Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Spoilers

I just got spoiled by the section on "Allison Miller as Skye Alexandria Tate". Pretty big spoiler too. 213.100.90.101 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER and WP:NODISCLAIMERS, we don't list spoiler warnings in Wikipedia. If you don't want to stumble across a spoiler on a story (book, movie, television program, etc), then don't read the article about that subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Sorry, new editor for the spoiling. Look at the bright side: now you can estimate how well they lead to that point. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If we look at the progression of the storylines, Skye being a Sixer mole (and the reasoning behind it) is by no means a late revelation; it's actually a key plot point across several episodes of the season. Had the show lasted it would likely be considered background information instead of a mild spoiler. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think there is excessive spoilers in Skye's paragraph, I think Lieutenant Alicia "Wash" Washington's could be re-written. I had no problem when her death was added to the summary, when I expected a second season, but since she is alive for every episode of the series, her summary should be more balanced. Every appearance by her isn't mentioned, yet her last one takes up half the paragraph. 117Avenue (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but what in particular did she do that was notable, beyond being Taylor's old friend and second-in-command? I'd love to expand that paragraph but the biggest concrete thing I can recall (and I watched the whole series) was that she got captured by the Sixers for part of an episode. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Position of episodes section

Just where should it go? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the episodes are part of the broadcast history, it seems only natural that episodes be placed back in the "Broadcast" section. Placing them separately, sandwiched between the production and cast sections while all the rest of the broadcast information is in a different part of the article, seems silly. While MOS:TV guidelines may not be "sermons from the mount", they do make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. It shouldn't be in either place, really. The most commonsense and intuitive place for it to be would be right after plot, since the episode list details the plot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe that this is even an issue worth edit warring about. I looked at both positions and it really doesn't make a difference in the way the article is presented. In my estimation however, its better to follow the rule of the guideline or MOS, unless the guideline gets in the way of improving the article. If there is some esthetic reason why the article is improved by placing it above the cast section, I don't see it.--JOJ Hutton 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jojhutton. I don't understand the "since the episode list details the plot" argument. The episode list is merely a record of the broadcast history and DVD releases. It has nothing at all to do with the actual plot. Regarding the edit-warring, 117Avenue has quite correctly cited WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO in his latest edit summary.[1] While an issue is under discussion the status quo prevails. In this case the status quo has been restored by 117Avenue and the table should remain in its current location until there is consensus to move it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference section

Needs cleanup. Apparently, someone started the trend of refnaming references then listing the main cite in the reference section. I have fixed a few but need help putting them in the main body of the article. Please help in this as it's time consuming. Thanks. (To view the mess click on the edit tab of the section.) — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. That's an accepted method of referencing and it actually makes sense, as all the refs in the article are then in the form <ref name=refname />, so you don't need to move refs when they're later used earlier in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

International releases

The stations and dates the show was broadcast in 37 countries are listed.
Why have half a page of this, about 20% of the article, for an outdated TV guide?
The only date that's relevant is the first release. Barsoomian (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not for the people in those countries, where new episodes are still airing. 117Avenue (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
There are very few countries showing it as a first run now. Who ever checks Wikipedia to see what is on their local TV station anyway? WP:NOTTVGUIDE This is just completely trivial, and for the most part unsourced and of dubious reliability. Barsoomian (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
As Barsoomian has pointed out, much of the section is unsourced. Until today,[2] the section had been tagged since December 2011 for that reason. Of the 37 countries listed, 26 are unsourced, which is hardly "references a plenty". MOS:TV#Broadcast says "simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged" and suggests that the section "detail English-speaking countries". TV guide information should not be included and some of the information badly needs updating. For example. the Australian entry still says "it will air within days of its U.S. release". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, in light of it being trivia, and all the cited policies it violates, I deleted the section, moved the UK ref to the "Broadcast" section. Probably will be reverted in a few minutes, but for the moment, it's cut the cruft. Barsoomian (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that it's trivia and "all the cited policies it violates" is an exaggeration. Only 1 policy and 1 guideline, that latter which advocates inclusion of an international broadcast section, were cited. Deleting the entire section is contrary to established practice and not in accordance with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
So the strain of agreeing with me was too much. Go ahead and find references and put all 37 countries back just to prove I'm wrong. Not that anyone ever would refer to such a list, which is why it's trivia, not even of interest to a trainspotter. As for "deleting the section", I merged the UK and Ireland mention, the only English language countries with a cited date, to "Broadcast", where it made sense. If there are several notable countries mentioned an "International" subhead might be appropriate, but is hardly essential, since it's quite obvious. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

i changed the number of episodes to make it consistent with the episode list

the episode list contains 13 episodes so then the article should say that there is 13 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The episode list was modified contrary to discussion on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

13 Episodes

The series obviously has 13 episodes and not 11. The conventinal number of episodes for a season order is 13, then 22 then 24. You jus't don't get season orders for 11 episodes. 13 episodes were produced, that's why there are 13 different production codes. Just because the season premiere and finale were aired back to back, it does not mean that they count as on episode. It it counted and one episodes, why would it be genisis (part 1) and (Part 2)? It would just be Genesis. And why would the season finalle be called Occupation/Resistance? It would only have one name if it as one episode. But seen as they both have two names, it means they are seperate episodes. If it were a list of Terra Nova stories, then there would be 11 stories. Just because 2 episodes comprise a 2-part story, it does not make them the same episode! There are 13 episodes, and not 11. What network in their right mind would order 11 episodes of a season? They would order 13, meaning their is 13 episodes. Frogkermit (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Wasn't the first season of the Walking Dead 6 episodes? Who in their right mind only orders 6 episodes! Seriously, since the (only) season is now on DVD, why not just properly source the 13 with the DVD's instead of just complaining and using your personal brand of "logic" that amounts to nothing more than OR? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
From what I recall it was a 13 episode season with 4 episodes aired back to back on 2 occasions..? Although it was a long time ago. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fox ran 2 episodes together on two occasions and did NOT separate them on their website. The source for that is no longer available since the show is no longer on Fox. The DVD's now separate them. If some of these guys would quit complaining and fix it, this would be a dead issue. But instead of just sourcing the 13 properly, they keep using personal opinion and "logic". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think you'll find that it is quite conventional to order six episodes of a series, such as to trial it, like in the US for The Walking Dead. In Britain, it is quite common to have 6 episode seasons/series, in fact, the majority of dramas do have six episodes per series. Frogkermit (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This source of Amazon.co.uk shows an episode list which clearly shows there are 13 episodes seperately http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terra-Nova-The-Complete-Series/dp/B004S67V3Q Frogkermit (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As Nike say....Just Do It. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a hint in {{Episode list}} as to how we handle numbering. The hint is a parameter called OriginalAirDate. Just like that parameter, we handle episode numbering based on how episodes originally aired, which was as 11 episodes, not 13. This was thrashed out at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment What the website did in the past is moot since that site no longer has those episodes no longer appear on teh website and this cannot be verified in any way. What can be verified is that the official DVD has this at 13 episodes and they are sold on itunes as 13 episodes.JOJ Hutton 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I was one of those who sided with going by the Fox site. Now, with the series ended, the Fox reference gone and the DVD's listing 13, I'd have to go with that numbering. BTW, I conceded from the start that it might change at some point when everything got sorted out. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I realized last year that something wasn't right when I noticed that I downloaded (and paid for) 13 episodes from itunes and not 11. Seems every source has this at 13 now and since there doesn't appear to be any conflicting source to dispute this, the article should reflect the current sources.JOJ Hutton 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • While the website may be down now, it was available at one stage and it was verifiable then. We can't pretend it wasn't and we can't ignore the established consensus. Nor can we pretend that the episodes didn't air as a single episode with one set of credits. Even with the Fox site down, there are other sources that verify this,[3][4] so saying that it "cannot be verified in any way" is simply not true. This is something that I pointed out at the time.[5] We can certainly, and probably should, mention that since airing the episodes are now treated as 13 instead of 11, but we can't remove the 11. That's not WP:NPOV. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not "down", it's gone. It won't be back on the Fox site because they only list current shows. I don't see this as a NPOV issue. It's more of a WP:V issue. Additionally, at the time, the Fox site was the best source. Now, it's not a source at all. The best source now is the DVD set, which lists 13. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's non-NPOV because WP:NPOV requires that we present all views. We can't decide not to present the way the series was originally aired because one website is down. Verifiability is not an issue because there are still sites that show the original way that the series was aired, as well as Fox's own press releases. There's also the original, 3-month discussion that agreed we should present the episodes as such, which refers to the original Fox site's presentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The series aired as 13 episodes. It was marketed as 13 episodes and continues to be marketed as 13 episodes. The only reason why it was written here as 11 is because Fox briefly had 4 episodes merged together to be watched together for continuity. But thats it. I have no idea why this is still being considered as the best source for 11. Anyhow, looks as if a new consensus is beginning to form.--JOJ Hutton 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not seeing those reliable sources you keep referring to. If Futon Critic is your only source its pretty weak, especially considering the overwhelming number of sources stating 13.--JOJ Hutton 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You can hardly call the Futon Critic weak, since it reproduces the original Fox press releases and is considered a reliable source. Of course there are always more that show the first and last as 2-hour episodes.[6][7] And, of course, there's the fact that the episodes were aired exactly that way (Did you watch them?), which was thoroughly discussed at the discussion previously linked to. You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only watched them all, but bought all 13 of them on iTunes. Unless theres more than just that one outdated source, its time to evolve the article to the current modern sources. That old consensus was a long time ago. A new consensus seems to have formed.--JOJ Hutton 02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • NPOV does not require that all points of view be presented. That is a fallacy. If 25 sources said that an actor was born on April 5 and 1 says he was born April 6, we have no obligation to give that singular one equal weight to the other 25. THAT is giving the single one UNDUE weight. The Fox website is no longer a source. Period. Futon critic? Well I've never placed much stock in that one anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That means we have to account for the episodes airing as they did, as well as the fact that they've now been split up into 13 separate episodes. We knew that when the series was cancelled as they immediately aired Genesis as two separate episodes, but the consensus stood. Nothing has changed. That the Fox website no longer exists is irrelevant. You know damn well how the episodes aired. There's no denying that the episodes aired as they did and your comments regarding the Futon Critic are silly. The Futon Critic just reproduces the press releases so what you're saying is that you don't believe Fox. You can do a google search on phrases in the press releases and confirm that they're correct at multiple sites. As I indicated above, the field in {{episode list}} is titled OriginalAirDate because we list episodes based on how they aired, and they aired as 11 episodes, with the first and last having two parts that aired together. They've since been re-issued, like most shows, but that doesn't alter anything in the episode list. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change

I think that applies here. I am reversing my earlier position that we should list this as 11 episodes. The best, available sources, show it as 13 and I think we should go with that. So please do not count me as part of the "established consensus" that is being used to hold it at 11. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no, it doesn't apply. Straight after the series was cancelled they immediately aired Genesis as two separate episodes, so we knew they had split up the 11 aired episodes into 13 individual episodes but the consensus stood. Nothing has changed. A couple of people can't come along and overturn consensus arrived at by a greater number just because those people are no longer around. You'd really need to "get the gang back together" or open an RfC and get a greater number of people to overturn the consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, I was one of those people. The consensus was truthfully split. You and I drove the bulk of that and I'm no longer on that bus. Just because a few people became disinterested doesn't mean that we can no longer change. At this point, the greater number, using verifiable sources, are saying 13. You are relying on a single source (don't say the Fox site because it's not verifiable) that is a clear minority view. Sorry, but consensus does and has changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That you've changed your mind doesn't mean that consensus has changed. You're not above consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not. Nor did I say that. So please don't tell me what I said, ok? I DID say that my position has changed and it no longer part of this prior consensus that you are acting like is carved in stone. What I'm seeing, however, it you making a one man stand. If those previously involved editors no longer care enough to participate, their opinions can't be given full weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
So consensus doesn't apply? Only your perception and POV applies? And yes Consensus can and has changed.--JOJ Hutton 10:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I never said that. I said that you need justification to form a new consensus and you haven't presented anything that wasn't already discussed when we formed the previous consensus. Therefore nothing has changed. A couple of editors now disagree the the previously formed consensus, but that doesn't override the consensus. Consensus doesn't have to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You're acting like the previous consensus was a landslide. It wasn't. It was barely a majority and we arrived at a compromise. The source, Fox, that most of that was based on, however, no longer exists and can't be verified. With the level of WP:IDHT I'm seeing, I'm betting this will end up in some form of dispute resolution and ultimately show the number 13. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll go one even further. It looked like it was just the two of you, and that wasn't even the majority. Looked like the majority of editors favored using the sources stating 13 rather than the Fox website that split them into 11 episodes for online viewing only. I think its fair to say Aussielegend, that you are the only holdout on this. You fought the good fight, but consnsus has obviously changed on this. You have done and are still doing a great job keeping up many articles and fighting vandalism, but I think its time for you to let this go, so we can move on.JOJ Hutton 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Saying that Fox can't be verified is ridiculous. The Fox press releases are still available at the Futon Critic, whether you like it or not, and we have the talk page discussion, where Fox's position was discussed. You can't conveniently ignore that just because it doesn't suit your present position. As Niteshift36 has said, we came to a compromise as to what should be in the article - that's reaching a consensus. I don't have a problem with mentioning 13 episodes - I've said that before, but we need to continue to mention the way that it originally aired. In particular, the transition between the parts of Genesis was so seamless, it's hard to know where part 1 finished and part 2 starts. I just looked at the original airing and still can't work it out. We may know the world is round, but we don't deny that people once thought it to be flat. By the way, "the Fox website that split them into 11 episodes for online viewing only" makes no sense. They were aired that way originally, it wasn't just online. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We have a talk page where it was discussed. Since neither you or I are reliable sources, that fails. A press release hosted on a third party site? Sketchy. Regardless, let's ask a simple question here. Since we KNOW that consensus can change. (It can, so stop denying it), I'd like to ask who is supporting your position? Who supports that we leave it at 11? I'd like to invite them to contribute to the discussion. Please give me the names and I'll send the invitations. If it is, however, a single person, then I'd submit that fails when we have multiple editors saying 13. To be blunt, that "compromise" was because you and I dug our heels in and the other editors decided the fight wasn't worth continuing. the difference is that I knew this day would come. We used Fox because it was the best source. Now that the DVD's are out, they are the best source. They are current. Relying on an old press release reproduced elsewhere as the sole basis of resisting just isn't going to stand too long. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter that we aren't reliable sources - the point is that while the Fox website is no longer available, there is a discussion amongst Wikipedia editors that demonstrates that the source was verifiable at one stage and we don't ignore previous discussions. It's really no different to the Flickr tag at commons that is used to confirm the license of files - Even if an author changes a free license to "All rights reserved", if the file was confirmed as being free at the time of the upload we don't delete it because the author has changed his mind. We take note of past discussions. We don't ignore them because, while they can't be used in articles, they are evidence. Furthermore, MOS:TV says that articles must reflect the entire history of a series, and the fact that the series originally aired as 11 episodes is part the series' history.
"Who supports that we leave it at 11?" - Are you even bothering to read what I've written, or are you so intent on getting in as many instances of "consensus can change" (see Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change) as you can that you're ignoring what I've said? For your benefit, "I don't have a problem with mentioning 13 episodes - I've said that before, but we need to continue to mention the way that it originally aired." We can change it but we need to change it to "13 (11 as aired)" and not just "13" to comply with the MOS. That has to be reflected in the episde list article as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah Capt. Sarcasm, I am reading what you write. But since you want to start acting like that with me, I'll take that as a sign that you have nothing civil left to say. I'll note that you've produce no names of editors that support your position. The clear consensus now is to go with 13 and nothing more. You can keep editing against consensus but count on me supporting whomever gets tired of it and takes it to one of the noticeboards. I'm done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly, despite the feigned offence you are not reading what I wrote as you have clearly ignored what I wrote.[8] You asked "Who supports that we leave it at 11?" but I've already said that I don't mind mentioning 13 as long as we also mention that the episodes were aired as 11 (albeit in different words).[9] Since then over 2,000 words have been added to the discussion without anyone even acknowledging what I was suggesting. Your question was therefore redundant and I've already offered a compromise. What more do you want? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The offense isn't feigned my friend. But keep making those incorrect assumptions. I saw your proposal, I simply REJECT you proposal. Your suggested compromise is not acceptable to me. Thus there was no need to ask the rhetorical question even more ways. And yes, it was rhetorical because everyone except you knows that the consensus is against you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course you are welcome to reject the proposal, but may I ask why, when it is supported by MOS? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, consensus has obviously changed to the fact that there are 13 episodes. 1 editor disagreeing tith this does not mean that a consensus cannot be reached at 13, which it has by a number of other editors. The whole reason i joined wikipedia was to edit this page to it's rightful number of 13 episodes. I'm afraid to say that now a consensus of 13 episodes has been reached, AussieLegend, if you continue to edit these back to 11, it means that you will be editing against consensus yourself, which is what you firmly tell people not to do. Consensus doesn't have to change, that, however, does not mean it cannot change. I will be editing both this page and the talk page to 13 episodes, as per new established consensus.Frogkermit (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "The whole reason i joined wikipedia was to edit this page to it's rightful number of 13 episodes." Ummm, that's pretty much admitting to being an SPA, which I'm sure is not true. I'm only mentioning it in case somebody gets the wrong impression. That said, the edits that you made to the two articles were inappropriate. While contentious edits are under discussion they should not be restored and the WP:STATUSQUO prevails. Please respect WP:BRD as other editors are doing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please respect BRD? Are you kidding me? You've reverted it more than the one time in BRD. More than one editor has changed it. You can't revert each editor and then claim to be following BRD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I have not "reverted it more than the one time in BRD". We only started discussing this yesterday. Jojhutton added a tag, which I felt was reasonable, although since the link was dead, {{dead link}} was more appropriate. Jojhutton has not opposed the change. The restoration of the status quo, was appropriate per WP:STATUSQUO as the discussion is still underway, despite what you may think. Unfortunately I see you are now ignoring BRD by forcing the edits, that do not represent the full history of the series, and therefore ignore MOS:TV, back into the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You're fighting a two front war. I'm including the episodes article in this discussion since you want to included a discussion that was had there. You've reverted more than one user and one users more than once. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I's hardly edit waring, you are edit waring by reverting something which every other editor apart from you agrees with Frogkermit (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Restoring the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate. I've only dne it once. You, however, have been warned. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And now you are being warned. Watch the 3RR my friend. The Statusquo essay you keep linking to is no enforceable and does not exempt you from the 3RR Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please read policies before citing them. 3RR requires 4 reverts in a single article in a 24-hour period. In any case, since you're clearly unwilling to compromise and have offered no other arguments than "consensus can change" and a rehash of issues we discussed at the previous discussion, I've opened a DRN discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've read the policy sport. YOU should try reading it. 3RR is not limited to only 4 reverts in a 24 hour priod. "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Try reading it yourself before you tell me to read them. You'll look foolish less often that way. Keep telling yourself the blatant lie that I haven't explained why and just said that consensus can change. Everyone here can see that's a steaming pile of crap. And see, there you go again.........you didn't open a DRN discussion. You REQUESTED one. It hasn't been accepted yet, thus not open to our input yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And here is another one you should read all the way through WP:BRD-NOT "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please don't misrepresent the actions of other editors. I've expanded on this on your talk page.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothign was misrepresented. Please don't carry this over to my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it was. The comment on your talk page was an appropriate warning, which you've now obviously read. I indicated on your talk page that you should point fingers at the appropriate person and you've now reverted 2 editors 3 times in only 2 hours at two articles. pot-kettle-black. As for the DRN, part of the process of assessing a DRN discussion is to "Check opening comments of each participant". If you don't comment, the volunteer can't help. Unassessed simply means a volunteer hasn't yet looked at the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course I read it. Why would you say something that absurd? As for DRN, I know how the process works. I can read and, unlike you, I read all of it. I can't comment until it is accepted. It says in big red letters "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." So once again, you haven't opened shit, you made a request to open one, which is exactly what I said. Since you have a difficult time with reading comprehension, I'll say it simply: Stay off my talk page unless you are required to post a notification. Get it? BTW, I'm not the one trying to invoke BRD sunshine, so your little warning is misplaced. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Making opening comments is not the same as discussing disputes. Opening comments are a place for you to state your case. You'll note that after the red letters it says "Carrying on discussion without the help of a dispute resolution..." You make your opening comments but don't do anything more. i.e. participants shouldn't talk amongst themselves once they've made their opening comments. And please, try to be civil. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Chiming in as an uninvolved user, Niteshift36, you can comment. The case isn't accepted unless the parties named make opening statements; you don't add anything more until/if the case is accepted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Moot point. Consensus has been reached. This discussion is really over. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't bully other editors and claim a new consensus after only a few hours, especially when you haven't presented any evidence that wasn't already discussed in the original discussion. You need to see this through or you simply don't have an enforceable consensus and the original consensus stands. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because nobody agrees with you doesn't mean you were bullied, it means you are in the minority. A few hours? Seriously? Try 4 days now. "Enforceable consesnsus"? There is no such thing. The consensus here is clear. "See it through"? We have seen it through. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a majority vote. The arguments presented here do not overturn the validity of the original compromise. I've said I'm happy to revisit that, by listing 13 episodes but your response is essentially just "NO", so it isn't over yet. The bullying is demonstrated in the silly claims you've made about 3RR and in the threat of punitive action if I don't back off, made by Jojhutton.[11] These alone are probably enough to warrant ANI action, but I'm hoping you're prepared to discuss at DRN before it gets to that. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the unwarranted and useless definition of what consensus is. One thing is does not mean is unanimity. You keep claiming you've proven something, but you haven't. All you've done is misconstrue a sentence in MOS:TV and rely on an old discussion, ignoring the fact that others have presented their reasons and that your primary ally in that last compromise (me) agrees with the others that the best sources currently available say 13. If you think you have an ANI issue, have at it. You know the way there. It doesn't worry me in the least and maybe when you see a larger audience saying what we're saying, it will finally sink in. Regardless, I've played your game long enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "All you've done is misconstrue a sentence in MOS:TV" - Clearly I have not misconstrued it, as I specifically asked at MOS:TV and got an answer from one of the original authors who confirmed that I was correct, that it applies to all of the article, not just one section as you seem to believe. "(and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section."[12]
  • "and rely on an old discussion" - No, I've also presented the press releases that confirm the premiere and finale were aired as single episodes.
  • "ignoring the fact that others have presented their reasons " - Reasons alone are not enough. They need to present verifiable evidence that the episodes did not originally air the way Fox said, and you know very well that is how they aired. While you may have changed your mind about the way you think the episodes should be presented, you can't claim with any credibility that it never happened.

The only reason I can see for you to refuse DRN is that you don't believe that you are able to substantiate your new beliefs in an open forum where bullying won't work. If you really believe you're correct, you should have no problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Oops! Sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. I just came back to the article and saw it hadn't been changed already. I didn't see that a whole conversation had taken place. My bad. I will throw in my penny. It was always ordered as a 13 episode order. Just that 4 of the episodes were shown as double bills. Which happens all the time in television. We don't discount an episode count just because it was aired as a double bill and say it was one episode when it quite clearly has two names and two production codes. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was far more than being " shown as double bills". The episodes weren't just aired "back-to-back", they were aired as a single episode, with one set of credits. The first episode was "Genesis" and you can't tell where part 1 ended and part 2 started. It was effectively a single episode that was broken into 2 after the series finished. We even discussed this at the original discussion, when I was accused of inconsistency because the final "episode", called "Occupation/Resistance" was listed as episodes 11 & 12 and I hadn't changed it to 11a and 11b. The difference with that episode was that it was clear that these were two episodes that had been cobbled together to make one, while Genesis was one episode, made in two parts. The point that the others are ignoring is that MOS:TV says that articles have to reflect the entire history of a series. All I've suggested is that we comply with the MOS. We can certainly list 13 episodes, but we need to ensure that the reader is aware of how they originally aired. Unfortunately, the others seem to be denying this ever happened by their actions. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but at the moment all it seems is that aussie legend won't just WP:LISTEN. A new consensus has been established. For all means, mention that episodes 1/2 and 12/13 aired as double bills, but don't say 11 aired, as it makes it sound like there are 2 unaired episodes. The new consensus is that there is 13 episodes, which, to be honest, there always were. I fail to see a point in this discussion continuing. And,without doubt, aussie legend is going to reply to this with some guideline i've never heard of to try and back up his point, but the simple fact is he is the one ho is now editing against consensus, and i believe that we have a majority vote and this theard should nowbe closed. Frogkermit (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's others who won't listen. MOS:TV says that articles have to reflect the entire history of a series, but this is being ignored, as are the reliable sources, most notably the original press releases identifying the premiere and finales airing as single episodes. I actually suggested what you've proposed stating is OK (ie. that episodes 1/2 and 12/13 aired as double bills) but that was flat out rejected by one editor and ignored by others including yourself. The reality is the series did air as 11 episodes,[13][14] but was then broken into 13 episodes. The press release for the premiere says "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA", and finale, "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA". (emphasis added) These are both referred to as "episode" not "episodes" and aired, not as a traditional "double-bills" (2 episodes each having a set of credits aired one after the other) but as single episodes with one set of credits. This cannot be denied, even though you wish to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that i never rejected mentioning that episodes 1/2 and 12/13 aried as double bills, because I purposely tried not to get into that part of the discussion, so please don't accuse me of false things Frogkermit (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is ignoring MOS:TV, they are just disagreeing with you based on the plethora of reliable sources that contradict your POV. Yet you continue to take the stance that you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Your attitude lately has gone far beyond collaborative editing and has seriously slipped into disruptive editing. Unless you have something new to add, since all your previous augments have been rejected, I advise that you leave well enough alone, unless more punitive actions be taken.--JOJ Hutton 15:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
MOS:TV is being misapplied. The sentence being (mis)quoted about the "entire history" is under the cast section. "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." This is talking about not removing a cast member if they leave the show. It doesn't apply to the episode issue being discussed. There is nothing in that MOS that indicates that every event in the history of the show's airing needs documented. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not misapplication, this has been consistently applied to articles. It's one of the reasons we always refer to episodes in the present tense, even if they're years apart. Note that it says "articles should reflect the entire history of a series", not "the cast section should reflect the entire history of a series". --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • WHERE it appears is important to the meaning. It's called context. It is in the section about cast information. that means it's talking about cast information. To say that because something is said in one place, it magically applies to everything is absurd. If we used your practice, when I opened a cookbook, I'd be putting in ingredients from one recipe and using the cooking times from another. You can't take what is narrowly stated about the cast and apply it to everything involving TV shows. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as you've misunderstood the DRN process, you've got this wrong too. The MOS says "Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series", not just "Furthermore, the cast section of articles should reflect the entire history of a series". That it applies to the entire article is supported by the original author of the MOS who has said that it was "placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series".[15] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to point outthat a siurce aussielegend just used to back up his point for it being a 2 hour season finale instead of a two episode season finale says that it was episode 12/13. You're own sources even contradict you! http://thefutoncritic.com/listings/20111202fox05 Frogkermit (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
@ Frogkermit - I never said that you rejected the proposal, I said you ignored it. Since you made no comment, that is effectively what you did. As for the link you included, perhaps you missed the part in the text that refers to "episode", not "episodes". I have mentioned that above. Furthermore, it doesn't mention episode numbers at all. It mentions production codes, which don't necessarily equate to episodes. To make that link is WP:SYNTH.
@ Jojhutton - Until Niteshift36's post just now, nobody has disagreed with what the MOS says, it has been ignored. As well as the link I've just discussed, there's a similar source for the premier, which also refers to it as an episode, not episodes.[16] and please, don't make threats in an attempt to badger editors out of discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No threats needed, This discussion has been over for a while now. The decision has been made. You offer nothing new. You offer nothing relevant. You offer nothing that helps your cause. Your points have been made and rejected by everyone. Its time for you to move on, less you get branded a tendentious editor which a line I believe you crossed awhile ago.--JOJ Hutton 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No the discussion isn't over. We've had another editor come in and make changes that you didn't like and a DRN volunteer who has to remain detached because of possible COI issues say that it looks like I'm right. You've presented no information that wasn't taken into account when the original consensus was formed. All that has happened is that three editors, 2 of whom have never really had any involvement with the article, have tried to bully another editor. You've declared consensus after only a few hours of discussion. Without any verifiable evidence that the series didn't air as 11 episodes, and with evidence quite to the contrary, your so called consensus can't stand. With the uncivil behaviour, threats and WP:SYNTH demonstrated here, there's enough to take this to ANI, but I'm hoping that you'll be reasonable enough to continue this at DRN. If you're not willing to do this, then you have no enforceable consensus. Sorry, bullying does not work. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The other editor stated clearly that he didn't agree with you, he just reverted it because he thought it should be discussed more. That was two days ago. You have a single press release on a questionable reliable site as your sole evidence. We have.....well the series itself, which is now available on DVD as 13 episodes. DRN is a giant waste of time in this case. Notice that nobody else is jumping in there either. It's unenforceable and this isn't a matter of a balanced dispute. There is everyone else and you. We don't need DRN to tell us that you have a raving case of IDHT. The Lone Ranger act might be admirable in some instances, but not here. You fought the good fight, stood for a while but it's time to learn when you need to accept the obvious. You're not being bullied. You're not a victim. You're simply the minority who is misapplying MOS's and can't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. The Futon Critic, whether you like it or not, is considered to be a reliable source. The press releases can be found on other sites, so there's no denying TFC's presentation is accurate. From the original discussion you know very well that the press releases exactly reflect how the premiere and finale aired. That there are now 13 episodes doesn't negate the way in which the episodes were originally aired. DRN will limit us to presenting actual information, instead of silliness presented here. You should at least give it a chance, unless you're willing to accept that this entire discussion has achieved exactly nothing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • So take it to ANI. I could care less. I have complete confidence that a larger audience will tell you the same thing we're telling you now. This appears non-productive at this point and I see no reason to continue entertaining you while you shake your fist at the digital sky and demand that your minority misinterpretation of a MOS be used. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "your minority misinterpretation of a MOS" - As I've pointed out above, it's not a misinterpretation: "(and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section."[17] It's your interpretation that seems to be the minority here. Even though this edit is WP:SYNTH, the editor seems to have no problem with it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

About DRN: I'm a regular volunteer at DRN. While I think that everyone here is now on the same page in relation to how DRN works, I just want to make sure. Nothing is happening at the DRN listing because the listed participants other than the listing editor have not made opening statements. Until that happens, it is almost certain that nothing will happen there. Participation at DRN is always voluntary, as it is in all dispute resolution at Wikipedia (well, mostly; if someone starts a request for comments then you're free to not participate but failure to do so, may result in a consensus being formed against your position). I strongly suspect that if the participants in this discussion other than the listing editor do not weigh in there in the next couple or three days then that listing will be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the clarification. You should make the instructions more clear. Regardless, it doesn't look like any of us are interested in it, save the filing editor. This is less of a content dispute than a single editor demanding his way. Consensus here is clear, he just doesn't like it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

why wasn't it picked up

I can't find this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.146.25 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the looks of this, which is the last citation in the article lead, the high budget compared to insufficiently high ratings was a contributing factor. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV

There's a request on WP:AN/RFC to close this as there have been no comments since June 1. I'm afraid I can't make head or tail of the responses. If the issue still needs to be decided, please reopen the RfC with a clear question, and ask respondents to support or oppose so that it's easier to see what people are saying. Sorry I can't be of more help. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Should this article and List of Terra Nova episodes comply with MOS:TV, which states "articles should reflect the entire history of a series", or should it ignore the original airing of the series and list only the 13 episodes into which the series has been broken for subsequent arings and home media release? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Background

When Terra Nova first aired, the premiere and finale aired as two, two-hour episodes, not 2 pairs of back to back episodes or 4 single episodes. This was supported by the Fox website at the time but that link is now "dead", (although it is archived at archive.org,[18][19] which clearly shows the premiere and finale aired as one episode each) so the fact has been declared as "unverifiable" in the above discussion titled "13 Episodes", despite the lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes where the Fox website was referenced more than once. However, it is also supported by existing reproductions of the original press releases at thefutoncritic.com, which is widely regarded to be a reliable source.[20][21] Those press releases quite clearly declare the premiere and finale to be single episodes: The first says "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA" and the second says "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA". (emphasis added) Use of "episode" in both releases instead of "episodes" indicates the premiere and finales were aired as single episodes, which they were, with no breaks between parts and only one set of credits. Transition between the parts of the episodes is so seamless that they appear to be one episode, not two. It was the decision of the discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes#Number of episodes that the episode list should appear in this format but the latest discussion has decided to completely overturn that decision and only list 13 episodes, with no mention of how the episodes originally aired. MOS:TV says "articles should reflect the entire history of a series" but this has been challenged as the statement appears in the "Cast information" section of the MOS. The response to a question about the applicability of the statement was "(and you can send this message to those on Terra Nova's talk page), since I'm the original author and was here for all the adjustments with the other editors, when it was written originally we were talking about the entire article, but placed in the cast section because it just happened to be the place where we had the most issues of people wanting to remove cast members no longer on a series. Obviously, we can place it in a way that it's more clear that we're talking about the entire show/article, and not just one section."[22] In order to comply with the MOS, both the original airing as 11 episodes, and subsequent breakdown into 13 episodes should be mentioned but the above discussion has resulted in complete censorship of mention of the original airing as 11 episodes.[23]

Further notes

  • The following are mentioned because they need correction and I would rather not edit the articles until after the RfC, lest I be accused of edit warring (or worse):
  1. The reference now used at List of Terra Nova episodes to justify listing 13 episodes is duplicated several times instead of being a reused reference, which is incorrect.
  2. The reference is used in the EpisodeNumber field, which is meant for a number only, not for references.
  3. The reference refers to a DVD breakdown for a foreign market, which is inconsistent given that all other content in the table refs to the original airing in the original market.
  4. In this article, the lead includes the following: "concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour, two-episode finale." - The source used only mentions one episode, not two. The editor who added this assumes that the use of two production codes means two episodes, which is WP:SYNTH. I did correct this,[24] but it was reverted, despite the citation.[25]

Comment on the above would be appreciated as part of this RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • As it is a 13 episode series this should be reflected in the article. However, as 4 episodes were aired back to back in the states, this should be reflected in the broadcasting section. -- MisterShiney ✉ 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Episodes were not aired "back to back" in the traditional manner, ie as two separate episodes with the second immediately after the other. They were aired as single episodes with one set of credits each. This is supported by the Fox website (previously thought to be dead but now found to have been archived) and the press releases reproduced by the Futon Critic.[26][27][28][29] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The first episode was aired together with one opening and one closing credit. This episode has subsequently been divided into two episodes on the DVD and in the reliable sources. Yet each has its own writer and production code, which leads me to belive that they are two episodes regardless if they ran together without a break in credits. The last two episodes ran on the same night, but did not run together. Each episode had its own opening and closing credits. They are not a single episode, no matter how many times you say so.--JOJ Hutton 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that confirms they aired as you say, and not as the reliable sources say? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The ratings (see below) show two episodes. The rel;iable sources confirm two episodes. And a personal question: Did you watch the episodes that night? They aired separately, If you were watching that night you would know that.--JOJ Hutton 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What the ratings show does not override how Fox aired the episodes - that's just how the ratings were recorded. The DVR copy that I have on my TV right now shows that Occupation/Resistance aired as a single episode, just as Fox and the Futon Critic indicated was the case. The lengths are almost exact - Fox says 1:27:48, my recording says 1:27:47. At 1:27:18 The screen is displaying the editors for both Occupation and Resistance, at 1:27:38 the production codes are displayed for each part. Other than that, the credits don't differentiate between the two parts. At the beginning of the episode, at 05:37 is "'Occupation' Written By Bryan Maone & Barbara Marshall", 4 seconds later, at 05:41, is "'Resistance' Written By Terry Matalas & Travis Fickett", so that doesn't help your claim that they weren't aired as a single episode either. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
So I guess that does it. Your DVR must be a reliable source. So now I see what the problem is. Its POV, not Bias. Regardless of how your DVR recorded them in New South Wales, in the United States, the country of the shows origin, they aired separately and are therefore separate episodes.--JOJ Hutton 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I never said that my DVR was a reliable source. You're claiming that the episode aired as two episodes, but Fox and the press releases say it was aired as one. Even the ratings source used in the episode list refers to a single entity, ie the finale (8-10PM). The ratings link that you referred to doesn't refer to a single episode, it just breaks the ratings down into separate hours. Assuming that means two episodes is WP:SYNTH. The episode is a primary source and may be used to confirm that it was aired as a single episode and that's all I've done. You haven't shown a reliable source that confirms your claim that "Each episode had its own opening and closing credits", and the available sources can't confirm it either. No, the issue here is not POV, bias or mutant space goats. It's WP:V. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Fox aired those final two episodes separately in the US. Are you denying this? As far as a source, the best source found, so far, is the ratings. A plethora of other sources refer to the season has having 13 episodes so that should be a clincher, but you continue to hang on to your single source as some sort of trump card over all the other sources. Its not how this works. But I realize that your POV is slanted because they were broadcast in your country together and not separately as they were in the US. That doesn't mean however that the two episodes should be referred to as airing together, just because they aired that way on your TV. If you want to add that somewhere in the international broadcast section, if there is one, then by all means feel free, but this is an American television production and should reflect the American broadcast, not the foreign one.--JOJ Hutton 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As much as you may argue that they aired separately, the sources don't support you. The DVR copy (which is from a US broadcast) seems to directly reflect what Fox and the Futon Critic say. You claim "a plethora of other sources refer to the season has having 13 episodes" but that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how the episodes aired, and you haven't provided any sources. The ratings only break down the hours, not the episodes. I'm afraid you are continuing to make assumptions. There really is no point continuing this. As has been pointed out, the RfC is for outside editors, not those of us who participated in the other discussion. Please respect that. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you're not assuming good faith. I am willing to concede that your DVR which recorded the telecast in New South Wales, recorded as one long episode, but you some how cannot concede that it aired in the United States as two separate episodes. That is basically calling me a liar. Its uncivil and unfair to me and all other editors who disagreed with you because they too saw the last two episodes air the same way as I did. I conceded that if you wish to add this to the "international" broadcast section, you are free to do so. Its trivial, but if it will end this long drawn out debate, please feel free to add it. Yet your assertion now is that the infobox should reflect the international broadcast and not the American one. Thats not going to happen. Its 13 episodes. Plenty of sources confirm 13. even the cast members say it was 13.--JOJ Hutton 19:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what is written more thoroughly: "The DVR copy (which is from a US broadcast)" - It wasn't recorded in New south Wales. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And how are we to know that?--JOJ Hutton 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mr. Shiney. A mention that the first 2 and last two were aired back to back is fine. By that, I mean a single sentence in the article. I does not belong in the infobox. As a side note, even though the author of MOSTV clarified that the "entire history" part is meant to apply to the whole MOS (and he admits it is written in a manner that does make it look like it applies to a section), ill contend it's being misused. "Entire history" doesn't mean every minute detail and despite all the hoopla and fussing about this, the fact that the first two episodes were shown together is trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If the episodes were broadcast together then they should be listed together in the episode table, as Neilsen rating would be based on the entire broadcast and too difficult to say that someone that came in during the last 10 minutes of the first hour and watched the last hour did anymore more than watch the last hour (yet the ratings will reflect otherwise). In other words, most shows do not maintain the same rating from one hour to the next, yet you're claiming on the episode table that both hours got the same rating. That's inaccurate, especially when the source you're using is saying that during the entire broadcast it averaged 7.24 million viewers. To be true to your own source, you need to keep it as a single entry on the episode table. As was done with the Smallville season finale, which was 2 episodes merged together (as well as another episode in season 9), the info is set as 2 episodes, but the plot is presented as one cohesive story. This is better for reading and also more accurate to how it was released. You should then indicate that it is two episodes, and on the DVD was broken up into two separate entries. That is a reflection of the history of the series, yet still satisfies both (as the episode count can still be 13).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::*Neilsen will often break the ratings into two parts, hour 1 and hour 2. Just like you see done here with NBA games or that is done every week by WWE wrestling [30]. And which sources are we talking about being true to?Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The source that you have on the LoE page for the ratings for the episode. You have 7.24 listed for both, yet the source lists one broadcast, indicating that it was a 2 hour broadcast. It doesn't break them up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This source [31] does break them into two parts and lists the same rating for both. May or may not be correct, but it still lists the same number for both. Thsi source shows different numbers [32].Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That isn't the source on the LoE page, and that number is also not the number in the source on the LoE page. So, you guys can figure out which you want to use, but I can tell you that there is no way it is the same figure for both hours, as I've never seen a show keep the same figure in both hours. They either go up or they go down. I cannot think of the last time they stayed the same outside of the fact that someone didn't have a true breakdown of the hours and listed one figure for each individual hour (which is probably what happened on that page, and why the other source only lists one figure for a 2 hour broadcast).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not the same source? Really? Obviously it isn't the source used there. I offered them up as possible alternatives. I figured that was obvious enough and didn't think you'd need it explained. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Well its possible that they had the same numbers. Its not out of the realm of possibility, nor is there any proof that these are the same number used twice. As far as the source is concerned, they are separate ratings that are simply the same number, not duplicated numbers.--JOJ Hutton 13:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, who'd have thunk that coming to a debate to provide a second opinion would lead to incivility from others? Niteshift, I think you're being a little rude in your comment to me. The "realm of possibility" Jojhutton is based on the evidence. If you look at any other show that spans multiple hours you'll clearly see that the ratings change. The point is, it was presented as one cohesive episode upon broadcast, and it should be presented as such in the episode table. That is the history of the broadcast, and it should be reflected as such. The DVD does nothing more than indicate that we should show that the episode has two titles, two production codes, two sets of creative teams, etc. Again, Smallville had this same issue in season 9 and season 10. It works better when written as one cohesive story (that removes those poorly worded--"In the first hour...."--starts. It is better for readers to when reviewing the plot, and again it's reflective of the history of the show. It was presented as 1 episode, and that is how it should be presented in the LoE table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, when you start off by talking down to me by stating the glaringly obvious like I didn't know it, it sets a tone. Why would you feel the need to tell me that isn't the source being used? Of course it isn't. Who can't see that? Did you ever think that "informing" me of something that obvious can come off as sounding sarcastic? Regardless, they were separate episodes. That they were aired back to back can be noted in the article, but that does not change the number of episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) So since you have never seen two episodes run back to back have the same ratings, it is impossible? Hardly scientific and not reliable enough to say that the ratings are separate figures that happen to be the same number.--JOJ Hutton 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Niteshift, I think you're making an assumption regarding my intentions or my "tone", if you will. I wasn't talking down to you, I was merely stating that they are different sources with different figures and the one on the page being used does not have 2 timeslots being represented. It has a single timeslot. I didn't realize that you would be that sensitive to my comment. I apologize if I offended you. As for their airing, they were more than just aired back to back, they were aired seamlessly. We are not talking about a show that literally airs back to back episodes with two separate credits. It was a single broadcast, with a single set of credits. By separating them, you're implying that they aired separately, when they did not. Yes, they are two separate episodes, but they were merged into a single broadcast, and that is how it should be represented on the page. You should not retroactively change their status because the DVD separates them. That goes against representing the page from a historic viewpoint. You wouldn't change the events in the plot section of one film just because a second film retcons those events. You represent what happened at the time, and what happened at the time would be two episodes being merged into a single entry with a single broadcast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

"Genesis" aired as one long episode, although its been split on the DVD, but not on iTunes. Yet it has two production codes and two writers. But its incorrect to say that "Occupation" and "Resistance" aired without a break. Each aired with its own opening and closing credits and each has its own production code and writer. Thats why they are referred to as episodes 12 and 13. Thats also why the producers and cast members say the show has 13 episodes. Thats also why the sources say that Fox ordered 13 episodes. Its because there are 13 episodes.--JOJ Hutton 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is denying that there are 13 episodes now. I don't know why you're still on about this. It's how they originally aired that is the issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall the finale having two sepate intros, but if that's the case then I would side with that being broken up, as it was treated as two separate episodes that happened to air on the same day. But, Genesis should be put together because it was aired as a single entry. Yes, there are two sets of creative teams, and I again I point to Smallville. Story-wise, it's more cohesive to write it as a single entry, which was how it was broadcast then to try and split it up when it wasn't set that way originally. There is nothing wrong with having "1/2" under Episode count, and a note explaining that these were 2 episodes that were merged into a single broadcast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the reason that you don't remember two separate intros for the finale is because Jojhutton is mistaken. As I've said above, the US copy of the finale that I have shows it as one episode, it even matches the time that Fox says it should be (it's dfferent by 1 second but that's neither here nor there) and Fox says it's one episode. I don't have any problems accepting the Fox and Futon Crtic sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken, it aired as two episodes. I remember very well. And after a bit more research, it seems that the Futon Critic is a foreign, meaning non American website, which means that it most likely is stating the overseas broadcast order and not the American one.--JOJ Hutton 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Clutching at straws are we? The Futon Critic is widely used as a reference for US TV shows (1,309 uses as of right now[33]) and the press releases that it reproduces are straight from US studios. As I've already said more than once, you can google the text of the press releases and find them on multiple US sites. I'm sorry, but you do appear to be mistaken. Bignole doesn't remember separate credits, I don't remember separate credits, Fox says the finale is 1:27:48 long and the US DVR copy that I have is the same length. It doesn't show separate credits and I've given you time codes for the various elements. All the evidence points to a single episode finale except for your memory. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment RFC's should written neutrally. This is written so badly and with so much bias, it makes my head spin just looking at it. How does the writer of this RFC expect to get unbiased participation in the RFC? I'll tell you, he doesn't. He wants to get his way. This has already been discussed at length. This is just another attempt at forum shopping by and obviously tendentious editor who just doesn't seem to get the point.--JOJ Hutton 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this was not neutral and smells like forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As I've pointed out below, that is the question that needs to be addressed so it's the question that needs to be asked. I'll remind you too you that you had an opportunity to participate in the DRN discussion, which you refused to do so, even after being warned that an RfC was a possibility. The purpose of an RfC is to obtain comment from outside editors, not to continue the previous discussion with the same editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You need not remind me of your trip to DRN. I clearly knew it was there and saw no reason for it. As for your "warning" (love that choice of wording), nobody is shocked at your refusal to accept consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The RfC question was asked neutrally. There is no bias; the separate "background" and "further notes" sections provide RfC participants with sourced background information about how the series was aired originally and how it is presented now, so that they may make an informed decision. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't even see it do you? Asking or should it ignore the original airing of the series and list only the 13 episodes, is biased because you are stating in the RFC that it is a fact that the article is ignoring MOSTV. Its not. Its just your bias that thinks it is.--JOJ Hutton 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't see how it is biased, since that is the question that needs to be addressed. May I remind you that you had an opportunity to participate in the DRN discussion, which you refused to do so, even after being warned that an RfC was a possibility? Please do not continue to make allegations against another editor, this is not the place for it. The purpose of an RfC is to obtain comment from outside editors, not to continue the previous discussion with the same editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Its all the same, its simple forum shopping. You are going to do this until you get the decision you want.--JOJ Hutton 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the neutrality of the RfC. It comes down to two things when simplified like this. I would also like to stress that RfC is for new editors and not old editors spouting the same old tedious stuff. Also, you had the opportunity to try and resolve this with the DNR, but you refused to take part. -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If the old editor the started this gets to spout his same old tedious stuff, why should others be excluded? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is suppose to be a forum for new editors, but the biased diatribe by AussieLegend demanded a response because it wasn't written from a neutral point of view.--JOJ Hutton 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why does how they were aired (ie together or back to back) change the number of episodes? There are 13 epsidoes, with 13 names, 13 production codes. Airing times aside, can we at least agree on that simple, basic fact? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This question has been answered several times. The premiere and finale were aired as single episodes, per the reliable sources that have been presented, including the Fox website (that you argued was dead and therefore no longer verifiable, which is not the case since it has been archived), so the series was aired as 11 episodes, not 13. You know, we did discuss this way back when the series aired, in a discussion you started. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me try this one more time. I am NOT asking about AIRING. I asked if we agree that there were 13 episodes produced. That is the simple question. Can you please stop your endless soapboxing for one freakin minute and answer what I actually asked? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest you read what you actually asked: "Why does how they were aired (ie together or back to back) change the number of episodes?" Airing was an integral part of your question. How they aired shows that they aired as 11 episodes. That's part of the series' history. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If I eat 2 sandwiches at one sitting or one sandwich at each of two sittings, how many sandwiches did I eat? I didn't ask how many sittings there were, I asked how many sandwiches there were. Get it? How many episodes were there. That is the freakin question. Can you answer that single, simple question with a single number? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer to your question is there are now 13 episodes that were originally aired as 11 episodes. You see, it depends on the definition of an episode. According to Wikitionary, an episode is "an installment of a drama told in parts, as in a TV series" so Genesis is an episode, as is Occupation/Resistance. To most of us, an installement of a TV series, with one set of opening credits and one set of closing credits is an episode. That's probably why Fox refers to them as individual episodes. What is your definition of an episode? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I knew you couldn't answer it with a simple answer. I didn't ask about airings. I made it very clear that I wasn't asking about airings. I didn't ask for your personal interpretation of the definition of "episode". But you're so wrapped up in your battlefield mentality that you can't even answer a simple question. Talking to you is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You can't ask "Why does how they were aired" and then say you aren't interested in airings because how the episodes aired is an integral part of your question. If you aren't interested, then you have to ask a different question. And please, stop aggressively indenting. You only need to indent one level, not four. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 1 June 2013 (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.

Merger proposal

13 episodes of Terra Nova is 13 episodes. Why is arguing about how to edit the episode list worth everybody's time? Since it is cancelled, like Firefly (TV series), merging the list into the main won't hurt, even when the main article is big. Relisted. --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't work out if this is a serious proposal or a joke...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • At least he has the number of episodes correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An RfC for this seems a little premature considering there has been no previous discussion about merging the two articles. It's a totally different subject to what we've been discussing above, so I don't see what it's an alternative to. In any case, I'd have to oppose any such merge until we get the above RfC out of the way. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This is the second or third time that rfcbot has tried to induce me to comment on this article. I agree with Mister Shiney. It seems impossible to tell if these proposals are some kind of postmodern satire on Wikipedia drama or if they're serious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I also cannot tell if this is serious or a joke. Wickedlizzie (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a good RFC. This seems like a misuse of the RFC tag to forum shop.  A m i t  웃   17:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terra_Nova_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1137223934"