Talk:Wayward Pines

The June 18 airdate

This press release states that the series will take that week off, as a "hiatus" so viewers can binge watch before the first season's second half. Some insiders believe the first five episodes occur over the course of the initial novel from which it's based; the remaining five will be a combination of the next two books. I'm not fully researching that but I think the press release dates would be accurate. I also predict most TV sites will also get this wrong, unless they have the same information. Most critics have only reviewed the first half, as well. Should the current listing cause further confusion, I would be content with listing them on a weekly basis and hiding the remainder, should the TV sites remain consistent. —Wyliepedia 04:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The sixth episode became available online on June 18, but I cannot find a source as to why or where it was aired early. I'm not sure if the rest of the season will follow (Episode N available online when Episode N-1 is airing). Alex|The|Whovian 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time that an episode appears on illegal websites before airing (Supergirl pilot it's one of the most recent notorious ones). We shall not making things up trying to explain it (links to verify Australian dates here). So we better ignore what illegal websites do, unless the illegal distribution becomes noteworthy (this doesn't seem the case). --Supernino (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl was a leak, Wayward Pines was due to it airing. This example does not apply; please choose another. Alex|The|Whovian 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I haven't found any sources that indicate an earlier airdate around the world (which wouldn't even make sense for this series), it actually appears to be a leak (or however you wanna call it) to me... Can you exactly explain why and how "was due to it airing"? --Supernino (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Airing

1. Broadcast notice that the series episodes premiere outside the U.S. fisrt (sourced) The episode airs on the same date all over the world (in other words Australia, Asia, Africa and Europe, and finally, South and North America. If an Australian broadcaster states Worldwide premiere, and Australia is not part of the USA, then this so called "worldwide premiere" is outside the U.S., is it not?

2. Infobox episodes updating Infobox is clear - episodes should be "incremented when new episodes or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production". Well, episode has aired, and since it has aired, it has without a doubt finished production. You can't call standard practice because there is no, TV series usually airs in the country where is produced, to say something is "practice" it has to be established on various occasions. Either way, there is no policy stating that the whole world(a bunch of english speaking countries) should wait for the series to be broadcasted in the USA before changing it in the article. Maticsg1 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies about the time I took to reply. You seem to be missing the case on Point #1: Broadcast. The reference you supplied was to a generic site that opened with a "Enter Wayward Pines" link - that is not a reliable source. A generic statement about "worldwide premiere" is just that - a generic statement, that says nothing about different timezones. A crash course on reliable sources - if you state something about "the series airs at different times in different countries due to timezones", and back it up with a source/reference, as soon as you open that source/reference, there needs to be an immediate paragraph on the page that you just opened (no traveling to other pages) stating something alone the lines of "the series airs at different times in different countries due to timezones". Point #2: Infobox As you said, television series do usually air first in its respective country, but when it does not, the standard practice is to wait until it has. You state that this SP doesn't exist, when it fact it does - Wayward Pines isn't the only series to do this, there have been others. Perhaps if you disagree with this, you should take it to the talk page for the Infobox template, for whether such information should be concreted into the template documentation. Alex|The|Whovian 13:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, I apologize for taking me so much time to respond, too. To keep it to Point 1: The source states that it is "Worldwide premiere" on "Thursdays, 8:30 pm aest". Since aest is in front of est, that means that it airs in Australia first. I only wrote that due to different timezones, it airs outside the U.S. first. Will you find it more appropriate if I state that the series premieres in Australia first? Maticsg1 (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If an episode airs on the same date all over the world, then it is not particularly notable that it is airing a few hours earlier in some countries before others due to differences in timezones. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That would not work either. To the user who knows little about time-zones, that information would barely be reliable. Your source, and all reliable sources on Wikipedia, needs to state exactly what you're adding to the article - that is, that "it airs in Australia first", or that "it airs outside of the U.S. first". Such an example would be an official critics' source, or a press release. While it's definitely true that Australian AEST is in front of American EST, using such information would constitute as original research, which isn't accepted on Wikipedia. And to Gothicfilm, the time-zone difference can be up to eighteen hours. It's notable. Alex|The|Whovian 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So adding to the article: "New episodes premiere worldwide in Australia." would be ok? Maticsg1 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That in itself doesn't make overly much sense. Worldwide premiere in one country. I'd suggest finding a press release or an article by an official critic, describing the differences in airing times. Alex|The|Whovian 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[1][2] Are those going to do it? Maticsg1 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Most definitely! They'll work just fine. Alex|The|Whovian 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See Also

Planet of the Apes - in which the shocking reveal is that the protagonist's ordeal has been taking place in Earth's far future, overrun by inhuman creatures, humanity reduced to a pitiful state, great structures eroding and returning to nature. Too spoilery? MistySpock (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Another apt, more contemporary comparison that'd probably fit even better to put into the See also section would be Dark City (1998). Planet of the Apes is about a single guy who doesn't know he's in the future, whereas Dark City, just like Wayward Pines, is about an entire city that's made to believe nothing has changed while everybody is being manipulated to not find out their city is really all there is and there is nothing left outside for them to go to. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Has anyone considered that the category "Television series set in the future" may be a spoiler? Or does that not really matter? All the main characters (and the audience) think it's 2014, until they're disabused of that idea. Killermist (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not take note of spoilers. Alex|The|Whovian 12:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"See also"

Half a million Google hits suggest that, whether it's an apt comparison or not, people find Twin Peaks a plausible yardstick against which to measure Wayward Pines. More likely than, say "The Prisoner" (under 200K hits). Asat (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure of your point here? Alex|The|Whovian 23:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Finale plot summary

The plot summary for the finale has been removed because the finale has not aired in the US yet, though it has aired in other regions, including Australia. Is there a rule that says it has to have aired in the origin country before a summary can be added? That seems a little odd to me, but I'm not familiar with the guidelines, nor could I find anything stating that. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Haqua121 and Charlr6: pinging. Melonkelon (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, yes. It is strange. I'd understand it if it originally aired in America first. But the show does air in other countries first, so therefore it happens, the episode exists and has been seen. So you could say it should be put up. I haven't read anything about it. Some people have listed "WP: CRYSTAL" I think for the reason why, but I've looked on there several times and never, ever seen anything directly saying we can't. That I've felt seems more of an excuse. But as I am typing this ,there is just over 20-minutes in America until the episode ends, so it is no biggy now. We can just unhide the plot from the edit when it finishes. Charlr6 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that the series is over, the issue no longer exists. However, an IP user posted the same thing on my talk page, and I replied that summaries don't get added and episode counts don't get incremented until the episode airs in its origin country. That's the standard practice for television series, and always has been. Alex|The|Whovian 02:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As you said, series is over, and issue no longer exists. But even though America is the origin country, I think when a television does this again, showing it world-wide on the same day, hours apart in certain countries to be shown at a 'suitable' time, then it should be considered how it should be done. Such as adding episode numbers and summaries, as if it aired several hours before the origin country, it still exists. What page or where do you suggest this could be possibly flagged up for any future television shows?Charlr6 (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi my reasoning was pretty much as Alex explained. Though I did notice someone reverting the summary so to avoid any problems between editors I hid the summary knowing that it would be unhidden by another editor in due course after it aired. Haqua121 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe an actual rule was asked for, not word of mouth standard practice. 222.154.79.246 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Wording

Do something about your terrible wording, I don't care about formal I care that it's clear, and as it stands it is NOT clear in the preamble that the series has been cancelled/ended.

Please sign your posts when posting on talk pages. And "ended its ten-episode run" is anything but unclear. The series' run has ended, and it was ten episodes. Clear. Alex|The|Whovian 06:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It never said "ended". It stated a fact (when the series premiered), and then another fact ("and concluded its ten-episode run ..."). Run of what, the series or the season? The fact of it's premiere date was seperated from the next fact which was ambiguous as to which 'run' it was discussing. Unclear. 222.154.79.246 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that "concluded" = "ended". And it's very clear: "The series [...] and concluded its ten-episode run". The series. Alex|The|Whovian 08:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

20th TV

Hey, can someone actually provide a citation regarding 20th TV as a distributor rather than the constant reverting back and forth? — TAnthony^Talk 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm serious, I know it is a random new editor engaging you on this, but even established editors are misbehaving if they are not using helpful edit summaries and engaging in a discussion as to why this information is or is not appropriate.— TAnthony^Talk 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Character page

We need to get a character page started for the characters that appear in this TV series in order to detail more about them there just like they have character pages for Gotham and Scream Queens. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Cancellation

I'm still confused whether the series has actually been cancelled. The Variety article cites a TVLine article, which says, "The supernatural drama will not return for a third season, TVLine has learned. A Fox rep declined to comment, but a network insider acknowledged to TVLine that the series is 'unlikely' to be back." The article further says, "TVLine's 2018 Renewal Scorecard has been updated to reflect Wayward Pines' unofficial cancellation." This does not seem like an official cancellation, though it seems very unlikely to return. Melonkelon (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing official has been announced by the network, the only news we have is rumor from "insiders" that it may not come back. Since Season 2 concluded we've seen nothing but speculation about the shows future reported by websites. Sure the poor ratings from season 2 make a return unlikely, but until Fox straight up says its canceled I think its a bit presumptuous to add it.Esuka323 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see the arguments both for and against its inclusion. However, given that many major review websites have picked up the story of the series being officially cancelled (Google it), and the record of Fox not "officially" stating anything almost two years after the second season, I think it's fair enough to include it for now, or at least modify the wording to reflect the "unlikely"-ness of the statement. -- Alex^TW 12:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with whatever is best for the article, I just think as those websites are running with a story from TVLine where they claim the news comes from an "insider", it just doesn't feel official to me. Esuka323 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, TV Line has reported rumor and speculation (nothing new for them) based on "insider" knowledge that a new season is "unlikely", which Variety, in a rare journalist gaffe, has somehow transformed into a cancellation, despite Fox's failure to confirm a decision about the future of the show. We have policy here on WP that we don't pass on rumor, particularly by representing it as fact. Including a statement that the show has been cancelled because tertiary sources (i.e. publications passing on what Variety has "reported") have failed to fact-check does not rise to an encyclopedic standard, no matter how may Google hits there may be. Fox is the definitive source, and they aren't saying what the status of the show is. 'Nuff said. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I wish there was some kind of statement either way to put this issue to rest. I know some of these TV media websites like to sensationalize things for the hits, and this could be one of those times. Esuka323 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we consider official page as a reliable source? It says that this show WAS a production of FX [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.240.192 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The official page is certainly a reliable source, but it is also a primary source. Interpreting that "was" to mean the show will not be produced in the future would require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I added information about this last year and some idiot deleted it. People come to Wikipedia to BE INFORMED and FIND OUT INFORMATION. When I came here and there was no information about it, I was irritated and annoyed. So _I_ did all of the requisite research that was NOT easy and found sources to quote. Wikipedia is either an information source or it is not. Wikipedia is either a usable information source or it is not. But SOME people act like it is their own personal, private playground and act like bullies to make sure it looks the way THEY want it to, and screw everyone else. --WillBo (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ease up there on the attitude WillBo, it benefits no-one and doesn't lead to a productive discussion. Your additions were likely reverted because they couldn't be verified with a reliable source. Rumors that can't be substantiated don't belong on Wikipedia full stop. Esuka323 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel put upon, but your original edit was reverted because it was what we call original research; your speculative phrasing ("apparently on hiatus") was the clue that you were adding your own opinion. It was quite correctly reverted by another editor, twice. Regardless of phrasing, the issue remains the same: Fox has announced no official decision on the series, and TV Line is attempting to discern the status of the program from the speculation of one unidentified "insider" (i.e. someone on the crew or a low-level member of the production team). We wait until we have something definitive, and we don't have that. Fox may simply let the program die without ever making an official decision; that's why we handle the entry as we have. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued...

@Drmargi: Consider me very confused. The very source being added is one that you yourself removed, stating that "This is Variety passing on an unconfirmed rumor reported by TV L one that Fox won't confirm". And now, the vert same source is now acceptable? What has changed since February? -- Alex^TW 03:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Including a statement that the show has been cancelled because tertiary sources (i.e. publications passing on what Variety has "reported") have failed to fact-check does not rise to an encyclopedic standard, no matter how may Google hits there may be.
• Fox is the definitive source, and they aren't saying what the status of the show is. 'Nuff said.
• Fox has announced no official decision on the series
• We wait until we have something definitive, and we don't have that. Fox may simply let the program die without ever making an official decision; that's why we handle the entry as we have.

Seems we get to ignore all of these now, Doc. -- Alex^TW 01:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion awaits here. -- Alex^TW 06:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Do you plan on replying, or just edit-warring? You yourself stated the above four points and claimed the Variety citation was not a reliable source. -- Alex^TW 06:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Would you revert if I restored the WP:STATUSQUO again? -- Alex^TW 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Now that that drama's dealt with, can we get back to discussing? If you don't wish to, then I'll be within my rights[4] to restore the edits. -- Alex^TW 14:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion 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.

---

Given the refusal to discuss as above, I pose this RFC. Quotes from the above discussion/s are highlighted in green, the sources in question are Variety and Vox.

• Question: Should Wayward Pines directly list a cancellation in the article given any of the sources listed in the above discussion/s and after no official announcement from Fox? -- Alex^TW 09:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the original source, I'd go with something along the lines of "is unlikely to return for a third season", rather than use the word "cancelled" as it does not appear to have been "officially cancelled" by Fox... Sometimes, networks just don't spell out what has happened to some shows, and they will remain in a perpetual "limbo" – this show seems like one of those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• If there's nothing offical, it might be best to go with something along the lines of "the series has not been renewed" or "no announcements have been made about further production" -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:45, 17 June 2018 (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.