This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2008–2009

Nathan Jubal Fillion Early

Nathan Fillion is a distant relative of Jubal Anderson Early, hence the naming of Jubal Early in "Objects in Space".

Where in the hell is this verified? I'm arguing with an anon editor about this, who promptly sent me to the two people's articles (which didn't have {{fact}} tags at the time) as evidence.

At one point, the "Objects in Space" article claimed that Joss said this in the commentary for the episode. However, in watching it to verify a different bit of trivia, I failed to hear anything about this. Is it perhaps in another episode's commentary? (My DVDs are loaned out to future browncoats, so I can't readily verify this) Is it anywhere? I'm looking to put a final nail in this coffin one way or the other. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do seem to remember it somewhere, I've got my set, so I'll get back to you. In the meantime, I think you're right to revert. Especially since it was stated as a fact, when, even if we find the commentary, it should only say that Fillion claims he's a descendant, and not that stating that he is, in fact, a descendant. --plange 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there's that aspect as well. I'd be perfectly happy with actual evidence that he's even done that much, to be honest; my expectations are apparently quite low. :-)

Additional information: I've consistently heard this as "Joss says..." as far as the origin of this goes; my guess is that, if it isn't in the "Objects in Space" commentary (which I'm 99% sure it isn't), it might be in the "Serenity" commentary (or any Joss-only commentaries; pretty sure that Nathan or Alan don't mention it in "War Stories"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my thinking too (that it must be in one of those you mention) --plange 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I never got my DVDs back (some day...) so I just bought another damn copy. I'll start running through the episode commentaries (starting with "Serenity") while I clean my living room. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I've gotten through "Serenity" and "The Train Job". Jack squat on Jubal in either one of them. That just leaves "Shindig" (highly unlikely), "Out of Gas" (not particularly likely), "War Stories" (highly unlikely), and "The Message" (highly unlikely) (discounting "Objects in Space", which I'm 99.9% sure doesn't have the comment in it). Once all the commentaries have been checked for this fact, I think it will be safe to purge the item from all relevant locations (which, at this point, is just Jubal Early#In popular media and Nathan Fillion).

Also: doing practically anything, especially housework, is next to impossible with the commentary going on. My living room remains a mess. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wrapped up "War Stories"; no mention (not particularly surprising, but I wanted to watch it again anyway). On to "Out of Gas". EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Out of Gas" ain't got nothin'. That just leaves "Shindig" and "The Message". EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just rewatched the "Objects in Space" commentary. You're right. There's no mention of Whedon saying that Fillion told him about his relation to Jubal Early. Maybe it's the frequent mentions of this "fact" on the Internet that makes me think that I've heard confirmation of this "fact" in a Firefly commentary. --Darren Lee 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the frustrating thing; its been around so long that it has become an assumed fact. Hell, I never would have realized that it was false if I hadn't been looking into the "Jubal Early is Boba Fett" item. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The commentary for "The Message" failed to mention Jubal Early. I'm... I'm just shocked. My faith in humanity is non-existant at this point, and I'm not sure how I can keep on living after such a crushing (and absolutely surprising) failure...
Incidentally, some people think I'm sarcastic. Not sure why. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin; I just finished watching the "Shindig" commentary. I've now gone through all the commentaries, and not once did anyone mention that Nathan is related to Jubal Anderson Early. The closest thing to evidence we have is IMDB's entry for "Shindig", but since every instance of "this is true" involves the DVD commentaries, I'm inclined to disregard IMDB. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research, folks! It's an unfortunate fact that IMDb's editorial staff is sufficiently overworked that much plausible but inaccurate information gets added to its Trivia pages. I have submitted a request that they delete the relevant items unless they themselves have a non-fannish source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This "fact" is still getting added to articles. As a result, I've made up a boilerplate message for dealing with it in a polite (and informative) manner; feel free to use User:EVula/admin/Jubal Early for all your rumor-stomping needs! (just make sure to include an article when you use it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From the horses mouth, so to speak. http://nathanfillion.org/comics-podcast-featuring-nathan-fillion/114/ this is an interview with Nathan Fillion by the Comics Podcast Network in which Mr. Fillion talks about the naming of Early. (at about 12 minutes in to the interview) Seems that this is a pretty tense topic and I'm not trying to rattle any cages, however, I can't think of much more definitive evidence than this. 74.185.128.250 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems conclusive. No detractors in the past month, I'm removing the commented bit from the NF article regarding not adding anything about Jubal Early. --69.12.157.118 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

Deleted Scenes aren't mentioned in the Canon section. Are deleted scenes canon or are they additional material like the novelization and RPG? Either way, their existence should be mentioned. Observatorr (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [2] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Firefly (soundtrack) AfD result

copied over from Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Firefly (soundtrack). -- saberwyn 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

An Articles for Deletion discussion has recently concluded on the article Firefly (soundtrack). The result of the discussion was to merge the information to the Music section of the main article, although the closing admin declined to perform the merger themselves, requesting that other editors do so to avoid cluttering this article. A mergetag has been placed on the Soundtrack article, but not here yet.

Previously, I merged in the soundtrack infobox (which I have just updated with the most recent version from the soundtrack article, and added a line about the slightly different digital EP release before the physical CD release (see this 2-edit diff). I've just updated the infobox. The only other things in that article but not in the main article are the CD tracklist (which has been suggested be converted to the {{tracklist}} template when/if included), an unsourced whinge about the lack of "The Ballad of Jane Cobb" on the CD, and some external links that may/may not be of use.

So I'm making it known that Firefly (soundtrack) needs to be merged and redirected to the Music section of the main article. Does anything else need to be merged over before it is redirected? -- saberwyn 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All been wrapped up following discussions on the Firefly series talk page. Nothing to see here... move along. -- saberwyn 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Serenity comics merge idea

I was flicking through the first issue of Serenity: Better Days (looking for info on the planned Shepherd Book comic) when I noticed in the bottom right of the back of the title page that BD was "Number 4 in a series". BD #2 is the same - "Number 5 in a series".

This got me thinking, that in terms of publishing, that each 'series' is also/actually a story arc in a broader Serenity comic series, which appears to be slowly ongoing with the Book series slated for the end of the year. So I've got this crazy idea that I'm throwing out to the fans (before I slap any mergetags on or do any really heavy lifting myself). Merge the two articles into a combined Serenity (comic series) article:

The series so far is small enough to handle a combined article. There have been no major changes in the structure of the storyarcs or the people involved with producing the comic, so eliminating any duplication following the merge will condense the size more.
As mentioned above, it eliminates some of the redundancy between the two articles, by having information on the authors (Whedon, Matthews) and illustrator (Conrad) condensed in one section, the history of the series in one section, reactions condensed into one section, etc.
- As a part of this, each storyarc would have its own section (likely under a Storyarc over-heading), where the specific publishing info of the series and a plot summary can be provided
It doesn't look like the series will be expanding dramatically in the near future, with only one more storyarc (Sheperd's Tale) between now and the end of the year.
- If it (hopefully) does explode in the near or distant future, enough material about the series overall would have been generated to support an article on the series itself, while the individual storyarcs could be re-split out as sub-articles
It will provide a single "main article" to anchor the Spin-offs > Comics section of the Firefly series article and anywhere else such a main article anchor would be beneficial

I've knocked together a crude layout in userspace (see User:Saberwyn/Serenity (comic series)). If there is some support for this idea, I'll flesh it out in userspace before getting final opinions and putting it in main. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of merging the articles without some strong feelings of joy from the main Firefly article editors, hence, no mergetags on the articles yet... I'm new in this section of Wikipedia, and don't want to step on any toes. I'm also going to link this discussion to the respective talk pages of the two comics, so everybody knows what's going on.

So... yes? No? Opinions? -- saberwyn 10:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Horse site states they are sets of mini-series [3] which would make them more like Hellboy, which has a few articles on the different series. I suppose the question is can the two current articles be fleshed out enough to warrant their own articles (and satisfy WP:FICT? If no then they should be merged together. That said it might be worth having an article that acts as an overview of the series (comics Project naming conventions would suggest the best name would be: "Serenity (comics)") a bit like The Sandman (Vertigo) which has separate articles for each trade collection of the larger series (or have a look at Hellboy Animated or a good parallel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight) you could then use {{main}} to link the sections to the main articles. So think either way it'd be worth creating the article and then perhaps look into merges. (Emperor (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

To respond to the points I think you're trying to make.

Dark Horse site says they are mini-series. Cool. They're mini-series (miniseries-es?). I will admit I was confused because of the inside numbering, but I can put that down to little knowledge of comics in general (although I will be asking questions if The Shepherd's Tale #1 reads "Number 7 in a series" on the inside cover - is it actually a series of mini-series?). This idea could easily be made workable again, per your sgeestion of main-linking to each miniseries article. Also see my main statement below.
Could the articles as they are pass WP:FICT? I think yes, but only by the skin-of-teeth. Both articles need expansion in the "real world" matters, which could be done in either the min-series articles or a combined 'series' article. The former will result in a lot of duplication between the two articles, while the latter keeps all the general information in one place (most likely in WP:Summary style), while keeping the mini-series articles as sub-articles. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The comics are not a "slowly ongoing" series. They're miniseries, period. The fact that there is enough information on each miniseries to warrant an article for each means that much of that information would be lost in a merge. I think they're fine the way they are. If and when enough individual miniseries get published that it may be beneficial to compile all the info they've created, and to show how that info fits into the chronology of Firefly and the Serenity feature film, that can be done with a new article, but it doesn't mean that the individual ones have to be eliminated. Nightscream (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond.

They're miniseries, period. See my first response to Emperor above and my full statement below.
Material would be lost in a merge. Not necessarily. I've done a crude userspace merge up to this edit (although I do reserve the right to add information I come across while looking at this topic from this point on). All I've 'lost' so far is:
- the blow-by-blow plot summaries
- the pricing and page count info from BD
- the ComicBook Database 'references' for each comic
- The external links from each article (although the Chinese translation link has been added as I feel this is a very important resource for a combined article, while the others are only mildly important)
- Some of the incredible, incredible detail from the "Notable occurances" section of Those Left Behind, as I dont feel a discussion on the fact the handle of The Operative's sword does not appear to be a katana is very important to the article. The important stuff is detailed in the small paragraph describing how the comic links the series and the movie, and sets up the movie.
The individual articles will be eliminated'. No. Originally, my intention was to merge all (or failing that, all but the blow-by-blow) information in a single location, where it would be easily accessible to anybody interested in comics set in the Firefly/Serenity universe, and would avoid people having to go back and forth between two articles to get the whole deal. I don't want to lose the information. I don't want to then put the articles up for deletion. But this has changed, see below. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take two

Following the comments of Emperor and Nightscream, I've rethought the process. Instead of merging the two articles into a unified whole, I'm going to treat a [{Serenity (comics)]] article as a master article, of which the individual mini-series would be treated as sub-articles. (i.e. main article contains all the important info, while the miniseries articles go into more specific and more relevant detail.)

User:Saberwyn/Serenity (comic series) has been updated with 'merged in' info (everything but the blow-by-blow plot summaries and the really, really detailed trivia). I may look to start adding new info to it in the next few days.

So. Take two. Thoughts?

I favor the Master Article idea, as opposed to the merge one. A third miniseries is coming eventually, I've heard, and a Master Article will be limited in the amount of info it can have. It can be like The Ultimates, which has a master article, but has separate articles split off for The Ultimates 2 and The Ultimates 3.

Inclusion of Brust novel in Firefly (TV series)

Comments invited: Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Inclusion of Brust novel. xenocidic (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whedonesque.com

I could use more sets of eyes on whedonesque.com. I would like to get it to GA status despite the anti-blog perspective some editors seem to have. Since this project includes guidelines on using whedonesque.com as a reliable source, I expect this ought to interest someone around here. Can anyone lend a hand? Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Challenge to Episode Guide Notability

Just as an FYI, Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner? (an episode from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series) has a tag up challenging its notability. When I checked to see the rationale, they basically took the position that episode guides in general are inappropriate. So presumably if they can get this one deleted then they will attempt to delete more episodes of more shows. I'm not in any science fiction wikiprojects atm but I thought that this was something that people should be aware of. Wellspring (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's a large part of some deletionism, manifesting across WP:FICT-affected topics. Good news for Firefly is that we're better positioned than most for secondary references (Independent reviews, essays, etc.) than many other fictional topics. Downside is, they needed to be referenced in the articles to count. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Firefly participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Firefly participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Firefly

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Serenity (franchise)

The libnk to that discussion can be found here. The creator (Marcus Brute (talk · contribs)) of the article nom'd for deletion has been notified. The nom suggests that the article largely recreates the info present in Firefly (TV series), and suggests that a merge of the info might be more constructive, renaming the Firefly series from '(TV series)' to (franchise) in order to encompass the body of articles related to the series. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I've spent the better part of an hour removing all of the links and such from all of the Firefly articles, including this bit, where Marcus Brute redirected all material related to Firefly (franchise) to Serenity (franchise). It would appear that a discussion should have taken place before a palace coup ensued. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A little love for Companions

The article Companion (Firefly) just came back from deletion review, where it was decided to leave the article where it is, subject to improvement. I've started adding some more sources and real-world info, starting with the Finding Serenity article about companions, but I've misplaced my copy, and had to use Google Books. Anyone else want to take a crack at adding in some more details, from this or other articles? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review of article

Over the past couple of months, I've been slowly rewriting and expanding Serenity (Firefly vessel). About a month ago, I uploaded my text to the article. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to swing by and offer some commentary on the standard of the article and what could be done to earn it an "A" (or maybe even an "FA") rating. -- saberwyn 06:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Episodes nominated for deletion

The articles for every Firefly episode have just been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenity (Firefly episode) for the combined nomination listing all episodes. -- saberwyn 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.