Talk:Forever (2014 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger of Forever (U.S. TV series) and Forever (2014 TV series)

We have 2 articles on the same upcoming ABC television series. I wanted to point this out, but I am unsure as to which is the proper disambiguation. Looking at WP:TV-NAME#Additional_disambiguation, it is unclear to me that there is a priority to follow. Hopefully someone can help with this. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Adam

Do we know that Adam is a murderer, or is it only speculation by Henry? 132.3.49.79 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Airing Days

I know that Forever airs on a Tuesday in the United States, but does it air on an earlier day in a different country? Every week, each new episode has been watchable online on a Monday. If so, perhaps a note should be made of it, such as was done with Castle (note #3). AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not going to get into an edit war of this, so I'll just bring it here. Copying text directly from a show's script, without any encyclopedic purpose (e.g., direct real world commentary on said text, text designed to elaborate on real world commentary, etc.) then you are committing copyright violation. Per WP:NONFREE ("Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea") and WP:FUC, any non-free content must be limited, and have critical commentary about it. Pulling a full passage from the opening titles and pasting it in here, is not "limited", and without critical commentary we cannot justify anything under the fair-use policy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it limited. It's repeated only once per episode, and it's to introduce the show. It's certainly not extensive. I'd be interested in the view of other editors on the matter, however. I've noticed that there's been no issue with it at Scorpion, Continuum or The Day of the Doctor. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Because other pages do it, does not make it right. You still have to satisfy the critical commentary part, and that does not. That's like saying you have 1 non-free image, but even though there's no commentary on said image if it's the only one then it's fine. That's not true and fails the guideline and legal policy I linked to. It specifically says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That quote is not detrimental to the reader. You've already summarized the show above it, so what is the point of having the opening dialogue quoted verbatim?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll request that you cease to put words into my mouth. I simply stated that those articled had had no comments on their use of quotes, not that it was alright here because it was there. Care to explain exactly what this critical commentary is? Or is that what you just talked about in your previous post? And after all of the copyright issues, your question about what the point of having it can easily be turned the other way, and still have equal validity. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What words did I put in your mouth? You pointed to other pages that were doing the same thing, and I pointed out that it doesn't mean that it was right. Critical commentary is commentary from outside sources that directly discuss the copyrighted piece of information. You're not quoting a person here, you're pulling directly from a script which is protected by copyright laws. Being an encyclopedia does not give us carte blanche to pull copyrighted information as we see fit. There must be an encyclopedic reason. There isn't one here. There is nothing in this article that requires the reader to see that opening dialogue for a better understanding of the show. I don't need to justify why the page should NOT have copyrighted text. The onus is on the editors of this page to do that. I'm trying to discuss this professionally here, so that you understand that there is no commentary on this page that justifies quoting the entire opening dialogue from show. But if you just want to be obstinate, and say that you could "easily turn the other way", I can simply tag the section with a copyright vio and send it over for review if you prefer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You say it's not "limited", yet it clearly is. It's a short opening passage, and as per those criteria it establishes context. How is a spoken part of the opening any different than the picture of its opening titles.121.73.221.187 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When you taken an entire passage (not a part of the passage), then it's not limited. Secondly, it's completely copyrighted text. So, you need to have some form of real world content to justify copying, verbatim, a part of the script. If there is not a reason behind it, then it's a blatant copyright infringement. As for "context", the synopsis that was written above that text provides all of the context necessary. You don't need an opening narration to do that. Per WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, if a FREE equivalent exists, then use it. Summarizing the show is free and legal to do. What you've essentially done is summarize the opening narration, then duplicated the opening narration (i.e., you're saying the same thing twice). As for the picture, that shouldn't be there too. Again, this is covered at WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's limited, it's certainly not unlimited is it. It doesn't constitute the entire material or any significant portion of it, it's no different than quoting a noteworthy passage from a novel, such as the article on A Tale of Two Cities including the well known opening sentence, and falls under fair use. The rationales for both are perfect in line with the policies you cite. And I'm not sure why you say 'what you've done', I haven't done anything, I'm not the other person in this discussion.121.73.221.187 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Abe's surname

Do we know what Abe's actual surname currently is? I was under the impression that he just learned in a recent episode what the surname of his biological parents' was (Weinrab), and in a flashback in another episode it was shown that his name is Abraham Morgan (the episode where he was drafted, his name was on the draft letter). So I think this article should say that his surname is Morgan. Though it seems weird right now, because Henry and Abe claim not to be related so having the same surname is suspicious. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In the fourteenth episode "Hitler on the Half Shell" (the most recent), Abe deliberately states his name as they visit the Holocaust Museum as "Weinraub, Abraham Weinraub". "Morgan" would be his adopted surname from being Henry's adopted son, however "Weinraub" would be his biological surname from his biological parents. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes he does, and he says it like he's never called himself that before. Before that episode he didn't know that name. And, again, in a flashback to when he was young, his name was shown as Abraham Morgan. You edited the article to say that his last name is Weinrab, but that isn't true, is it? We should call him by his current legal name, whatever that is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course he's never called himself that before - he never knew until he read the book with his parent's name in it. Just a side note, I didn't add Weinraub (correct spelling) into the article, another user did, I simply rearranged his name. And a biological name would be far more legal than an adopted name. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I didn't check who made the edits. You're wrong though, there's no such thing as "biological name". He was raised as "Abraham Morgan" which was his legal name (before adoption he didn't have a name), and, unless he legally changed it at some point in his life (which is possible), then it still is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Then how is it that he is able to state that his name is "Abraham Weinraub" at the museum, if that is not his name at all? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see them asking for his ID. Again, in this article we need to state his current legal name. There's no reason to assume that he immediately legally changed his name right after finding out the names of his biological parents. Again, we saw in a flashback that Abe received a letter and it was addressed to Abraham Morgan. Please read what I'm saying, I'm not repeating myself for my own fun. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia policy stating that only legal names are allowed? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say "only"? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"We should call him by his current legal name, whatever that is." Not much leeway with that, signifying that only his legal name should be used. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Other characters have lengthy descriptions too, we can add to Abe's description that he found out what the names of his parents were and what his surname would have been. We don't need to avoid it, I'm not saying that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@Jeraphine Gryphon and AlexTheWhovian: What name is he normally referred to in reliable sources apart from the show itself? @Jeraphine Gryphon: Legal name is an incorrect standard. This is an article about a fictional t.v. show, fictional characters do not have a "legal name". Even if they did, that's not what WP:NCP and other guidelines indicate as the appropriate standard. For example, the article for Lady Gaga is at Lady Gaga, not at her legal name, which is Stefani Germanott. Generally speaking, for articles about real people who go by a stage name, nickname (such as Bill Clinton instead of William), or have changed their name due to marriage or adoption, Wikipedia should use the name by which the person is best known, the one by which they are most often referred to in reliable sources. Now, once again, this is about a fictional character, so WP:NCP doesn't apply quite the same as it would if he were a real person. However, as pointed out in the essay Wikipedia:Naming character articles, WP:COMMONNAME does apply, and says basically the same thing, which is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. That said, there's nothing wrong about including a note that in episode X he found out his birth parents were named Y and subsequently used that name at the holocaust museum. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ONUnicorn for reading through this. We're not talking about an article title though, it's just his name in the character list, so it can be clarified or changed any time, for example if a future episode clarifies what his name is now. My view is that he should be named Abraham Morgan, because that's a reasonable assumption to make given what we have seen in the series so far. And I'm against listing his name as Abraham Weinrab since he never used that name. (Actually his parents must have named him something when he was born, but it's not clear in the series who picked his first name. So maybe his name as a baby wasn't Abraham.) The fandom is just as confused about his current name as I am, so I assume that any other official sources (besides the series itself) have not clarified this.

The only problem with his name being Abraham Morgan is that it would be suspicious that he has the same last name as Henry Morgan since in the present day they claim not to be related. But this is just speculation/confusion among fans, so it doesn't matter here in Wikipedia.

You're right that current legal names aren't THE standard for everyone, but I think in Abe's case it is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pete Hamill's book?

Is this series based on Pete Hamill's book of the same name, about an immortal in Manhattan? Variety had an article in 2012 about a production by Robert Redford, are they the same? RossPatterson (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No. — Wyliepedia 03:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• It may be something to add to the article at some point, though. It's not exactly the first time ABC has received some criticism over possible idea theft. A few years ago they began working on a Fables TV show, only to drop the show and start work on Once Upon a Time. Anywho, possibly something to keep in mind in case the lawsuit goes anywhere, which it likely won't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the theme of an immortal exists in film at least since 1986 (Highlander) and for me it looks more like that poor sod Pete Hamill uses every chance he gets to advertise his book.
He claimed also New Amsterdam to be based on his booked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8900:98:281B:3392:F83C:F4EC (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of episodes

http://deadline.com/2014/11/forever-full-season-order-abc-1201277353/ On Nov 7, 2011 the show received an order for 9 extra episodes to give it a full season of 22 episodes.Pacomartin (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the back-nine order is already in the article. Also - 2011? The show only premiered in 2014. Alex|The|Whovian 09:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

List of recurring characters

I am wondering if we should add Iona Payne/Molly Dawes (Hilarie Burton) and Isaac Monroe (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) to the list of recurring characters? Iona/Molly was a part of two episodes while Isaac was in three episodes toward the end of the season.SciGal (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

B-class

Now if we could do something to remove the maintenance tag from the Characters section then we'd be a lot closer to assessing this article as B-class. User:SciGal has done some good work recently. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed the character summaries down to a reasonable level, and removed the maintenance tag as a result. Alex|The|Whovian 11:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can post information about casting in the next couple of days. It shouldn't take too long for me to make the edit.SciGal (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The information is posted.SciGal (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Article sections

What else can I try to add next? If not, what can I revise?SciGal (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

International reception

I have added a section on Forever's international reception as it has been notable in at least two countries. So far, I have Spain's, and I will add France's as soon as I write it. SciGal (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just added the French reception of the series.SciGal (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)