Jump to content

Talk:Covert Affairs

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

Annie's cover job

[edit]

Just want to point out that the following sentence is incorrect: Anne Dudek as Danielle Brooks: Annie's older sister, who is married and has two children, and in whose guest house Annie lives.She is unaware of Annie's real career, knowing only Annie's cover—that she is a curator at the Smithsonian Museum. Annie actually uses the cover of being in charge of aquisitions, not curator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.116.249 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the statement is correct. Might want to be checked though.Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I see it now. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the unregistered user is correct. Still, should probably be verified first. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verified by episode 8, 33m 20s in: "I don't carry a gun, and I'm not a curator, I'm in acquisitions." Doubt she's in charge of acquisitions though. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin song names

[edit]

Sorry everyone, that anonymous comment about Annie Walker's cover came from me. I forgot my login info. Something else just caught my eye while reading this article tonight. It seems that every episode is named after a Led Zeppelin song. Houses of the Holy, Communication Breakdown, When the Levee Breaks, What is and What Should Never Be, Fool in the Rain, and I Can't Quit You Baby are all titles of Led Zeppelin songs. Perhaps worth a bit of research and an inclusion in the article as I'm thinking this would be one heck of a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogey4brian (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has been added a bunch of times, will get removed by Drmargi as trivial. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And unsourced. Let's not forget that. Drmargi (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confess to not knowing much about how all of this works at Wikipedia, but I don't understand why the FACT that every episode is also the name of a Led Zeppelin song needs any source. It would need a source if the article stated a reason for the episode titles, but not simply noting an absolute fact. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.116.249 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, facts need sources. See WP:OR. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Read Wikipedia:Truth.--intelati(Call) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I don't understand why every single sentence in every article doesn't have a source. However, it's noted at the imdb website. Isn't that a reputible source? I seem to recall seeing it referenced in other articles.......I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.116.249 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMBD has all user summited facts. thus it is not a reliable source. Sucks, yes, but good for us.--intelati(Call) 15:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I suppose I can do my part and try to find a reputible source, but being a newbie at all of this I don't know what is considered reputible and what isn't. Or would having a source even matter? If it's already been pulled for being considered trivial I guess I'd be wasting my time. I disagree with it not being included assuming a good source can be found, though. I think it's a interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.116.249 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here would be a good start for you. If you want to add something to any article, you have to have a source for that statement.--intelati(Call) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you need to know the show's intent, and provide evidence to support it. Otherwise, you're just adding your own observation regarding the titles, which is WP:OR. And on some level, they are trivial -- what does Led Zep song titles for episodes have to do with the show and it's plot line? Darned if I know. THE IMDB is user-submitted and rarely fact-checked. It's not reliable. Drmargi (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one person deciding what is trivial is wrong, especially when Wikipedia is a user-submitted site. Besides, no other source is necessary other than looking at your Led Zeppelin library and finding all of the episode titles share names with the songs. A coincidence, I think not, and that is a verifiable fact. As for a reason as why the creators of the show did this, I have no clue, and it might yet still become a factor in the show. It is a fun fact in the least. Yittria 13:23, 1 October 2010

And when the producers make their intentions, and motive, known, you've got content to add to the article. Until then your phrase, "coincidence, I think not" says it all: it's your thinking, which is WP:OR and that's not suitable for inclusion. This isn't a case of one editor deciding anything. It's simply my rationale for the edits I made. If this discussion leads to consensus that is in line with Wikipedia practices and determines there is reliable evidence that the titles are something more than a phenomenon, however deliberate, that readers are noticing, then it should go in the article. Right now, it's just as likely to be a Led Zep fan showrunner amusing himself as anything substantive that's motivating these titles. Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find anything that is going to help us get this interesting bit of information into the article under the guidelines I've read. It's a real shame though, especially given the fact that it's a very interesting fact. I guess this Wikipedia thing just isn't for me Bogey4brian (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire argument is stupid and it shouldn't be considered trivial, as I found it interesting in reading it here... and hadn't noticed this before. If it's happening, then it's a fact, regardless of the producer's intent. I don't see why an entry can't be made that "So far, every episode in has been titled with the name of a son, Led Zeppelin for season 1 and R.E.M. for season 2." That is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.64.239 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIA Director of the NCS

[edit]

This title is mentioned a few times throughout the article and is kind of unnecesary. The NCS is within the organisational chart of the CIA so calling the head of NCS the CIA director of NCS is kind of redundant, sort of reminds when NCIS was called Navy NCIS for its first season. Pat (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie's languages

[edit]

In Ep 2.13 I am pretty sure they indicate that she at least understands Basque too.

Khallus Maximus (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list

[edit]

I believe the female lead of the program is Piper Perabo, not Emily Blunt. 91.125.72.202 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is. We have a rather persistent IP who seems to have confused the two, who bear a superficial resemblance to one another and appeared in a film together. For the IP, please stop edit warring this point, and see http://www.usanetwork.com/covertaffairs/cast/annie-walker for casting details. This link will verify that Annie Walker is played by Piper Perabo, not Emily Blunt. --Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theme song?

[edit]

Anyone have solid sourcing for details about the theme song? Several websites say the performer is Apple Trees and Tangerines, not Power. Dezastru (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that the band was called Power when the song was recorded, and later renamed Apple Trees, etc. We'd use the name at the time of recording. --Drmargi (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, that would explain things. But we do need a source, I'd think. Also, is the actual title "Can You Save Me" or "Can You Save Me?" Dezastru (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It sounds like a question, but it's in the iTunes Music Store without, and the artists are identified as Power, so there's your source if we can find a way to cite it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't even hard: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/covert-affairs-theme-single/id386943777 --Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look into that, but I don't think an iTunes listing counts as a reliable source. How do we know that the listing doesn't refer to a cover by a different group, called Power, of the version that was recorded for Covert Affairs (assuming that Power wasn't the original and only band that has recorded the song)? I tried facebook, but this group seems to be changing its name a lot, currently Flint Eastwood apparently. And I haven't seen any mention on their website of "Can You Save Me" (licensing restrictions from the tv studio?). We could come up with all sorts of explanations. If there is a reliabe source somewhere, it won't be necessary. Dezastru (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyal Lavin/Lavine

[edit]

Where is the definite confirmation that the spelling is Eyal Lavin? IMDB credits him as Eyal Lavine, and articles about Oded Fehr and his role use both spellings intermittently. What would be considered definite proof of the correctness of the spelling?kystilla (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Network uses Lavin. IMDB is user-submitted and doesn't fact check. They're incredibly unreliable. Most media interviews with the producer about the character that I've seen, including the recent ones regarding this week's appearance use Lavin. --Drmargi (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Releases

[edit]

If you who removed the table with DVD releases are reading Wikipedia, you can see that 95% of the DVD releases are NOT including any references, only for the latest/coming releases!!! So put it back on the website!!Vuono (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the history there was never a table of DVD releases on this article just the prose. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this it is very much informative to have a table of DVD releases as I put on the website. The website's information is not up to date for all released DVDs. Vuono (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

[edit]

Get your facts straight. The series has an 85% overall critic rating for the show. Don't just post the season 1's review for the entire show. Jesus, if you're gonna lock this page then edit it properly for God's sake. 2607:FB90:64EC:E56C:0:33:DDA9:C401 (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 05:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is a block-evading sock of RedDeadJohn and his sizable sock farm. His editing is highly disruptive, and often designed to vandalize articles. --Drmargi (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the heads-up. clpo13(talk) 06:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. He is all over the USA Network show articles like a rash, and has been for months. You can't take a word he said seriously. I have cleaned up more of his messes than I care to think of, and no doubt missed more. --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

[edit]

The first season has an 81% approval rating on rotten tomatoes 2607:FB90:1363:88B6:0:45:355F:B301 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

[edit]

I would like add some reviews to reception area. 108.45.90.203 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is part of the RedDeadJohn sock farm, and engaged in block evasion. see above. --Drmargi (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also per Drmargi. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covert Affairs. 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, 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) 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covert Affairs. 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, 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) 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Covert_Affairs&oldid=1201206559"