries, rather than allusions, akin to the Buffy episode descriptions. Meretricious (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Countdown" Air Date[edit]

The ABC Medianet sweeps press release does indeed state that the episode will air on May 25th, rather than May 20th. But that list, as stated at the very beginning of it, is intended to be a chronological account of the sweeps period, and every other show appears not only in order of which night, but of what time they will air, and "Countdown" appears before the account of the 2hr season finale of Grey's Anatomy from 9pm-11pm on May 20th. This is the ONLY episode of ANYTHING to appear out of this sequence (should it actually be correct), and the only source in the two days since the announcement to account for this "change". I think we need more evidence that this isn't just a typo; ABC's own PDF chart is still listing this episode as May 20th. That could change by Monday when the new one is released; I say we wait until then to be sure. KnownAlias contact 00:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)