Talk:Awake (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

12 episodes were ordered

should we add that in somewhere?? Caringtype1 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Title screen

Since the Hulu/NBC.com version has the title sequence, does anyone have the title picture that we can upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.93 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Influences

Anyone know if the Graphic Novel http://www.dccomics.com/vertigo/graphic_novels/?gn=14809 had any influence on the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeruvin (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Character List

It's a bit confusing, and is there any way we can say if someone is a regular or just a recurring character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.64.178 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If this shows makes it to a second season, we'll probably need a separate article for characters. --Boycool (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll put this here since it has to do with the Character List and I wasn't sure if this would need a new section but... It says that in the Green Reality Emma has a miscarriage... now... Am I missing something or did that never happen? She still had the baby at the end of Say Hello To My Little Friend and then in Two Birds, the very next episode, she talks about her book report and plans to go to the beach with Rex the next morning and that's it. They don't mention her again... I went back and checked the summaries on the episode pages and there was no mention of it there either. So is this something that happened that I missed or is this something that was planned but never went in and is in there incorrectly or is it just a complete mistake? 66.31.71.78 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, what's there is correct. She is pregnant in the red reality but has a miscarriage in the green reality (revealed in "Game Day"). It's possible you're just mixing up the two realities. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I *was* looking to the wrong episodes to find it but... I'm gonna have to rewatch Game Day, I just don't remember it...66.31.71.78 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast

this is WAAAAy to confusing, what's with all the NAs???? the old way is MUCH easier to understand. Caringtype1 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I think editors have been making it more complicated. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Red reality/green reality?

Where did these terms originate? I don't recall them being used within the series. We need a citable reference calling them such, or out they go. I'll wait a day or two. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In the series, he wears green or red wristbands to differentiate each reality, and each one has its own color scheme (warmer and cooler tones), that's where the terms come from. The character of Michael Britten is not going to use the actual words of "red world" and "green world" in the show, that's kinda silly. It's simply known as that to the viewers. Look at any article that discusses the series or interviews with the writers, and you'll see these terms being used. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks for letting me know. This should be pointed out as the source of the differentiation, btw. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mandelbrot set?

I've been working my way through the Signpost archives from before I found out there was a Signpost.

Look at one of the featured pictures here. Isn't that what appears every time Britten transitions from one reality to another?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Mandelbrot set, but I believe the images that flash are inkblots as they're related to therapy, which the character is in. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless some source identifies them as such, I guess we can't use it anyway.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I finally saw this week's episode last night, and they didn't do it the usual way. I did see what looked like ink blots, though, and they weren't these.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is notable by the overly positive reviews alone. --Boycool † (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is not going to be deleted just because it was cancelled, if that is what you meant. There are plenty of shows that were cancelled that had pages that were not deleted. If you meant the show being cancelled solely, then it was already cancelled. It doesn't matter if a show got the best reviews in the world. Executives are not going to wait for a show with an average of a 0.9 key demo, not even NBC, whose ratings are dreadful. Show business is show business. Sorry if you can't get that fact. But who knows, maybe the show will be uncancelled if there is toomuch of a backlash. That backlash has to be huge, though. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 02:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you meant. That is the template Awake, not the actual article. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than delete the template, why not contribute by expanding articles for individual episodes? If episode articles reach GA status, there could be an Awake Good Topic. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but it would take a lot of work, since we have so little information for each individual article. It would probably be better after a DVD/Blu-ray release if there is a commentary for each episode like The Simpsons. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There a currently 2 GAs for Awake, i am working on "Turtles All the Way Down" and "Two Birds" --Tate Brandley Stockwell 00:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyle Killen's comments about the second season

An IP with numerous vandalism warnings added some information under "Plot", which is probably the wrong place for it. It looks like good information if a source can be found, since part of what he said was confirmed by the finale, but I don't go to unfamiliar sites at home. It might be something that needs to be checked out so it can be dealt with properly. Given that at least one episode article is now "good", this is something to strive for with all the articles.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 good articles, "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend". From awhile ago. TBrandley 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's said above. And TBrantley, you forgot to sign.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't know until at least Monday, since I don't go to unfamiliar sites at home, but I may have found something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add Kyle Killen's comments.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Awake (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is there really a need for the "Opening sequence" section? And should it even be in the "Production section?
  •  Done
• The "Character (Actor)" is really repetitive: It's in the "Plot" section, in the "Cast" table, and in the "Main characters" and "Recurring characters" sections. Is there really a need for that much? -And plus, the actors are linked every time.
  •  Done
• Some links to the actors' pages appear again in the "Production (Casting)" section
  •  Done

This article's a complete mess. Failed.... just kidding! :) That's all I could find. Take care of these minor issues, and it's a Pass. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 05:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the issues. I think it is ready now. Thanks for the review. TBrandley 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you did. It's a Pass. Good job! I'll give it a pass, though I suggest you put the "(Actors)" in the "Cast" section, since, well, they're the cast. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Awake episodes FLC

List of Awake episodes has been listed as a featured list candidate. Feel free to comment here. Thanks users. TBrandley 14:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice discussion

There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Awake (TV series) regarding the edit notice for this article.

Logo

The main logo, or whatever it's called, should be the title card, as its shown later in the article, but it needs to be the main one. We can use the tacky weird thing for the list of episodes.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a policy, and unless there is an overriding consensus; it can stay as is. House, M.D. is a featured article, and uses the logo instead of the title screen in the infobox. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not a policy, but I think it will look a whole lot better. And the title screen is more associated with the series, than the logo.(and the logo is ugly, but I know that isn't a reason to change it).

Do you or anyone else have any objections to me trying it out, by switching the images, on this page, and the episode list, seeing how it looks. then putting our thoughts here, so we can see what the consensus is?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I do. The logo is better suited for an infobox, and the title screen is already in the 'series overview' section. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that . Look at Cougar Town, or Mr. Sunshine (2011 TV series), and their episode lists, and I think it looks much better. Can I try for one day, and other editors can say what they think?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You just gave two examples of start class articles. House, M.D. is a featured article; which is what this article is aiming for. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For House, I agree with you. When i think of House, i think that logo. But not for Awake, I've never seen that logo used anywhere, but here. I really don't think this will really affect whether it becomes a featured article or not.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We should wait for another user to offer their opinion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRLIJC19, just because you don't know the logo doesn't mean others will. There are no "policies, and unless there is an overriding consensus; it can stay as is" —TRLIJC19. Thanks for your concerns though. TBrandley 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, if it's not changes Im un-watching all Awake related articles and will never visit the pages again because the logo is ugly.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is simply foolish and immature; but if that is what you want to do, then proceed I suppose. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to that, you are threatening people on Wikipedia. We don't do that. TBrandley 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Harmonious with the above comment, please see WP:ULTIMATUM, which explains that they should not be used. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I never threatened ANYONE, I just trying to improve the article, something that you two seem to not know how to do.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think by "threats", TBrandley meant ultimatums; which is why I offered the above link to WP:ULTIMATUM. You may also want to touch up on WP:CIVIL, because "SHOUTING" comes off as rude, and WP:NPA, because you saying that myself and TBrandley don't want to improve articles goes against "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; the main idea of WP:NPA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Thanks :) Also, he said: "if it's not changes Im un-watching all Awake related articles and will never visit the pages again because the logo is ugly" can be rude. TBrandley 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't rude, and didn't shout, or make ultimatums, so i have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, lets end this. I am going to switch the images. Both of you will not change it or revert it. We will see what other editors not involved with this discussions think of it. If they like it, we'll keep it. If they don't we will change it back. that's fair. Okay??Caringtype1 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You will not switch the images; as that violates consensus. You made an ultimatum by saying the image needs to be switched or you will unwatch the articles. You shouted by writing "ANYONE" in all caps. You cannot go against consensus. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The "ultimatum" was about me, had nothing to do with you, or even the articles, so why would you care?? Writing in caps was to make a point, i wasn't shouting, I do it all the time, it's not against the rules. A 'consensus" means we are all in agreement(are least most of us), but there are only three here, and you two editors seem to have worked together many times and have a lot of the same opinions, we need third party opinions. And do not tell me what I'm going to do, now that's rude.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're getting a bit out of hand. It was still an ultimatum. Writing in caps is frowned upon per WP:CAPSLOCK. I have worked with TBrandley before, but we do not share the same opinions; it is coincidental. Although majority does not grant consensus, when two users are agreeing on a subject, and one is not, it should tell you that you are the only dissenting voice. Also, please don't say "telling people what to do" is rude, because you blatantly did it by writing "Both of you will not change it or revert it". Until another user gives their opinion, the page should stay as is; as you are proposing a new change that has not been agreed upon. As I said, I recommend you review WP:ULTIMATUM, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CAPSLOCK, and while you're at it: WP:CONSENSUS. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting out of hand, YOU ARE. I can use ultimatums whenever I want, it doesn't concern anyone else but me. I was making a suggestion, not telling you what to do. i have a new suggestion. I'll put a new suggestion on this talk page propping the image switch. None of us will add our opinions, only other editors. We'll wait awhile and if most of them want to TRY the switch, we'll try it. and see how it goes from there. Can we all agree on that?Caringtype1 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, your cap letters just prove your inability to maintain discussion. You can use ultimatums, but it brings unnecessary wikidrama. It is unnecessary to make a new section header, as other users should see all of our opinions when deciding, per WP:CONSENSUS; a policy that you obviously did not read. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think other editors shouldn't be influenced by this, and a new section would make it easier for other editors to add their opinions. I'll do it anyway, and they can put their opinion wherever they want. Agreed?Caringtype1 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is they should be influenced by this. Consensus is established by users looking at other users' opinions. A new section is completely unnecessary and redundant; and other users can respond right here. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the new section, i'll put to read this first. i just want to separate their opinions from ours.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is so pointless. If you are making note to read here, they should just respond here! If another user has an opinion, they can post directly under this. We are capable of differentiating our opinions with other users'. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

let me just show you what i mean. i just what to clearly express the issue.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. You want to make a new section, so we can differentiate other users' opinions from ours. This is unnecessary and redundant, as it is clear who is saying who. Leave it as is and wait for further comments. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That way actual consensus can be reached. TBrandley 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

i'm going to do it anyway, it really doesn't matter.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No you're not, or you'll be reported for going against consensus. I have undone your changes; do not perform them again. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The logo will stay in the infobox unless various others agree with you, or further consensus is reached. TBrandley 01:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to alter my edits on a talk page. This is certainly against Wikipedia rules. There is no consensus about making a new section. Other editors will see better if there isn't a large discussion above their post. I am going to redo the changes, or I'll report YOU for editing my post.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There will not be a new section created so you can dictate this discussion. Making a new section with your opinions right on top, is not neutral and shows you trying to dictate the discussion into a consensus you want. You have violated so many things; enough already, TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I just trying to get a clear fair consensus. That is not violating any rules.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are all trying to do that. In order for that, everything should be neutral; and having your opinion right on top of a new section is not. Editors are competent enough to read through the discussion and post below; it is not an inconvenience. Please just wait for comments here. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I propose that we change the image in the info box(which is the logo) and the image on the List of episodes page(which is the title card). There has already been a lengthy discussion about this above , but there was no clear consensus. Some editors felt it looked better with the logo on the main page(Like as in House's page) this post is to see what other editors think of the idea, after reading the above discussion. If most editors want to switch the images, we will try it, to see what it will look like. If most editors don't want to switch them, we will leave it like it is.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Caringtype1 (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop creating a new section! See above. TBrandley 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are violating TPG and dictating this discussion. I understand you want your edits seen so I have merged them above, but you may not get a section of your opinion on top to own this discussion. The fact that you couldn't even respond to my above message shows that you are not competent to maintain a valid discussion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its just so its neater, and other editors aren't biased by this pointless discussions. Don't revert again. If this was an article there would be no problem with it, but this is a talk page. Im allowed to say whatever I want and you CANT edit it.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its called a talk page for a reason. TBrandley 02:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't give up so you the user can WP:OWN this discussion. Neatness is not a concern here. These discussions should influence the other users' as all points given are valid from all parties. You need to stop, TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agreed. Just trying to make a point. Thanks! TBrandley 02:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

" Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of Up All Night episodes. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)" That message was posted on my talk page last week because of a mistake i made while editing. You are doing the same thing on purpose. You need to stop.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is completely different, and unrelated to that. TBrandley 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its the same exact thing. Don't change it again.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. See, that is for deleting important comments. This is because you are trying to WP:OWN this talk page, and are no sticking by other guidelines. TBrandley 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Per TBrandley, no comments were deleted, but simply moved so you can't dictate this discussion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Caringtype1, I have opened up a case at the administrator's noticeboard about your inability to have a polite discussion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to post it one more time. Other editors can post their opinions wherever they want. Im not trying to get them to see my post on top because they would see it on top of this original post anyway. Don't change it, its pointless to change it again.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It will be deleted, as it is already included above. You clearly are not reading the comments/advice from me and TBrandley, that a new section will enable you to dictate the discussion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an discussion above about switching the logo on the main page, with the title card on the list of episodes. Please read that discussion because no clear consensus was reached and we would like to get more opinions. Thank you.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that my opinion is still on top because I was the one who originally posted it. How is that dictated???Caringtype1 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On top of a new section with no below comments is dictating discussion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes NO SENSE!!! you make the new section! I don't care!! I just wanted to see what other editors thought of my idea!! what is wrong with that???Caringtype1 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is going to comment; they will obviously have read the above discussion, where you state your idea multiple times. I recommend you don't add the section again, or you will have violated WP:3RR. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its okay to have an open mind. Just don't violate guidelines, etc. Okay. TBrandley 02:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how many rules you are violating?? Come on, you are accomplishing NOTHING and you are doing it on purpose because you want to keep things the way they are, and disagree with SUGGESTION, I never even changed it!!Caringtype1 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No rules were violated by TBrandley, but only by you. You have been going against consensus by making a new section header to dictate this discussion. Can you just start acting civil (stop screaming in cap letters), and wait for users to respond directly below? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

thats the point, no one is going to respond after this big long argument with the same three people!!! thats why we need a new section!!Caringtype1 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are. If someone truly cares, they will see the 'logo' header, read the discussion, and comment. Instead of arguing, I recommend reading up on Wikipedia's key policies, as I have mentioned. Your continuous reverting makes me feel as though your edits are not in good faith. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

YOU ARE USING THE "RULES" TO EGT YOUR OWN WAY AND THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT IN GOOD FAITH!Caringtype1 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am truly trying to get you to understand me. Please stop shouting; as it comes off as very rude. Supporting arguments with Wikipedia's policies are the basis of what this project is about. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

PUTTING THINGS IN BOLD IS THE SAME AS ALL CAPS, AND "STOP SHOUTING" ARE YOU SERIOUS??? YOU ARE BEING CONDESCENDING AND I AM AWARE OF ALL POLICIES AND AM NOT BREAKING ANY OF THEM!!!!Caringtype1 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not aware of all policies by the way you have been responding, and acting. I am not being condescending; I am trying to get you to understand mine and TBrandley's reasoning. Emboldening is to try to emphasize a word, caps lock is shouting. You really need to take some time to review policies on user etiquette. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is appalling. I'm done with this discussion, Im done with all "Awake" related articles, I'm done with pointlessly arguing with you. Its not worth my time, and by the way, don't assume someone is a woman because Im not.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with all of TRLIJC19's comments above. TBrandley 03:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well maybe in your absence you should review some policies and guidelines. Also, sorry, but when did I imply that you were a woman? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At the admin noticeboard page. TBrandley 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I kept saying he/she but I guess I mistakenly said she by accident. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Combining references

I was thinking something like this instead of what we have now:

The series' episodes were written by Killen, Gordon, Evan Katz, Lisa Zwerling, Noelle Valdivia, Leonard Chang, Davey Holmes, and David Graziano.

---

Waddya think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Character list

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of several character articles into this talk page's article was:

Not Done—No Consensus to Merge.
— — — — —

Request posted to Merge the Britten family , Hannah Britten , Michael Britten , Rex Britten articles into the Awake (TV series) article, or create a new article (proposed "List of Awake (TV series) characters") to be created or not per this discussion.

All the character articles should be merged into a character list. This TV series lasted only 1 season, and most TV series only use a character list, so there's no reason to have so many character articles for this TV series. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is sufficient sourcing for the characters, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That doesn't mean that we have to keep articles either. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The length of the series is not relevant. If sufficient sourcing exists, then the articles stay, bar none. "Most" TV series don't use only a character list; in fact, quite a lot have standalone character articles (e.g. Gregory House, Adrian Monk, Horatio Caine). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Whether we have separate articles or a single article is an editorial decision. The number of sources does not indicate that we are required to have separate articles. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• It actually can, in some cases. TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• All of those characters are from notable shows, e.g. they lasted more than one season and had significant ratings and fanbase. While I liked 'Awake', it was a commercial failure, and there's not any evidence that it even had a cult fanbase. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see why you objecting to having a WP:CONSENSUS discussion concerning the matter, the discussion would determine the fate of the articles, instead of you just deleting the merge tags. You have made your points, so why not let them stand and have the community weigh in on the proposal instead of hiding it away and not having any such consensus determination? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because this is a WP:SNOW case and you're just not seeing it. Literally no one is going to support a merge when every article you're suggesting be merged is either GA-class, or at least well-sourced enough to stand on its own. I have no idea what's so hard for you to grasp here. Good sources = article; no good sources = no article. There are good sources in the article, therefore, there should be an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a SNOW oppose, since we've had many instances of large character articles merged into lists in the history of Wikipedia, for characters much more notable than these. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can't believe this is even controversial. The characters have no significance outside the scope of this single short-lived show, and likely never will. They do not have enough independent importance to merit having stand-alone pages. The most relevant guideline is WP:BKD, but also WP:EXISTENCE, maybe WP:FAN. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there are numerous sources available for article improvement and expansion, specifically for Michael Britten. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You ignored my point. That character has no significance outside the scope of the show; this character did not become a pop-culture icon. To your point: Lots of sources doesn't equal notability. See WP:PUFF, WP:MASK, maybe even WP:Pokémon test. My local high school's basketball team has a lot of sources too, but that doesn't mean each player should get his own page. --GrantBnet (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Awake (TV series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703040217/http://www.zap2it.com:80/news/pictures/zap-best-one-season-tv-shows-pictures,0,1810284.photogallery?index=22 to http://www.zap2it.com/news/pictures/zap-best-one-season-tv-shows-pictures,0,1810284.photogallery?index=22
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc.com/awake/video/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote significant parts of the article that had a lot of problems, mostly relating to issues of "fancruft":

• I removed a significant amount of totally unnecessary detail. It does not improve an article to, for example, list the exact date when every single business decision related to the show took place.
• Many parts of the article repeated the same information as other portions; I tried to cut this down but there's still a lot more work to be done on this front.
• I removed as much extraneous gushing as I could find, where people who clearly think the show is the absolute height of brilliance and drama found quotes to this point (many of whom were from the creators of the show themselves—it is not notable or encyclopedic to quote the person who wrote the pilot as saying the pilot is really good). Finding a source who agrees with what you feel does not, in and of itself, make what you feel objective or notable.
• Specifically removed a bunch of borderline-condescending quotes about how the show was just too complicated for normies to understand
• Removed any non-notable stuff about the "fan base". Every show has a fan base. Every fan base has, as the article stated "viewer loyalty". Fans of a canceled show starting a "campaign" to try to "save" it is extremely common and rarely notable. The fan base has to be truly exceptional (probably to the point where it is recognized and discussed by the culture at large including those who don't care a single bit about the show or franchise) for it to be notable. Stop putting this self-stroking bullshit in here.
• Removed speculation about "why" the show was canceled. This is another common tactic of ~ f a n s ~ and is probably on every single Wikipedia article about every show that lasted less than twelve seasons: if they can get away with denying the show had low ratings, they'll blame scheming network executives; if (as in the case of Alive) they can't, they blame the low ratings on the time slot or other external factors. Nothing is ever the fault of the quality of the show; it's always someone else's fault. At any rate, it's speculation, so it doesn't belong here.
• Finally (and I guess less polemically), I removed a list of where it's available on streaming; the citations were several years old, and this sort of list is likely to change faster than people can keep up with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literally Satan (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)