Jump to content

Talk:Alphas

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

Production

[edit]

any idea where the show is being filmed? --Echetz (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a sign for Alphas basecamp and set on Judson St, near Alcatrax Recording studio in Toronto/Etobicoke. I think they were filming there on Friday July 29th, 2011. Hence my visit here. 76.70.41.25 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a picture of the sign? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that spectacular of a sign. Anybody could hand draw one and plant it somewhere. However, in the pilot, the original office is at a Bowlerama. If you freeze frames, you can see it is Bowlerama West at 5429. This is on Dundas street. Also some episode has a Kipling Variety in it which is a major street in Etobicoke (West Toronto); there are actually various location that I have recognized. Also, the new head quarters is close to the airport at 2800 Skymark Ave. There are many scenes shot there; especially in episode 2 with the full address shown on the building. I think those might be cite-able. Anybody with video of the episodes should be able to verify that the google images match. 174.91.113.157 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, did you want a shot of the sign for the cancellation thing. Anyways, I did not take a picture of it. 174.91.113.157 (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism

[edit]

The info on the cast is plagarized from the Syfy website. I've placed this with the "copyvio" template and commented out the text in the section. There may be other plagarism as well.

I'm honestly willing to bet that it was blatant advertizing by someone on staff at SyFy FOR the program. It reads too close to a pre-release PR blurb to be otherwise. In short, Wikipedia is being used, rather than being contributed to. Hence, I vote for deletion, until an HONEST article is written. This is NOT an advertizement site.Wzrd1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why are the episode list and external links sections also "commented out"? I'd hardly refer to those as plagiaristic. Wouldn't it be helpful to keep those on there? Kyle Nin (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to use promotional materials to promote and describe TV shows, movies, etc. The studio or the producers send them out and actually want them to be used. The verbiage from the SyFy site is probably quoting the press releases released by the show. There's no plagiarism on such materials as well as they're used for their intended purpose. Danpetitpas (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi, Not Fantasy

[edit]

I don't know who keeps calling this series fantasy, but I saw the pilot episode and it's not fantasy. There's a medical scientific reason for why they have powers, so that makes this series science fiction, not fantasy. Kyle Nin (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its americans, they've never been able to distinguish between the two. (Much like some claim the pilot episode is 90 minutes when its only 60 - padding from commercials DO NOT count, they aren't part of the episode) --IceHunter (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THanks for being a bigoted ass. Can you tell anything about people based on skin color too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American and I can distinguish the two. Kyle Nin (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered moving? :) --IceHunter (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I can appreciate the argument that it should perhaps be fiction rather than fantasy, I do see a couple of small problems - telekinesis, magnification of human perception to the level of an electron microscope, and the visualisation of energy waves. Are these actually "fiction based on science" (making the implausible possible) or "a fantasy version of science" (making the impossible plausible)?
I personally think it is a mix of the two. I do not think that it will ever be possible for people to see at the microscopic level with an unassisted human eye, nor able to visualise energy waves and especially not decrypt the data contained within (both are included in the series as plausible while they are in fact impossible). I do not include telekinesis, although it is surely impossible too I might be proven incorrect :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the popular accepted definitions are that science fiction is based on some kind of science, however pseudo or fictional it might be, while fantasy is based on magic and/or mythology. Hogwarts is fantasy, even though it is a school teaching magic, but I (despite being an American) would agree that Alphas qualifies exclusively as a science fiction program. KnownAlias X 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but there is Science fantasy as well as fantasy Chaosdruid (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but in my mind, that's better suited to defining Hellboy. KnownAlias X 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The science fantasy elements are the seeing to the microscopic level with an unassisted human eye (impossible) and decoding carrier waves using the unassisted human brain (impossible). The telekinesis factor is different, as it falls into a grey are between Science-fiction and Science-fantasy: some think it possible, some think it improbable, and some think it impossible. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, though I still think myself that the fantasy element of science fantasy hinges in the tendency toward more realistic explanations for the mythological or magical. Alphas taking their science beyond the realities of true science still falls, to me, within the realm of science fiction. But I guess you could say it's science fiction with certain fantasy liberties. KnownAlias X 00:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much the same as Warehouse 13 which is Science Fantasy with Science Fiction elements (see info box there). I have added Science fantasy as a secondary genre in the same way that Warehouse 13 has Science fiction listed second. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're all arguing minor semantic points--the show falls squarely under science fiction. The fact that it has elements of "science fantasy" is irrelevant--most science fiction has elements of other genres, but we normally identify works by the main genre and there is absolutely no doubt about it here. Warehouse 13, on the other hand, has absolutely no science fiction elements--the "science" of the show is entirely fantastic. If there is a legitimate category of Science Fantasy, Warehouse 13 embodies it. Other ScyFy shows are more difficult to classify. Haven has no science at all. Nor does it have any magical beings and most beliefs in curses turn out to be false. Most plot lines are fantastic, even when they involve technology. It's more of a Supernatural category, I suppose, if such exists. Eureka has a huge number of science fantasy elements and it's also clearly a comedy in its heart. But the main plot lines fall squarely into Science Fiction and that's where the show should be classified. Please, stop splitting hairs and stick to the content description accuracy--as of now, the show description is far behind (except for the update on the cancellation and re-signing). Alex.deWitte (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and character descriptions

[edit]

Hi all

The character descriptions seem to be getting a little out of hand. While I realise that there is a need for some sort of description, so far none have been cited and some are downright OR. The latest included a line that read "[Don Wilson] is eventually killed by an Alpha as a result of this." - In the program I watched he was killed by one of his own agents using a chair and his fists. We need to keep an eye on the definitions, or better still change them for a synopsis of the ones on the SyFy site cast pages.

Some other examples:

  • Rosen: "to help identify and aide other Alphas or stop dangerous ones" - on the SyFy site it states, "formation of a group of highly evolved humans specializing in solving Alpha-related cases"
  • Harken: "resulting in increased durability and superstrength. Extended periods of time in this state (approx. 5 minutes) results in excessive strain on his heart which could result in a heart attack." - SyFy does not mention the time it lasts, nor the heart attack issue, "With a flood of adrenaline, pain receptors are subdued and for a short bursts of time, he experiences super human strength and a resistance to harm that borders on invulnerability."
  • Hicks: "This allows him to predict trajectory by eye sight making him not just a superhuman perfect shot with projectiles, but also, allows him react to the trajectory of objects already in motion (e.g. dodge bullets or trip a man who is running in the right spot to cause him to fall in a specific position). His ability is linked to his emotional state and is inconsistent when he is agitated." - SyFy does not mention perfect shot, nor the tripping ability, "A former army sniper and minor league baseball pitcher, Hicks has an unusual condition called "hyperkinesis," wherein the mind's imaging systems and muscle control are perfectly in tune with the motor skills center of the brain. As a result he possesses flawless aim, perfect balance, and greatly enhanced motor skills."
  • Theroux: "... A care free individual ... her to not only provide verbal commands, but she must also have eye contact ... It is alluded that out of all of the group she has been with Dr. Rosen the longest." - SyFy does not mention this, nor the care-free part or the verbal commands. While the eye contact was mentioned in the program, it should be ref'd using the time of the quote from the program.
  • Bell: "An autistic young man ... socially functional to a degree ... process information faster than any computer ... unable to process signals using a Nokia platform" - same again, no mention of autism (it could be ADD, ADHD, OCDC or Asperger syndrome), no mention of faster than a computer and the Nokia ref is from the program script.
  • Pirzad: "A former CIA linguist ... so as to view things at a microscopic level ... chemical composition, etc. ... Her personality is somewhat shy and she has issues with asserting herself." - SyFy mentions timid rather than shy, no mention of the CIA linguist, no mention of microscopic level, no mention of chemical composition, nothing about asserting herself, infact in one program it appears that Rosen was coaching Theroux, rather than Pirzad, in assertiveness techniques.

There is a repetition of "superhuman", though I am not sure that this is appropriate to most of the characters. Suprahuman is much more appropriate for most of the characters [1].

I would appreciate some sort of consensus on what needs refs and what should be included. Obviuosly as time goes by there will be more discussion in secondary and tertiary sources, but at the moment much of this is WP:OR. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

generally speaking for whatever bio information is include in the description, it should be cited using the episode in which it appears. if that makes sense Pat (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Bell--there is absolutely no doubt that the character is meant to be autistic. Not ADHD, not Asperger's--autistic. The word itself has been used on multiple occasions and there is no doubt about the portrayed behavior.
Re: Superhuman vs. Suprahuman--sorry, this sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. "Superhuman" is a standard literary term and possession of ability beyond the range of normal human ability is inveariably referred to as "superhuman" (e.g., superhuman strength). Repetitiveness is an entirely different issue and it is generally frowned upon. However, that's really a matter of style more than a matter of substance.
Re: Plot Development and new characters--guest stars should be added or listed along with individual episodes. So far, this has not happened.
Alex.deWitte (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Update

[edit]

Hi guys, over the next hour or two i will be doing a lot of work on this article, re-writing, finding refs, general cleanup, images etc. If you could hold of reverting any edits (as ive had this done on me beore) until im done. Thanks Pat (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate you are keen to get the article improved, it is always best to collaborate.
You boldy edited, I corrected it rather than revert wholesale and start a BRD cycle discussion from there - try AGF. There is also the matter of the table repeating information in prose. Why not add another column for the character synopsis and include it in there? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re the table it has become standard for most TV articles see: NCIS (TV series), Rizzoli & Isles, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation etc There is also consensus that there is no need for 'previous characters' sub heading, as the article clearly list the character as deceased. For an example again see NCIS (TV series) and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I am going to revert this again and would ask you kindly not to arbitrarily change it back. Pat (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the first revert was arbitrary, as there is apparently consensus for your preferred style, kindly place a link to that consensus, or one of the Project style guides.
The CSI page has no such split, recurring or otherwise while the NCIS one does. That does not establish any precedent. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is a little riduculous. The fact that CSI: Crime Scene Investigation doesnt have said split is because, the recurring cast is or was at one point main cast. For further examples see: CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, Harry's Law, Criminal Minds. I cant point you to a specific project style guide can you point me to one re your wanted 'previous characters' subheading? Pat (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is about content, so it is not ridiculous, you keep stating your opinion as is your right.
The issue here is that the character did not even made it through one season. The ones on your quoted examples: Criminal Law, all a season or more; Harry's Law, throughout the whole of the season; CSI: NY no recurring section; SCI: Miami, no recurring characters listed, even that links to a "minor characters" list page.
List of past Coronation Street characters List of past Hollyoaks characters List of past Neighbours characters Chaosdruid (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your only frame of reference is soap operas, are you kidding? These shows have vast numbers of past characters. Here you have somebody who was recruited as a 'recurring guest star' (which can be sourced), who was killed off in episode 3. He was a recurring character, your want for this third level of subheading is entirely un-necessary and what does the number of seasons have to do with this?. As mentioned the character description clearly says he is deceased. Had you edited many TV articles outside of soap operas you might understand this better. There is clearly a standard for american TV shows, be they procedurals, dramas or sci-fi. You just seem to want to ignore it. see (again): Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), Babylon 5, Warehouse 13, Eureka (TV series), Blue Bloods (TV series), The Defenders (2010 TV series), The Chicago Code, House (TV series), Leverage (TV series), Franklin & Bash, Falling Skies, Fairly Legal, Suits (TV series), White Collar (TV series), Covert Affairs, In Plain Sight, Southland (TV series), Army Wives, The Killing (U.S. TV series), The Walking Dead (TV series), Body of Proof. Pat (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting a little personal, how do you know what TV show articles I have edited? More importantly I am applying MOS (television) and I defer to the wishes of the TV project as to how things are done, not just a whim of my own invention. You need to learn to collaborate more and desist with the personal comments and OR about other editors actions. Remember WP:AGF?
The problem with your statement is that "clearly a standard" is unsubstantiated, with no quote from you as to where this occurred, and the "standard" that you mention is similarly unsubstantiated. Please do source the "'recurring guest star' (which can be sourced)", though it seems to me the character is more of a "past character" than anything else. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem here is this insistence that we list Callum Keith Rennie's character as a past character when of the twenty to thrity articles i have pointed you to do not do so. Your sole reason for this appears to be your own preferences and some articles on British soap operas. I have not found a single article from the 2010 - 2011 US Network Televison line up that utilises this past character sub heading. It is simply noted in the description(s) of the relevant characters, in either the main cast or recurring cast sections, that they actor has left the show in one way or another (character death etc). I have asked you to point me to a style guide from the TV project that your preffered way is THE preferred way. If that is the case i would be happy to conced the point, but I dont believe it is. The MOS (Television) says nothing on this issue. Pat (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the TV project does have a preferred way. I was trying to point out that you should have either gone for a third opinion, following BRD, or pointed me to the policy or talk where you could show discussion that established your "apparent consensus". What you did was against BRD and generally in poor taste by ignoring BRD.
As before, I defer to the TV projects judgements and style guides, not yours. I do not have a preference. You really should not keep trying to hammer into an editor that "you are trying to do it your way" when they have already stated they are going to acquiesce to the TV projects preferences. My preferred way is the TV projects preferred way, as you will find out when you go and read their talk page. Keep making extended points about "you only do soaps" and "you did this and you did that", really, AGF etc.
In future, be more open to accepting that BRD comes first, third opinion if consensus cannot be found, and most of all assume good faith. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

[edit]

Hey all. We need to make a section about the cancellation of the show. Who wants to take care of this? 108.13.235.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Unconfirmed speculation at present, unless you can point us to a reference that has definitive details ... Chaosdruid (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... how about a section about the speculation... 108.13.235.212 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, besides Craig Engler (Senior Vice President at SyFy) denied the rumours on his twitter account: http://twitter.com/#!/Syfy/status/101403006565761025 Pat (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of series articles that discuss possible cancellations, rumours, speculation, etc. - wikipedia is indeed the place for this as it is a part of the shows history. 96.251.166.152 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vanessa Calder

[edit]

I feel compelled to note that it does not logically follow from an appearance by Dr. Vanessa Calder that Alphas is necessarily within the 'shared universe' described. That seems speculative, and ignores the possibility that the universe of Alphas may be parallel to that of Warehouse 13 ~~ unsigned continuity troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.188.238 (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the whole paragraph. By the logic employed here, The Wire, The X-Files, and Arrested Development all take place in a shared universe. I'd further add that even if this were true, there is no reason whatever to include it in the series overview section. john k (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section had been replaced. I removed it again, following the above arguments, and noting the section still didn't have a reference. Also, it seems forced to call something a "shared universe" when a character or story element is just re-used for convenience. There's a difference between a deliberate character insertion for fan trivia, and relationships that are critical and that most viewers would recognize. For example, Star Trek: The Next Generation relies heavily on the original series. So much so, that it would be more accurate to call it a continuation, instead. Reading Fictional crossover, too, along with the Multiple Issues tagging, one gets the sense that crossover is just a fancy name for the inelegant, but less suggestive, "reused". 76.102.1.129 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan's Last Name

[edit]

I notice that Nathan's last name is spelled here as "Clay." The SyFy site identifies it as such, but the end credits of the 9/17/12 episode lists his son Duncan's name as "Cley." The broadcast closed-captioning has always spelled it "Cley." I don't know what the Season 1 DVD's closed captioning states. Nathan's name has never appeared in print on screen. Which has precedent? 151.148.122.100 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang Theory reference

[edit]

Can someone who knows what they're doing add the proper section and type a few words about the reference in The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon finds out what happened after the series finale cliffhanger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.38.197 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that!!! In brief: Sheldon is asked to delete the Alpha series from the DVR to make space to record other shows. He refuses saying he is waiting for season 3, Leonard informs him Alpha is cancelled. Sheldon can't believe it, CLIFFHANGER! NO END! Obsession begins. He surfs the net and calls around hassling many people about show. He finally calls the writer and asks what he would of written next. (We don't get to hear what it is) Sheldon nods and the call goes on... Finally Sheldon says something along the lines of: Well that just sucks, no wonder they cancelled the show! (Hangs up the phone) THE END 209.226.90.26 (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

Why was (TV series) added to this article's title? There's no conflict. Fuddle (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did seem like unnecessary disambiguation, so I've moved it back. The edit summary for the move to Alphas (TV series) only referenced "Alpha", but as I said in my own edit summary, there does not seem to be a conflict with Alpha as Alphas was a redirect to the TV series for almost a year and no links to it seem to have been changed. For the record, before my move there were around 200 articles/lists linking to Alphas and about 20 articles/lists linking to Alphas (TV series) (which I changed after the move).— TAnthonyTalk 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alphas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alphas&oldid=1204752100"