Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fan Stuff

Someone should probably add a paragraph or two about the various fan-related events that took place during and after Earth 2's original network run. I seem to recall reading that fans of the series were the first to run a full-page ad in Variety magazine; they also paid for an airplane to pull a banner supporting the series at some awards show. Plus, there were a few Earth 2 conventions put together by fans following the demise of the series.

I thought there was some fan-related information on the main page...did someone delete it? If anyone is interested, I can help add some of that stuff...I was one of the organizers of the "Sky Ad" that flew over the site of the 1995 Emmy Awards (where E2 won for Special Visual Effects) as well as New PacifiCon '98 and a contributor to the Variety Ad...and an attendee at New PacifiCon '96... and so on and so on... - Maryb889 04:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need verifiable sources for that kind of information or we can't put it within the article, sorry. Matthew 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what would be considered verifiable but I have lots of items from these events. There really was no press. But I can get my copy of the Variety Ad, my NP'96 and '98 programs...stuff like that. I have video of the Sky Ad but not sure how that helps here. Is that good enough? Let me know what works and I'll see what I can do. I just think in light of the fan-related renewal for Jericho it would be cool to show how we tried to do the same thing...that E2's fans cared that much, too. We just weren't successful. - Maryb889

If you have the issue number (or publication date) of the magazine then that's a verifiable source, yea. This site has some mention of fan campaigns (that's a verifiable source as well), I believe Earth2TV also had some mention -- but it seems the owner has shut the website down. Also, is the Sky Ad video uploaded online? It would be pretty nice to see it (I only started watching the series in 2006)! Matthew 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding UPN Information

After NBC dropped the show, UPN expressed some interest in picking it up. A promotional video was quickly put together to show UPN executives (you used to be able to see it at an Earth 2 website). However, changes that had been instituted by new showrunners that NBC had brought in turned UPN off of the series. I cannot find much information about this aside from Usenet and Earth2TV.com so I am not sure what to say about it. But I think the page needs a paragraph about how close we came to Season Two. 209.51.77.64 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're looking at http://www.earth2tv.com/info/second-season. First of all, good lord, those were some crappy changes they wanted to make. Perhaps it's better that the series died after a good first season rather than a horrible second one. I'll write up a paragraph later when I'm not so tired, but I agree it should be mentioned. Are fansites like this considered an acceptable source though? Koweja 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's added. If anyone can find any other sources, that would be great, because right now we only have this one source to go one.

Cast, Episode Guide to seperate pages

Given how large the cast section is, perhaps it should be moved to a seperate page. Same goes for the episode guide. 209.51.77.64 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The page as a whole isn't that long, and both of thoses sections are fairly short - especially when compared to cast/episode lists for other shows. You really only need to split off episode guides when the series runs for several years and/or there are detailed entries for each episode. The Earth 2 guide has neither of those two qualities, nor does it really need them. As a result, it's easier to really all of Wikipedia's information on the show when it's kept to one page. Koweja 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind, I'm undecided now. The page is now just over 30kb, which is kind of long, but not really. I'm planing on expanding the episode descriptions soon, but I'm not yet sure how long the page will be. If the episode section gets really large (say around half the size of the article), then we should split it. But, for right now, let's leave it. Unless other people feel strongly about spliting the page. Koweja 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60 min?

Were the episodes actually 60 minutes long, or has someone included commercials in the running time? Arctic Gnome 16:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty min includes commercials. The Man Who Fell to Earth (Two) was 47 minuets long, so I'm going update the page to reflect that. Koweja 02:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth 2 at Wikiquote

I've started an Earth 2 page at Wikiquote, so if anyone has any good Earth 2 quotes, please add them. Koweja 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order of two of the episodes

"After the Thaw" aired April 2th and "The Boy Who Would be Terrian King" aired April 23rd. Now Thaw takes place 109 days after the crash and Terrian King takes place 104 days after the crash. Is this another case of the network screwing around with the series and showing them out of order, or did the show's writers decide to make Terrian King take place out of sequence? Koweja 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few episodes shown out of order. The DVD package reflects the initial air date of each episode. This was because of the strange time slot NBC gave to the series. Some say this was done to bury the series and make it go away. I remember Earth 2's time slot was changed around a bit before finally landing on Sundays at 6:30 or 7pm. It was often pre-empted by sporting events which ran late, or ignored all together in favor of a championship game. For whatever reason, those skipped episodes were shown later in a rerun slot (although they hadn't been shown until then), which is the reason for the later air dates. In addition, there were many different writers for the individual episodes, which created minor continuity errors between episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.150 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

It appears that many sections of the article are directly copied and pasted from Ann White's Earth 2 FAQ. Did anyone secure her permission before copy-pasting the data onto Wikipedia? --Edward Sandstig 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It appears it was copied word-for-word, I've removed all the plagiarised text and will start doing some work to this page soon once I've finished with the LOE. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing text.

Look and you shall find what I'm talking about. One of the sentences is cut off, near the beginning. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the series, so I can't amend this. 83.21.19.172 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's fixed - that was fast, too. 83.21.19.172 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Martin = Proto-Baltar?

Just thinking, they resemble each other in manner, morals and appearance. - MSTCrow 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen Baltar compared to Morgan before, hehe. Matthew 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ooooh....not nice! Besides, technically Baltar predates Morgan...so I think not so much...but I'm biased, being Morgan's biggest fan and all... - Maryb889 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mooncross

I'm generally against linkspam but this website seems OK, due to the nature of the show not being massively popular it's unlikely Wikipedia will definitively cover the show -- so the information contained on that website is valuable to our readers. Matthew 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaal

Shouldn't something be said about Tim Curry's role as Gaal?

No. I am sure Tim Curry would agree.

Fair use rationale for Image:Earth2.jpg

Image:Earth2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

x files reference

I added a reference where they mention the tv show in an episode "one breath" Mindflayerz (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section is for listing citations, not for one show talking about this one :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the US, Australia and Poland?!

This show aired in germany, too. I think in 1996/97. Afaik it aired in Austria and Switzerland, too. TomGaribaldi (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also aired in Sweden. --Fiskbil (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching it in Ireland as a kid, probably on Sky1 Crumplecorn (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also aired in Norway in 1998 and as a rerun some time later. 193.215.199.34 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aired in Slovakia in 2003 too, not sure if earlier. It aired at least once in the Czech Republic and Hungary as well, but I'm not sure of the exact dates.--ZemplinTemplar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced criticism

This article could use some negative criticism. I just watched part of the first episode, and my impression was that it was one of the most implausible sci-fi plots ever written. Going 22 light years to provide a healthy environment for a couple dozen kids? A government attempting to blow up a ship it would never see arrive anyhow? Letting kids run off and contact local wildlife on an alien planet? Add to that appalling random, weak acting from most of the leads. I was watching it for free, without commercials, and I turned it off after an hour. Surely other critics must have done the same. Wikipedia is not a fan site. This article needs balance on this. Sincerely, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balance? I don't know if you've actually read the article, but there's no criticism at all included here—neither positive nor negative! It only sticks to the facts about the show. Oh well. If there was a "Reception" section, then maybe some (from both sides, that is) could be relayed here. That said, I believe your comments do not belong at all on Wikipedia: you come and write about a television program on its discussion page as if it were an IMDb message board or something alike. If you're not happy about the show, fine. If you felt you've wasted your time watching it, fine. But keep it to yourself (or to other, more appropriate websites) while we're busy working constructively on the article. Thank you.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 06:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the show was terrible, I watched the entire thing on netflix and it makes Battlestar Galactica (1978) seem like War and Peace. There was a reason there was only 1 season the article should mention this.

Adair & Adair

Does the name Devon Adair have any connection to the publisher Devin-Adair Co? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why it was canceled found

I'm having trouble finding a reliable source to mention this, but many state that they brought in new people to take over the series, and released a promo for season 2 and all of its changes, found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VGW8P06dKc and other places, and that seeing the changes NBC decided they didn't want the new season. What reliable sources out there would have discussed this? Dream Focus 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth 2 (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/20090204014518/http://www.episodeguides.com/scripts/getshow.php?s=0x7f0&p=credits&m=html&remote= to http://www.episodeguides.com/scripts/getshow.php?s=0x7f0&p=credits&m=html&remote=

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) 19:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging List of Earth 2 episodes to here

Single-season television series do generally not have standalone "List of [...] episodes" articles (basically, as per WP:TVOVERVIEW – for example, see this earlier merge proposal). As such, the episodes list at List of Earth 2 episodes should be merged back to this article. If no opposition is offered, I'll preform a merge of this list of episodes back to the main TV series article in the future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. Look at the part beneath it at the image showing how the "overview table" should look, showing season information like that. It has nothing to do with listing the episodes for each season. Oppose eliminating a perfect valid article to shove it into this article. It'd be too long together, best to have them separate. Dream Focus 21:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: It's common WP:TV practice to not have list of episode articles for one-season TV series (at least, not for those with less than 20–30 episodes) – if you don't believe me, ask over in WT:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Support merging the two articles together. A seperate List of Episodes article is unnecessary considering the first and only season of the show has only 22 episodes. There wasn't even an explanation as to why it was made in the first place. @Dream Focus: Merging the two articles would not make the main article too long. At most the two articles merged together would only be 35 Kilobytes and that's before the redundant content gets removed. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The episode summary article was made in 2006‎. Looking at both articles, I don't see why anyone would want to shove all that together now. Its easier to read through by having it separate. And IJBall, no I don't believe you, and I will ask over there, since I know I've seen plenty of episode lists even when there was only one season. Dream Focus 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you would list those, as those will need to be merged back to their main TV series article at some point too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: One-season series generally don't get list of episode articles. On rare occasions, when the first season contains about as many episodes as two seasons would, then a list of episodes may be appropriate, but it all depends. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IJBall and Amaury. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, both this discussion and this discussion at WT:TV pretty clearly show that there is in fact consensus that single-season TV series should not have standalone LoE articles in most cases. As a result, I'm going to give this discussion a little more time, but if no further policy-based opposition is offered, I am likely to carry out the merge of the LoE to here in the near future... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the link to the archived version of that WT:TV discussion: Archived discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merger of episodes list back to this parent TV article completed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Earth 2 (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:

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) 01:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging 'Cast' and 'Characters' sections

It is generally not necessary for 'Cast' and 'Characters' to be in separate sections, and it certainly isn't necessary at this article. Please feel free to post comments on this proposal, but if there are no dissenting followup comments posted here, I will go ahead and merge those sections in the near future... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging separate episode summaries for "First Contact"

I have combined the two entries for "First Contact" in the episodes table – it aired as a 2-hour movie, has a single production code, and single entries in both the U.S.C.O. and WGAW databases. In other words, it's a single episode, according to everyone but Epguides.

I have continued to count it as episodes # "1–2" in the episodes table, for now. But a good case can be made that "First Contact" should be counted as just episode # "1", and the other episodes renumbered to reflect that there are 21 episodes for the series rather than 22. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth 2 (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/20081008072902/http://umsa7.ums.edu/~anniebw/earth2/e2faq1.html to http://umsa7.ums.edu/~anniebw/earth2/e2faq1.html

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) 00:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order

Episodes are always listed in airing order in WP:TV. There are basically no exceptions to this. Production codes are included so that people can track the chronological order of the episodes. In addition, this article specifically has prose which discusses this issue. Ergo, there is zero reason not to follow long-standing WP:TV practice, and list in airing order, as we do everywhere else. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add: To clarify, I mean "episodes are always listed in airing order in WP:TV" in the episodes tables/listings. In case that's not clear... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The reason many networks air a lot of their shows out of production order is because chronological order doesn't matter, for the most part. You can watch any one episode first without needing to watch others to get an idea of what the show is about. If there's a story arc in a show that otherwise doesn't air in production order, episodes part of the arc will air in production order. For shows where the story is important and the story carries from one episode to the next, airing order will match production order, and in such cases, the column for the production codes is usually not used. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: "Episodes are always listed in airing order" - please cite a guideline that says this. Typically, original airdate = production order = narrative order, so this isn't an issue, so you can't really apply the logic that we "always use airdates" - most articles never deal with this issue in a meaningful way, usually because the narrative isn't disrupted. In the case of this series, episodes were aired out of production order, and that order is easily contradicted by the narrative progression that carries over episode to episode. The airing order in this case is a jumble only due to the internal mechanisms of the TV programming business - not anything else. Wikipedia does not have to perpetuate that error. Also, most people consuming this nowadays do so via streaming services - which use the corrected production/narrative order rather than original air date. So seeing a list which doesn't match that is a surprise and doesn't match expectations. Remember, readers first. The prose you're mentingin in the DVD section Already acknowledges that "two episodes ("Natural Born Grendlers" and "Flower Child") being ordered after the final episode, "All About Eve" ". Its a notation about an MISTAKE on the DVDs, and contradicts the listing we give just above. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is in a guideline. But if you don't believe me, go ask in WT:TV, and see if anyone there agrees that episodes should be listed in anything other than airing order. (It's probably not in a guideline as it would seem to be self evident.) As User:Geraldo Perez and I both have been trying to point out, this is why we often include production codes: for many series, esp. those from the 80s and 90s, episodes were often aired out of chronological order – this series is far from the only example of this happening. But we never list that way on Wikipedia, as doing so would be tantamount to WP:OR (because even production code orders do not always correspond to "chronological story order"). So we always go by airdates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"we always go by airdates" You keep repeating that like its a mantra. Why is "airdate" so much more important to you than narrative order? Do you have nothing to say about the point that modern viewers would express surprise and confusion about the listed order here? IMDB lists the series in narrative order, Netflix does (did, its currently not available for streaming, but it was), multiple reviewers make a point to tell readers about the proper order over and over again. Indeed, the most recent DVD release fixed the mistakes, and put it in narrative order. This isn't some off-the-cuff WP:OR - its well-known. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Yes, you (may) discuss chronological/story ordering in the prose. Which has been my whole point – that is where you discuss details like that. But the episodes are always listed in airing order. Again, don't take my word for it – if you don't believe me, ask about listing by airing order in WT:TV. And, no, there should be no surprise about this – the sources we list to, such as Zap2It and Futon Critic, always list in terms of airing order, as did old-style internet episode guides before there even was a Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would look much better to place the list in narrative order to match expectations, and to add a note to the episode section which explains that the list isnt using air date order. That's an easy add. I was around and read the old internet episode guides for this series, and I can promise you that they ALL covered the airing order error and indeed listed the series in narrative order. Those guides were written by fans, for fans. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

This article is documenting a broadcast television series and reports on what the broadcaster actually did. We don't need to do original research WP:NOR into the motives of the broadcaster as to why they choose that airing sequence over some other one or analyze the narrative flow of the series to correct things, we just report what aired in the sequence it aired. People interested in the production order can go by the production codes which usually matches some creator desired narrative flow. If this article were focusing on Netflix streaming we would order it by that sequence. So far this article matches the DVD order and the broadcast order and Netflix is doing production order. I see no reason to change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you actually try to accuse this of being OR when I've listed several sources which give specific information about the 'correct' order? How insulting to the process. Either evaluate my references, find fault or concede the point.... but to make an accusation of OR is improper at its core. This article does NOT match the order of episodes as given in the latest (2012) official DVD release - see the Den of Geek review and Static Mass review (which includes the episode list explicitly. Indeed, the apparent insistence on using "air date" for episode order could also be called OR. We should use episode orders as given by reliable sources, not the arbitrary whim of a WP editor that feels air date is paramount to all other considerations. I have given reliable sources for the correct episode order. Do you have any better? -- Netoholic @ 09:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Seriously? Airdate order = OR?! That's an absurd claim. Going by airing order is documenting how the show was actually broadcast – that's what we're supposed to do: be a historical chronicler of events... Again, if you've got souring that tells us something else, you are free to add that to the prose of the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, how episodes are broadcast—and sold on sites like Amazon, if applicable—overrides everything else. We are documenting a TV series and as such should list things how they air, not how they are listed on DVDs. Listing things in any other order than the airing order falls under WP:OR. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with that either – how episodes are listed in the DVD release isn't "OR", and something like the episode order on the DVD(s) is verifiable and can be included in the article as "additional info". Ditto prod. codes. Or any WP:RS that speaks to the "chronological order" of the episodes as opposed to the airing order is also legitimate to include. What I do think is that something like that does not "supercede" the original broadcast/airing order, and the latter is how we should, and how we have always, listed the episode order in episode tables. This other stuff, then, can be included in the prose, with the appropriate inline citing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering by air date is a choice which is completely arbitrary without any particular reliable source to back it up. Airdate is usually sufficient because it typically matches the episode order that is also used in reliable sources - Wikipedia doesn't use airdate just because dogmatically "we should" or "we have always". In the case of THIS article, though, it is not sufficient. I've listed several sources which place the episodes in an order which does not conform to the the airing order. Wikipedia must use episode order as expressed by these sources - to do otherwise is Wikipedia editors expressing their own preference to override those sources, which is the essence of original research. AS far as I'm aware, the Static Mass review is the most definitive because it expressly recounts the episode order in the most recent home media release of this series. That release includes a card which acknowledges the airing date problem, and the producers have corrected this release. It can be said to be currently the most definitive episode order available. -- Netoholic @ 06:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a choice. It's standard practice. As I already explained, networks air a lot of their shows out of production order because they can be watched in any order and the plot of the show can still be understood. The only episodes that are really ever "important" for those shows are the pilots since they explain things, but the other regular episodes can be watched in any order. For example, a Thanksgiving episode could be the last episode you watch in a season when it was actually aired halfway through that season.

In any case, when it comes to episode tables, broadcasting/airing order supersedes everything else, and as such, we list things by air date since that is the primary means by which a show is delivered. Home media is secondary. If the episode order differs on a DVD, then that can be mentioned in prose in a home media section, but the episode tables are ordered by air date. That's all there is to it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"broadcasting/airing order supersedes everything else" - Again, please cite a Wikipedia guideline which says this. Without a project-wide consensus shown in an existing guideline, the reliable sources are what is going to "supercede" everything else. I'll also add this for this series, this is not a simple thing of just ordering by production codes - the *narrative* of the series is conflated if sorted by airdate. (Almost) every episode begins with a specific time reference (day # or week #) and certain key narrative elements carry over week-to-week. In this case, the ordering IS very important, which is why the series was fixed in the most recent home media release. -- Netoholic @ 07:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked repeatedly to go to WT:TV and ask there if this is standard practice. If you think this needs to be explicitly spelled out in MOS:TV then, again, you need to go to WT:TV or to WT:MOSTV and propose that there. Arguing here about it here is pointless, as there's is already an established consensus, shown in this discussion, that the listing should be as per the broadcast order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it doesn't matter. The episodes themselves and how they were broadcast are reliable WP:PRIMARY sources, which supersede what any other source says. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its standard practice, that is only because usually it doesn't make a difference. If this is to be so strictly enforced, though, you should be easily able to cite me the relevant guideline. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go complain in WT:TV about it – there is nothing we can do about it here. If you want it changed, you need to do it there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With no Wikipedia guideline cited, and only dogmatic assertions given above, then reliable sources will dictate for us the episode order. I'm working on a sandbox version of this table, which will include *both* the viewing order and the airdate order, giving preferential sorting to the viewing order because THAT is what reliable sources describe as the episode order. This solution does not have to dictate how other articles are handled. I suggest if you want STRICT airdate ordering to he a guideline, you push it through on those project pages. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've told you repeatedly that this is standard practice. Not everything has to be a written guideline. It's called using common sense. If you try to force your changes against consensus, expect to be reverted and reported. Now go complain to someone who cares, because we don't. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do that, and you'll be reverted, plain and simple. We list episode tables by airing order in WP:TV. Now, this has gotten out of hand enough that I am forced to let WT:TV know about this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to arrive at a consensus for this, it'd be preferable. Calling something "standard practice" but not citing a written guideline is oxymoronic - if its standard, its written. WP has been around a loooong time, these discussions have happened before. You're being dogmatic, and now just dismissive. When there is no other guideline, then we must adhere to the the Five pillars - all articles must satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. For the episode order, I have provided several sources above, and you three have given neither a written guideline nor any contradictory reliable sources. If you revert, YOU will be reported for violating these REAL guidelines for reinstating information in this article which is unsourced and unverifiable. I welcome your feedback on my sandbox version, I am hoping including BOTH orders can help reach consensus, but I advise you both to stop with the overt threats and start providing some sources or guidelines to support your assertions. -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things that we don't include in the MOS because we don't specify everything to the nth degree in order to avoid instruction creep. We leave a lot of things to common sense. IJBall is correct, it is standard practice to list episodes in the order in which they aired and this can be seen in the vast majority of articles. It's not something we should need to include in the MOS because it's so widely accepted, which in itself demonstrates a consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is only widely done because most series air in proper order. Take a look at Firefly (TV series)#Episodes - that list shows the episodes in narrative order, not airdate. That article gets more scrutiny than almost any other TV series. I think the fact that such a popular series and article uses narrative order is a prime example of real consensus for how to deal with shows aired out of order. Would anyone here actually propose to change the order of episodes there? -- Netoholic @ 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is only widely done because most series air in proper order. - It's still standard practice and it's actually quite common for episodes to air in the incorrect sequence. Firefly is a special case because it was aired so out of sequence that it effectively got the series cancelled. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, since this isn't a fansite & the narrative & airdate issues can be (should be, are) addressed in the body of the page, any tabular listings should list by production date. It only occasionally matters (the first episode of "ST:TOS" shot wasn't the first aired, frex, not even counting "Menagerie"); if anybody wants to know why they're out of sequence,read the page. Or add a note section to the table, which can't be insanely hard. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other information we include in wikipedia, "episode order" for a series is whatever reliable sources agree upon. Usually, as editors, we can shortcut this and be generally correct that airdates are the same as the episode order, but there are clearly exception. No respectable, reliable source lists Firefly in strict airdate order. They all agree that the episode order is different from airdate order. Likewise, the most reliable sources for episode order related to Earth 2 agree that airdate order is incorrect. The fact that the lastest home media release uses the narrative order indicates that the "Powers That Be" that manage the Earth 2 property agree with this. Wikipedia cannot impose an episode order which conflicts with these sources. It violates WP:Verifiability. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have the original presentation order and reliable sources that support it. The airing dates are well-referenced and order is a natural increasing date sequence showing order aired. We also have an episode creation order in the production code column, also well-referenced. All of those are well-sourced and verifiable. Consensus so far on this discussion is to continue ordering the list in original presentation order. Might be worth a second column with a column ref to show what people not involved in the production and original presentation consider the proper narrative order for maximum enjoyment of the series. I note that it differs from production order which is interesting. Usually production order is what the creators actually want so any order not matching the creation order looks to conflict with the creative intent of the production team. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airdates are sourced. Prod codes are sourced. Episode order is unsourced. Using Airdate or prod code to create an episode number or order is WP:SYNTH. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The air dates are essentially the source for the episode order—see WP:PRIMARY—as well as the episode guides which are ordered by air date. Nothing is ever ordered by production code order. That column is mostly just there to follow the order in which episodes were produced. As has been explained to you multiple times, standard practice is to list episodes by airing order, and trying to say that violates WP:VERIFY or whatever else is absurd. WP:SYNTH is for a totally different thing. If a series has three seasons totaling 82 episodes and is then renewed for a fourth season with 25 episodes announced, we can't say that there will be a total of 107 episodes once the season ends as we don't know how the network will air them. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH, which is one of the things that policy is referring to. For example, two of the episodes could end up being merged into one episode for presentation, giving us a total of 23 episodes for the season and a grand total of 105 episodes for the series. If you can't or refuse to understand this, then you're just going to keep making the same pointless arguments over and over. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you are the one being repetitive, indeed, dogmatic:

The air dates are essentially the source for the episode order - See WP:SYNTH. Airdates do not provide episode number. The fact that you used the word "essentially" demonstrates you know your argument is on shaky policy ground.
as well as the episode guides which are ordered by air date - No reliable sources cited for that assertion. See Hitchens's razor. I've given a reliable sourced list of episodes (Static Mass review). You've given nothing.
standard practice is to list episodes by airing order - No Wikipedia guideline cited for that assertion. See Hitchens's razor.

-- Netoholic @ 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If anyone's being repetitive, it's you, especially considering you're wrong. I'll just quote AussieLegend above: There are a lot of things that we don't include in the MOS because we don't specify everything to the nth degree in order to avoid instruction creep. We leave a lot of things to common sense. Either understand that or don't. It's up you, but WP:DROPTHESTICK/WP:LETITGO and go sing a new song because consensus is clearly against you here. That's all I'll reply with. It's not worth my time to write up detailed posts with someone as stubborn as you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering a table by the values in one of the columns, in this case the original airing date, is standard practice in all tables. Ordering by dates is one of the most common. The sequence number in the table just reflects that order. WP:CALC touches on how to handle simple math actions which this is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez: Your recent edit lists "Blu-ray order" - this demonstrates you aren't even bothering to read the sources. 2012 release was DVD only (see the Den of Geek / Static Mass references) - there has never been a bluray release. I suggest you instead review and use my most recent edit, which appropriately communicates the source's information. Airdate should not be use to number episodes at all, but if it must, it should be secondary numbering/ordering, because it is unsourced. The Static Mass review gives the episodes in the order that must be used here. Again, check my last edit to the page and revert to it please. -- Netoholic @ 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldo Perez: Calling it "DVD order" is no better because most readers are from the US and have the Region 1 dvd set, which used the airdate order and was corrected in the Region 2 release. Your header would be confusing to the majority of readers. Please, revert to my last edit which covers all this by labeling it "Viewing order". -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The sources are the broadcasts themselves as well the episode guides like The Futon Critic and Zap2it. There are the sources you claim I haven't alluded to. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That logic wouldn't fly for Plot information, and so it doesn't fly for episode numbering. You cannot just cite the "broadcast" as a source - WP:PRIMARY. cmon. And you've not given a link to this series at The Futon Critic and Zap2it. I'm waiting. -- Netoholic @ 10:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I did read the reference, I assumed blu-ray as most recent releases are that, it was a mistake on my part in reading the source. DVD order label seemed to match the source info. Primary order is still original airing order as that seems to be the majority opinion of people commenting on this issue so far so I can't change that. All the info you wanted is in the article as I edited. Table order is your only issue left as far as I can tell. Geraldo Perez (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Airdate or prod code to create an episode number or order is WP:SYNTH. - I think there is a misconception here. The episode numbers listed in the first column are not "episode orders" per se, they are simply meant to enable linking to the individual episode entries. The template creates an anchor based on the number for easy linking and therefore each number has to be unique. It's really nothing more than that. This way we can make claims like The 20th episode aired was "Natural Born Grendlers", and have a nice, convenient link to the episode. It's obviously convenient to number them sequentially and, because we normally add them as they are aired they coincidentally reflect the airing order. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Per this reference, "Natural Born Grendlers" is episode 7 6. Episode 20 is "Flower Child". This is the problem I'm trying to address. A link to Episode 20 should go to the correct entry "Flower Child" as given by the references. -- Netoholic @ 11:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a fact that the episode was the 20th aired. Nothing changes that. If the episode was No. 7 as you claim, why does the "DVD order" list it as number 6. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 was a typo, its 6. "20th episode aired" is of trivial importance. As seen on Firefly (TV series)#Episodes airing order doesn't supercede the episode ordering given by reliable sources when they instead place them in viewing/narrative order. Our readers care about what episode order is canonical, not air dates, as they know networks can screw with scheduling. -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide supports the order and dates listed in the article. It is a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and several other sources place the order differently. I don't know what TVGuide's standards are, but they are also splitting the pilot "First Contact" into two entries, which is odd. Why do you have a problem using the order in the Static Mass reference, which has an episode number list explicitly? -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes different sources order them differently. We do know the original presentation order and that is well-sourced. My problem with using the latest DVD set's order to order the table is that it places episodes in the table out of the order originally presented. Other DVD sets ordered them differently as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference used for the air date information in the table (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art35106.asp) ALSO places the episodes in the corrected viewing order. Why are we using that reference for air dates, but not episode order? This dogged insistence on WP:SYNTH-ing episode order by extrapolating from air dates is non-sensical when THE SOURCE for air dates doesn't even use those air dates to order the episodes. -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can change the source to TV Guide, which is a better source than the one used now in the article and we have a source for both dates and order. Still order is a function of the contents of the date column and is just a simple sort that nobody would class as synthesis in putting the table in date order. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know TV Guides editorial standards or the mechanism they use to put them in an order, but I've pointed out at least on error, which is that they split "First Contact" into two episodes. I don't find TV Guides reliable for those reasons, and since that one source is contradicted by IMDB, http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art35106.asp (the current one), and all the other sources I linked above, I see no reason for you to justify preference of it. You're grasping at straws. -- Netoholic @ 12:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are – we always go by airing order. The consensus from 3–4 other editors here is that there is zero compelling reason to deviate from established practice. So, please, just knock this off. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, FTR, I find Geraldo's addition of the 'DVD order' column to be an acceptable compromise, and that should be that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: - if it is "standard practice", then please go apply this standard to Firefly (TV series)#Episodes. All standards have exceptions, and every reason for Firefly being an exception also applies to this series. If you're not willing to apply your "standard" just as strictly at Firefly, I cannot see it as anything but hypocritical here. -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. The consensus at Firefly was that it made sense to make an exception from the standard WP:TV practice, and list the episodes in production/story order. The consensus here is that, with only a few episodes broadcast out of order, it does not make sense to make an exception from listing the episodes in broadcast order. Again – this situation here is not unique: many shows in the 80s and 90s were not aired in their "proper" production order. And it nearly all of those cases, the episodes are presented in the broadcast order at their Wikipedia articles, not in the production order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article where the eps are listed in the order of the latest DVD release doesn't match production order either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't give one screw what the "production order" is. Anyone bringing up "production order" just isn't paying attention to this discussion. I only advocate for using the episode order (aka narrative order) which is expressed in the multiple reliable sources given. -- Netoholic @ 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Chronological order is not the same thing as production order so I don't know why you keep on bringing up production order. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@74thClarkBarHG: In the vast majority of cases, they are the same. Yes, of course, you can find exceptions to that. But most of the time "production order" = "chronological story order". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@74thClarkBarHG: Generally when a series is being filmed the creative team has an outline for the overall season of the general story they want to tell over the season then break that down into the individual episodes to be filmed. The episodes are usually filmed in the order the creative team wants to tell the story as they are usually aired fairly quickly after being filmed so they don't want to produce them out of order if they can avoid it. Basically production codes are assigned in increasing sequence and that order reflects the creative intent of the actual people who want to tell the story. Viewing a series in production order is viewing a series the way the creators intended it to be viewed to tell the story the way they want to tell it. The network for whatever reasons they have may choose to present (air) the episodes out of the order created. Sometimes creators of a work of fiction like to do flashbacks and flash forwards as part of how they want their work to be enjoyed. Sometimes critics of a work don't like what the creator or presenter did and want to reorder presentation some other way, this the crux of this discussion. We generally document presentation order as we don't need to get into reasons for things and just give the information in the article in the order given. We include production codes for people who wish to watch the series as the creator intended if that differs from presentation order. Secondary markets like Netflix or syndication usually show the series in production order. In this case we also have a recent DVD set with one of those reorders and the discussion is whether or not that should override the presentation order, and the production order, as the way to order the list in this article. Concensus so far is to stick with what we normally do and order the list in order presented. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the television industry. There is no such thing fundamentally as a "production order" - there are only production code numbers. On any particular day, the crew might shoot several scenes which are used across multiple episodes (prod codes). This might be based on what actors are available, filming locations, sets built, etc. Production codes are assigned early in the process to each episode in a rough order as the writers complete scripts, but the realities of TV shooting means some sideplots may be shuffled around, and some main stories might be reordered by the producers to form a more coherent narrative. Prod codes are used to mainly track for billing and credits, not to communicate any sort of narrative order as that would be only the roughest gauge of intent. For episode numbers and ordering, we should be exclusively looking at what the consensus is among reliable sources. Stop guessing based on airdates and prod numbers - neither of those are accurate for episode order in all cases. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said generally. TV is not the same as film. Usually they get a few in the can before the season starts then start producing episodes as quickly as they are able to keep ahead of them being aired. They are not generally all done before the season starts. Joss Whedon on one of his forums described the process when they were producing Buffy, it is an assembly line and they work quickly and efficiently. Yes there are times when stuff needs to be done out of narrative order, but they don't like to do that. Production codes are for bookkeeping but generally, not always, give a good idea of the order desired by the creators. Any source of information that is not tied to the creation process cannot know the details of what was intended. Critics no matter how much they can be relied upon to be good sources of critical analysis are imposing their own judgement, what they say is not authoritative to the original intent unless they actually have and are reporting what the creator desired. Tim Minear was quite vocal about how the network screwed up Firefly and there is a lot of details about what happened there. Do we have any well sourced reports that interviewed the creators of Earth 2 and asked them what they actually intended and what happened with this show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be one of the difficulties, as essentially the entire creative team was removed and a new team was going to be brought in if there had been a 2nd season. We're also talking about a situation that happened in 1994/1995, pre-internet and possible harder to find a clear statement from any particular individual. One way to see the intent, though, is to look at how the series was packaged for re-airing when it was moved to SciFi.com. A 1998 archive from the SciFi.com page for the series lists the episodes in the fixed narrative order. This is so close to the time of the cancellation, that the intent of the creators can be inferred very strongly. Scifi.com is a subsidiary of the original network that aired the show, NBC. If there was communication from the creators about narrative intent - clearly Sci.com would have been aware of it. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth 2 (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/20060914204435/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/44/59244/review783.php to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/44/59244/review783.php

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) 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]