Talk:Medium season 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/medium/listings/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending ?[edit]

Does anyone know if the show will end in December or January? Patricia Arquette has already stated that Medium will be canceled for the 2010-2011 TV season.Jdcrackers (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also on IMDB it says there are 16 episodes to be filmed before the show ends so does anyone have any info on that? Will CBS just show the 13 and the other 3 be available when the DVD comes out?Jdcrackers (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the listing of 16 episodes was from when it was to be a 22 episode season. IMDb is very very very very very slow to fix things like that. It might remain like that for months yet to come. For the show to end in December there would be episodes broadcast on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. Neither of those are nights when new episodes of scripted shows are shown, even burn offs. CBS does a lot of Christmas shows and their press releases have a distinct lack of anything about Medium right now so i wouldn't expect anything between 3 December and January. There was a message from the show's creator posted on the official facebook page 5 days ago announcing 21 January 2011 as the series finale air date. The timing also allows for writing of a proper series finale.
I hope you don't mind but i made this its own section instead of part of "Copyright problem removed". delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future episodes[edit]

An editor changed the list to include three episodes that have not yet aired. The source for all those episodes is Futon Critic, not, in my view, a world-class source, but I suppose in the entertainment world one can't be too picky. I'm always mistrustful of sites that have no real About Us that tells the user who they are, etc. This is one of those. I've seen discussions on Wikipedia about the reliability of Futon Critic, and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on the issue. However, I do know that many other TV articles cite to Futon Critic, for what that's worth. The first two added future episodes are blank except for the date (no title, no synopsis). I'm not sure what that achieves except to make Wikipedia a source for TV schedules. Surely, that's not what we should be about. The third episode, the infamous finale that everyone wants to talk about before it happens, has a title and another source for that title. Putting aside the fact that the link to the source doesn't work (the link has apparently already changed since the editor put it in), the only information given there is the title of the episode.

I reverted citing to WP:CRYSTAL, a policy that many editors cite to when removing future items from filmographies, for example, which is similar to an episode table. Then, another editor, reverted my change saying that the policy doesn't apply to sourced information. He also introduced his edit summary with the very friendly word "nonsense", which was gratuitous and uncalled for. Now the Crystal policy, like many Wikipedia policies, is not a model of clarity and certainly gives editors a lot of latitude as to which future events may be included in articles and which should not be included. However, it doesn't just apply to unsourced information. Unsourced information may be removed irrespective of whether it happens in the future. The policy's initial pronouncement is: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." In other words, if a future event is not verifiable, it can't be included, no matter what. Not an earth-shattering point. It then gives criteria for what should and should not be included, e.g., "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is the gray area. How certain is the finale, how certain is the title, and how certain is the date of the finale? Obviously, editors' views on those issues may differ, but I wouldn't trust the source cited for the title as it seems to be a gossip blog.

Putting aside policy issues, I just don't see any added value to putting in what amounts to placeholders for the future. We're giving dates and one title. That's it. Why? Anyway, I'm going to revert the last change and point to the Talk page, but that will be my last reversion because I don't want to get into an edit war.

Comments are welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as The Futon Critic, for my own experience, I recall a time toward the end of In Plain Sight's third season, shortly after USA projected the reduction from sixteen to thirteen episodes. This was also around the time that Psych's fifth season was moved up a week and Burn Notice's first four titles for season four were sourced here from tv.msn.com, but none of that information was available on The Futon Critic. I recall, however, that all of it miraculously corrected itself on the same day, suggesting (however much it might be original research) that USA released a press release that disseminated all of this information. I confirmed that suspicion for myself when FoxFlash credited two different episodes of The Good Guys with the production number GGY-105, and the FC repeated the error (the actual code at the end of one episode credited it as 102). It seems clear to me by these and several other independant observations on my part that the Futon Critic seems to rely as steadily and as heavily as possible on official information.
As for the source for that title, a blog (which I feel is an unfair characterization of this column as I've so far seen it) does not preclude to be unreliable merely for being a blog. And this column, similar in content and design to Entertainment Weekly's Ausiello Files (a widely and regularly accepted Wikipedia source), is part of a larger third party publication (in this case E!) with a reliable editorial department, which is the typical standard for Wikipedia (though I would agree that the broken link would remove verifiablility for the title, at least if I hadn't found the correct link independently). I seen no problem with either source, nor the information provided. It's not uncommon for dates alone to be provided, and they should not be removed in my opinion because enough additional information was not provided with them; if the information is verified, it can be included.
And as far as CRYSTAL, it does say that "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place", but also says "individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; networks post their projected listings, other publications post those listings. This is standard. And these listings, appearing in publications whose purpose is to provide such information, is "almost certain to take place", making the information reliable, and acceptable. KnownAlias contact 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to the bit about The Good Guys, FOX had it correct in the file names for the press pictures for the episodes in question but there was a big fail in the copyediting of the related text. TFC did indeed perpetuate the typo. For most of the broadcast networks TFC includes a copy of the press release linked from the title of the episode. Such is the case for Medium and TFC re-publishing the CBS press releases. There presently are no press releases for the last three episodes, either on TFC or CBSpressexpress.com though the finale date is widely publicised. In the absence of press releases TFC lists forecast or anticipated dates. That is what they have now for ep 128 & 129. While it is true that CBS could deviate from the current norm of Medium, CSI NY, Blue Bloods to put on back to back Medium one Friday night it is unlikely they will do so. It would affect the scheduling of the other shows on Friday nights. There is already a new episode of CSI NY confirmed for 7 January. When CBS changes programming from the norm it gets mention in a press release, sometimes months in advance. There has been no such release from CBS declaring a deviation from the norm in this matter. Also, there are no more new episodes of Medium scheduled to be broadcast this year. The 8pm time slot is presently occupied be a repeat from season 6 and other programming through the end of 2010. With three episodes to go and the finale being on 21 January it is unlikely anything but 14th and 7th as the air dates for ep 129 & 128 respectively.
The episode order for the season has been confirmed and the air date and title for the finale is available. Except for skip-numbering the episode list for a few weeks time there is no option that doesn't deny what is readily verifiable. It is so "almost certain to take place" that i am surprised there is issue with it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable info, the dates given were sourced and therefor citing WP:CRYSTAL is nonsense. Sorry if that came over rude, that was not my intention. I'm not sure when TFC all of a sudden not became a good source, TFC uses official press releases and official scheduling from the networks themselves, it also makes a clear distinction between scheduled dates and estimated dates. The ones added to this article were not estimated, but planned dates. Since TFC uses official information WP:CRYSTAL should not be an issue.
On the episode title, I have no comment, the reference did not load for me.
If your issues are with a source itself it should be WP:RS that comes into question. And I believe TFC has been widely accepted as a reliable source. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think your interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is wrong, but I'll put that aside for the moment. As for Futon Critic, as I said, some beieve it's reliable, and some don't. I'm willing to put that aside, too, but we are sourcing it ONLY for the dates. Why do we need to put in future dates? What purpose does it serve? As for Entertainment Weekly, I agree that the publication is not a blog, in and of itself, but the particular piece that's being cited to reads like a blog with people posting questions, and staff responding to them. And, again, even assuming that we accept it as reliable, the only information we get out of it is the title. (The link works now. Another editor reverted my changes and corrected the link.) So we need to just put in a title of a future episode?
I appreciate the comments, but I think the additional material is trivial, unencyclopedic even for an TV article, and therefore doesn't belong in the article. I'm not going to remove it because so far the consensus is against me. I might seek some outside assistance on the issue (as I did once before when people were adding information about the ending of the series to the main article), I'm not sure yet whether it's worth the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Series finales are trivial? Silly me; of course we should suppress it even though there is a reliable source or 19 for it because there isn't info for the episode that precedes it. When i look in my wikipedia:crystal ball it tells me that Party of Five was renewed for a seventh season which will premiere in February 2012. Claudia is now married with 4 kids of her own. Bailey finally got sober. Sarah had the time of her life as she learnt about her mother; she married Bailey 8 years ago in a beautiful wedding in July over looking the ocean. Charlie was killed in a plane crash in the south Pacific 6 years ago. The seventh season picks up with Owen, who was raised by Bailey and Sarah after Charlie's death, graduating high school and getting accepted to UC Berkley.
But seriously, speculating on the renewal or cancellation of a show falls into the scope of crystal ball. When the series finale is confirmed by those empowered to make that decision then it would be a violation of wikipedia:neutral point of view if the article were to imply anything other than there are 3 episodes remaining and the show has been cancelled. "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." Unless you are contesting the legitimacy of CBS saying they have cancelled the show... There is no medium. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I hate to be obnoxious, but I've got to ask; you complain that we're "sourcing it ONLY for dates" and "need it just to put in the title of a future episode", calling it "trivial, unencyclopedic even for a TV article". The article is called List of Medium episodes (season 7). The dates and titles are the primary information required for the article to even exist. I would agree that the titles would be irrelevant on the main Medium (TV show) article (unless it was a particularly relevant episode, probably requiring a significant cultural impact), and the dates for the most part, with the exception of the series (and possibly season) premieres & finales, and that would be where production, casting, concept, ect. would relevantly fill out the page. What exactly would you consider a relevant contribution to an episodes article? KnownAlias contact 12:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an episode aired (in the past), its title, a synopsis, and filling out the other columns in the table.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a discussion on EAR about the issues I've raised. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The table says "original air date" and then puts dates in the future? We do not know with sufficient accuracy that the date will apply. Even the episode titles and airing orders potentially violate WP:CRYSTAL. Just because you can find a source claiming a future event will happen doesn't mean we report it as fact. And just because you can find another Wikipedia article that violates WP:CRYSTAL doesn't exempt this article.
That said, it's probably appropriate to put a secondary table or (even better) discuss in prose planned future episodes and airings, with clear attribution to the source. For instance, "On [DATE], [STATION] announced that "[EPISODE]" will air on [PROJECTED AIR DATE]". Or, "[STATION] announced episode titles and future air dates for the remaining episodes of season [NUMBER] on [DATE].", and then go into a table. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also blatantly commonplace, and the first time I've personally heard anyone complain about it being done this way. To not do it this way would literally be an overhaul of the very editing practices of most every episode page on the encyclopedia. But if you're so concerned, does THIS or THIS address your Crystal concerns? It seems a pretty simple compromise. KnownAlias contact 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, really? :P Then i prose the deletion of 2011 United States Figure Skating Championships, 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, 2012 Summer Olympics, United States presidential election, 2012, 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2015 Pan American Games, 2016 Summer Olympics, 2020 Summer Olympics, 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup and all such like articles because none of the events in the titles of the articles have happened. I don't care if any of them have 2 or 319 references, if any of them are Good Articles, or if any of them are cited in wikipedia:crystal ball as acceptable and proper articles on fututre events, because they are all future events that on the basis of your argument ough not to have any mention whatsoever. If an election has had a winner declared and there is no challenging the results then and only then should such an article exist. Until the current NFL season is over no mention of it at all belongs in any article. Delete the Super Bowl XLV article and remove mention that glee is airing after the next Super Bowl. Likewise delete Super Bowl XLVI, Super Bowl XLVII, and Super Bowl XLVIII. Dito fot the NHL season underway right now. The games tomorrow could be cancelled. No nominations for awards of any nature ought to get mention until it is announced who won. The 53rd Grammy Awards might not happen next February. Delete the articles on the next Nobel prize and remove any mention from the articles of the candidates. Chinese Democracy should never have had an article until it was finally released for commercial sale. No tv show article should exist util the show is ended. No biography should exist until a person is dead as to have an article on a living person renders it inherently incomplete and speculative. Edit every single tv show article and episode list to remove episodes that are scheduled to be broadcast today or later, all music, books, and other items scheduled for public release later today or even next week ought to be removed too. Simply, anything that is not history has to go. Don't forget to delete Wikipedia as it is an article on an on-going venture. Also, don't forget to remove "in the news" from the main page.
By your own logic the crystal ball policy violates itself.
You might want to look into what you say about tv. Citing individual stations as confirming programming is so far out the accepted practice that it is ridiculous! That would require every article to cite every station for every episode. TV is orgainised into networks for a few reasons. Being that intensely specific is just not something i am willing to do when writing an article on a show. Doing so would surely violate a policy or three.
Just because you seem to entirely miss the "almost certain to take place" part of the crystal ball policy doesn't mean you are right. Wikipedia is not just about what did happen. Censoring the episode list to put the information in prose or creating a secondary table for future episodes are interesting ideas to put forward but still render the information available. The show has been cancelled. Ought mention of its cancellation be removed too until there are no more new episodes being shown. CBS is broadcasting the final episode of Medium in six weeks.
Anyone deny that? If you do, then do tell who is broadcasting new episodes after 21 January 2011.
Anyone dispute that there are 3 new episodes yet to be broadcast?
Anyone dispute that there are no more new episodes being broadcast this year?
Anyone dispute that CBS has shown new episodes on Friday nights at 8pm ET?
Anyone dispute that there has been no change in the pattern announced?
Anyone dispute that all other shows airing Friday nights on CBS have no deviation from their normal broadcast date and time announced?
Anyone dispute the accuracy, honesty, and integrity of CBS in declaring their schedule and intent to cancel Medium?
Then where exactly is this apparent violation of the crystal ball policy regarding this event which is "almost certain to take place"? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read my argument, or did you stop at "blatant violation"? The article presents the future air dates (and other pieces of information) as though they've already happened. Discussing future events as though they've already happened violates WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, this article violates WP:CRYSTAL. This can be very easily resolved by correctly qualifying the upcoming episodes as upcoming. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which forces me to reiterate my request for you to examine THIS EDIT or THIS ONE (which more accurately addresses your concerns) as possible solutions to the problem...or is that the straw man to which you referred on EAR? (I'm admitting to being unclear as to what you're referring to with that) KnownAlias contact 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry: I somehow missed your proposed changes. Yes, I think you're going in the right direction there with the inline notes in this edit. I think I'd be happy with that. By the way, it might be worth bringing this up at WT:NOT for clarification if you think it's seriously not an issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, unfortunately, the edit you saw going in the right direction is not in the article. The article remains unchanged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and I am, out of courtesy, giving the other participants of this conversation an opportunity to chime in; while Xeworlebi has been quite active today, and therefore likely to have had an opportunity to view this compromise, DeleriousAndLost has not been logged on since her comment this morning, and I want to be sure she's seen it and has a chance to comment before we change what you previously acknowledged (before running to daddy) as consensus. Even if she doesn't comment, if I see activity on her edit history (which I have been monitoring), I can assume she's at least seen it, or is available to when the edit takes place. KnownAlias contact 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i saw what you said. I happen to remove "this episode has not yet aired" when i find it in episode lists. Very trivial content. I would likewise remove "Scheduled" for being blatantly redundant. If you can't read the date column with sufficient comprehension to know what it is tell you then adding in additional disclaimers is just more things to misunderstand. I oppose the compromise and will not implement it anywhere i happen to edit. Someone can follow me around and correct every relevant edit i ever make on this topic. It is an unnecessary compromise to a silly complaint. There is a reason people put references on future air dates and then obsessively remove them once the episode has been broadcast. It is to avoid exactly this here. What you are asking for is a project-wide change. Take it to that level or let it be. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Agree with Deliriousandlost, quite silly, "The article presents the future air dates (and other pieces of information) as though they've already happened." Really? Maybe a little common sense is in order, it's the future, off course it hasn't happened yet… Also, KnownAlias, please don't preform test edits in a live article, use the sandbox for that, or this talk page to explain or display your intent. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate that Kownalias (KA) is trying to find a compromise for the article, but I agree with Delirious and Xeworlebi that putting in the word "Scheduled" is "redundant" and "silly". As Delirious said, the dates are in the future, so clearly they haven't happened yet. I also agree that KA should use this Talk page to explain changes related to this topic (I misunderstood what KA was doing before, although it was in the edit summaries, or I wouldn't have said what I did above directed to Mendaliv because I didn't realize it was a work in progress).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Season 7[edit]

Too bad CBS shortened 'Medium', but at least we got two more seasons! Anyone know if the DVD will come out in May or if we will have to wait until Sept or Oct? Patricia, herself, has been keeping busy in Haiti and I think that's admirable caring so much and helping out since the quake of 2010. She's so down to earth, and I can't wait to see what her next film or films will be, or if she will do another television role!Jdcrackers (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7 DVD[edit]

If anyone knows or can teach me how to upload a photo of the new DVD that would be great! ThanksJdcrackers (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Medium[edit]

I know the show can't go on forever, but they got to do a spin off with the girls talents and brink Allison back part time. Maria Lark, the middle child Bridgett, was so talented it was waste to see her go. If they don't continue the show in a few years like do a syndication on various stations, then a movie has to come out. This show is too good to put down, and I know the actors don't want to get type cast, but this show has a huge following. Anyone agree? Also, we need to see what and how Ariel does in college, and if her psychic abilities help solve school crimes. Jdcrackers (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JD, this Talk page is to discuss improvements or problems with the article, not to discuss the show itself. See WP:TALKNO ("Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.").
I suggest you remove this section (along with my comments). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I was wanting to know what is going on if it's true there will be a movie or a spinoff!!Jdcrackers (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Medium (season 7). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medium_season_7&oldid=1216312199"