Talk:Tron: Uprising

Mandy Moore

Mandy Moore is like the female protagonist. I saw on the trailer. Her name should come after Elijah Woods on the cast list. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.55.142 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in the ending credits for the show, her name appears fourth, behind Elijah Wood, Bruce Boxleitner, and Emmanuelle Chriqui. Also, since Bruce Boxleitner is the voice of Tron, also a main protagonist (and the original Tron in the movies), IMO at least his name should come before Mandy Moore's. To be honest, I think the best arrangement of the cast names should reflect that of the cast introduction in the credits.Traveling matt (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Color editing

Is the blue on black editing even allowed? I've never seen this before, but it does looks nice with the whole Tron theme. 141.218.209.135 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotation marks

Why are there quotes in this line? The Grid ("voiced" by Tricia Helfer) Who added them? (I'm not sure how to search for that) --Rex Nebular (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It has already been fixed, but for future notice just click on "View history" at the top and you'll be able to look through the revisions to find who made the change. It's a minor mistake, so I'm not too concerned about who did it. Spidey104 13:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

18 or 19 episodes? / episode numbering

The lead says "A total of 18 episodes have been ordered for the first season of the series". But there are 19 episodes listed. Why? I see the first episode here is "Beck's Beginning". But this is not in the list at Zap2It used as a source. Why not? There is something wrong here. 18 is not 19, no matter what any source says. Barsoomian (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, no replies. So, it seems there are 19, but "Beck's Beginning" isn't officially part of Season 1, at least it doesn't have an episode number. So I made that episode 0 in the table, so the rest correspond with the numbering 1-18 as used on Zap2it. If anyone seriously objects to "0" for "Beck's Beginning", it could just be left blank, but it can't be "1". Barsoomian (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Episode numbering TRON UPRISING Videos on Disney has "Beck's Beginning" in 10 parts, titled "EPISODE 0.01" to 0.10. i.e., it's collectively "Episode 0". The official Disney page links to Zap2It for "TV schedule", where the episode numbers are listed here. "Beck's Beginning" is a "Season Special". Season 1 began with "S01, E01 The Renegade, Part 1". And there are numerous references saying that season 1 is 18 episodes. Barsoomian (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Production codes

Where do the production codes come from? I can't see any sources in the references. If these are just made up numbers, should not be in the table at all. Barsoomian (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The codes were added by WikiEditor44 with this edit on 24 June 2012. No source cited, and other editors have just been incrementing them ever since, again never citing a source. So I will delete them. Barsoomian (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

infobox num_episodes

Since there is some disagreement about how "num_episodes" in the infobox, see Template:Infobox television:

"num_episodes: The number of episodes released. In case of cancelation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired."

"Released" for a TV show means "have been broadcast". Look at any current TV show and you will see this is how it's done. It was discussed at the template talk page several years ago: Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_2#Number_of_episodes. So as of December 24, the number is 14. It will be 19 only when 19 have been aired. Barsoomian (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries as copyvios

I've been encountering some back and forth with the episode summaries, wherein my copy-editing down of the previously bloated material has been called a copy-vio. I am fairly certain that this isn't the case. To my understanding, its a copyright violation if we lift the material wholecloth from a website and use their precise wording. Expressing the nature of the episode differently is - imo - not a copyright violation. I'd be interested in discovering some of the thought process involved in determining what is and is not acceptable, copyright-wise. I am tempted to post to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, because I am wondering if people aren't conflating Plagiarism (which my new edit summaries are certainly not) with copyright violations (which i am equally certain are not). Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A copyright violation occurs when the added content is identical or significantly identical to the source. Changing, deleting or adding a few words doesn't stop content from being a copyright violation. The content must be significantly different to the source. A simple Google search found the episode summary for "Scars, Part 1" to be almost identical to that found on several sites.[1] A few words have been dropped and "will be" has been changed to "is" but that's all. As per WP:COPYVIO, "Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find", so it has to go. There are plenty of discussions about this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, have a look through the archives. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The copyright cops will tell you that rewording a press release is copyvio -- it's not in the real world, but that's what the policies here add up to. Anyway, summaries of future episodes are either 1) pure speculation, thus should be deleted as WP:OR, or 2) copied (regardless of adaptation) from press releases, and thus should be deleted as a copyvio. In either case, not worth the hassle of just waiting till the episode has aired and doing a summary based on the actual show and not trying to massage a press release which often misrepresents the story and leaves out important parts; they're probably technically a WP:RS given an official source, but obviously biased to talking up the show. Barsoomian (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

T:U canceled? bad sources say so, but good sources are deafening in their silence...

I've reverted out (twice now) the addition of information to the effect that the show has been canceled. The source appears to be a largely anonymous posting site, little better than a fan forum; therefore, we cannot use it. If the program is indeed canceled, we should be seeing that information from a few more source, like - oh, I don't know - Disney XD itself, for one? Until we have a solid, unimpeachable source that explicitly states that the show is canceled, we can't say jack about it. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On January 9, 2013, Disney XD canceled Tron: Uprising. Here's a source about this show: http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/119976-tron-uprising-canceled.html AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See the problem above with the source you have thoughtfully added here, Adam. I think its a poor, non-reliable, non-notable source, and struck the news of cancellation for that reason. But, since I don't know every damn thing, I thought I'd get some input from the good people over at RSN. The listing of my query can be found here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of shooting the messenger, check it out. http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/119976-tron-uprising-canceled.html is not reliable, but it cites https://twitter.com/EricCanete/status/288166776741715969, the Twitter account of Eric Canete. His name is in the program credits as "Storyboards by" and he's widely referenced. E.g. http://comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=2712 which confirms that the Twitter account is his. Numerous tweets discussing the cancellation are there now. But this https://twitter.com/EricCanete/status/289224965306322944 tweet of 9 Jan when asked to confirm the cancellation he says "Im no show runner. 2nd- I dont know inner workings of the Disney front office." He doesn't withdraw his original statement though. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand my reticence, anon202.. If the show is indeed canceled, then we don't need to rely on Tweets or other dubious sources. THERE IS NO HURRY. This is not a fan forum or some such where there are bragging rights for posting new info first. If anything, Wikipedia is the exact opposite of that. We wait until credible, notable sources supply us with information. We do not use crap sources. We do not use Tweets. We do not Sherlock. We do not Use The Force. We wait until a solid, reliable source gives us information that will stand the test of time. Until we hear otherwise, we have no source that the show is canceled. Ask around if you think I've got it all wrong; you will find that this is how things work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple statements verifiably made by Eric Canete, who works on the show, is a reliable source. That it was made on Twitter doesn't make it less so. There is no policy reason to ignore it. The links prove what he said and who he is. It's not unsourced speculation by a random blogger. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Canete is not a notable or reliable source for the program; he is simply an artist, nothing more. You said there isn't any policy reason to ignore it; try WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP, not to mention WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Those should provide a good read. And, if you are going to talk about policy, consider actualy starting an account (though I suspect, this isn't your first time at the Wiki water cooler). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Canete is one of the creators of the program. There could not be a more reliable source for the status of said program. All of the conditions you demand are satisfied by the links I cited. Which is why I cited them. But arguing with you isn't worth the hassle. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no hurry. We will wait for a reliable source that actually meets our requirements for inclusion. If you disagree, I am sure you can discuss it with an administrator or more experienced users who can help you understand our policies. Or even better, go out and find a reliable source that says what you want it to say. 'Til then, we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't "want it to say" anything, that's what a creator of the program said, verifiably. And when I did try to "discuss it" with other concerned editors you followed me and threatened to have me blocked for daring to do so. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is one interpretation of your actions, anon202… ; you were going about it in a wrong way, and got all combative about it when you were caught canvassing. Maybe you are unsure how/ where to ask for assistance. Try the Reliable Sources noticeboard or Wikiproject Television. They can help you through the ins and outs of how we go about choosing references and citing stuff.

For example, Canete appears to be one (of likely many) artists on the program. He is not the show's creator. The infobox on the article itself would have told you that. Does he qualify as a source into the show's future? No. Is he qualified to speak out as to himself having continued employment at Disney XD as an artist? Probably. I guess, what I am having the most difficulty with is your apparent need to be the first to post news about the show. Allow me to reiterate: we are not in hurry. Good references, when they arrive, are solid enough to use in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The status of the show, as far as many sites and sources are concerned; is that Disney has made no official decision on Tron: Uprising. Despite this fact there is a statement in the Cancellation section about T:U being canceled on Feb 12th 2013, and then using an article for reference that actually specifically states that the show has not been officially canceled. I've changed it several times to reflect the articles actual content several times and it has always been reverted back to it's original, incorrect, wording. Is there someplace I can report the fact that someone is constantly reverting changes back to incorrect information? The Dark Knight 1989 (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, seriously AdamDeanHall what part of: The very article you're using as evidence that the show's been canceled says it *hasn't been cancelled* do you not understand! If you find an article with confirmation of the shows cancellation, go ahead and use it as a reference, but at the very least you cannot use an article directly contradicting your statement as a source! The Dark Knight 1989 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-protection continuation of discussion

I requested protection for this page because this edit war about whether or not the show is actually cancelled needs to be solved. The request for protection was granted and it will last for a full week. The protection starting when it did does NOT support the current version of the article, so forget about that argument already. The protection started at an arbitrary time when an administrator could look at my request and establish the protection so the discussion can begin. We need to come to a consensus about this or the protection can be extended. Spidey104 15:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems rather simple to me. No official statement has been released by Disney as to the show's cancellation.

Furthermore, so far the last official thing said by a member of the production team was by the Producer, who stated that the show's future was uncertain. Therefore, just as it reads on the page; no official decision has yet been released. I don't see why everyone has trouble with that. The Dark Knight 1989 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, let's try to be civil, DK89. That's part of why this discussion didn't work in the first place.

Second, maybe you should address the concerns of the opposing position. The easiest and best way to win a debate is to disprove the other side's position and you didn't even touch that. Explain why the source AdamDeanHall keeps using is incorrect, because it does clearly state that the show has been cancelled. Spidey104 19:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Spidey, thanks for the refresher on my basic logic class. I didn't really need it, but you covered the main points of a successfully logical debate rather well. Unfortunately I must simply assume you did not read my comment as I was nothing but civil, and clearly laid out the reasons why the reference link is unsuitable for this page, as well as the reason it does not, other than to state it as the title of the article, declare that the show has been cancelled. --The Dark Knight 1989 01:12, 5 March 2013

Has ComicBookMovie ever been vetted as a reliable source? As I look at it, there is no one's name attached to the comment and, as per their home page:

"We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing! CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW!"

That tells me that this comment about cancelation was likely generated by a fan. As such, we cannot use it as a reliable source. DK1989 is corect in that we should simply wait until a reliable source is forthcoming. We are an encyclopedia and should never, ever rush. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source provided by AdamDeanHall is not reliable. It seems to draw primarily from twitter accounts, and even states in the article that it was "was submitted by a volunteer contributor", both of which seem valid enough reasons to deem it unreliable. However, even if it was reliable, in an update to the article, its says that the show has not been cancelled yet linking this as its source. Sjrct (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DK89, the reason why I said you weren't civil is because of this statement: "I don't see why everyone has trouble with that." It doesn't make any argument and is derogatory to the other side. Since then everything has been civil. Also, it was Jack Sebastian who addressed why AdamDeanHall's source wasn't reliable. More importantly, the debate is settled. The only reason I haven't had the protection lifted is because giving AdamDeanHall a chance to voice his opinion was the main reason for requesting the protection and he hasn't said anything yet despite numerous posts to his talk page ([2], [3], [4]). He has made edits on other articles since those posts, so he has seen them. The evidence was always against him, but I thought this temporary forced end to the edit war would give him a chance to voice his opinion and force him to listen to your reasoning. I am worried that if I have the protection lifted he will continue the edit war. Spidey104 03:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not consider "I don't see why everyone has trouble with that." derogatory but I now understand your concern. Thanks for the elaboration. The Dark Knight 1989 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation Edit and Global TV Airing Indicator

Both tidied up the International Release citations AND made a BIG sweep of all available information to make a simple "Still on TV?" light. Green for yes, Red for no, Grey for Unknown! Handy and takes little space! - CertifiableNut (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Change of name

Given that the section itself says that the show has stopped producing(and therefore, releasing) episdoes, but also says-and i quote-" but Disney has not confirmed the cancellation of the series" i think that the name of the section should be changed from "Cancellation" to something more suitable like, for example, "Show's hiatus" or alike.

I see your point, however I would state that the section title refers not to its cancellation, but rather its appearance of cancellation, as the show's indefinite hiatus is essentially the equivalent of cancellation, with only a difference in wording. After all, a show that is "canceled" can be revived just as easily as a show that is on a "hiatus". Sjrct (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)