Talk:Missing (American TV series)

International broadcast

I have provided multiple references in the past to support edits stating that this show had its world TV premiere in India. This is a first for any English-language series in this country, and was duly mentioned in major newspapers (which I linked to). I believe this is a tangential but certainly notable fact about this series, and a mention of the same should be made in the article. However, for some reason every single edit mentioning this has been systematically deleted by a user with the dynamic IP address 59.97.x.y. The article history will clearly show the vandalism being done by this user, whose sole purpose seems to be to delete all references to the fact above, for reasons unknown. I request a moderator here to keep an eye on such vandalism to this article in the future. Simply undoing someone's edits without providing any proper explanation for the same is downright ridiculous and I'm sure must be against Wikipedia's rules, so I do hope someone makes a note of this and prevents similar idiotic edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.15.34 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I just created a table with all the countries' broadcasts and will keep an eye on any unnecessary removals. Most people on here edit without listing a reason, which is annoying, but can't be controlled. However, vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia for any reason, whether funny or just because someone doesn't like what was said. We'll keep an eye on it for you. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This India business has gotten out of hand. An Indian paper claims it made the world premiere in India, which is fine. It's a big deal IN INDIA, but not as a whole. It's an American series, we're documenting American broadcast dates, and the American premiere belongs in the lead. I've moved the note about the early premiere date in India to the international section, where it belongs. --Drmargi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, forgetting about the WP:MOS rule about a show's "country of origin." But I still don't see people's fascination with removing it from the page altogether. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to the first comment above: As you can see, all that the user with the dynamic IP address 117.219.x.y seems to be interested in is repeatedly changing the Indian broadcaster's name from STAR World India to AXN, without any source to back this up (plus I know it airs on the former and not the latter since I reside in India). Multiple edits have been made by this user and then reverted by others. High time to declare him a vandal as well?

As was mentioned above, "Missing" airs in India on Sundays, four days prior to the US airdates. As from episode three, it also airs in Canada on Tuesdays, two days prior to the US. Unsure which of these is considered the relevant "Original Air Date", I've added all two/three dates to the episode listing, with annotations and refs. Anyone with a firmer grip on policy/precedent, please feel free to (re)move the extraneous bits. - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But why just the Indian dates, Why not Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, Hungary? - 117.219.115.244 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the Indian and Canadian airdates are the only ones preceding the American ones, making them at least viable candidates for the field "Original Air Date". Succeeding dates are of no concern either way. - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As its an American show, the American air dates are considered as the original air dates. - 117.219.115.244 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It aired on the same day in USA, Canada, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Serbia and Slovakia. And according to GMT it aired in the European countries before USA. So, if you post the Indian dates then the dates of these countries too should be posted. - 117.219.115.244 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to the endless edit warring and vandalism in aid of "We saw it first!" I've changed the heading on the table to read ORIGINAL U.S. AIRDATE. It's an American show, and as ducky as it is that India gets it four days early, the primary viewing audience is American, and we're tracking American ratings, so the American airdates need to be in the table. I have no idea where this mania for removing India from the international broadcast table is all about, but the IP vandals are all from India, and the registered vandal has been warned twice. --Drmargi (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the US airdates should absolutely be given - for the sake of current utility, if nothing else. The questions, as I see it, is whether global original airdates are of encyclopedic relevance in and of themselves. Clearly, a case could be made. Off the top of my head, I remember three episode listings which concerned somewhat similar situations:

- List of Stargate Atlantis episodes includes US and Canadian airdates for a "Canadian-American" production.

- List of Caprica episodes includes US and Canadian airdates for an "American" production.

- List_of_Primeval_episodes includes German airdates for a "British" production. Possibly Germany was involved in a co-production deal for that season, though, I'm uncertain.

Doesn't conclusively support one view or the other, it seems to me, thus my asking for more guidance. However, discounting India simply on the grounds that it is somehow seen as more exotic and less relevant to American viewers than Canada seems a bit iffy to me, so I'd err on the side of caution and give both a global and a domestic "original" date. - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an American production, period. Stargate was, as you say, a joint production, as are a good few others. The sci-fi editors get pretty nationalistic and possessive of their shows, so editor consensus plays a role there (I'd remove the Canadian dates from Caprica, for example.) I can't speak to Primeval beyond knowing the latter seasons are British/Irish productions with involvement from BBC America. Meanwhile, there are a good few British/American productions, notably Downton Abbey, that don't include US airdates. Another problem with the international dates is how few are sourced, and we don't know we have accurate first episode dates for each country or the accurate first broadcast of each episode. That it's India is an assumption based on a lot of noise made by the Indian broadcaster that stops short of saying 'first international broadcast'. Sometimes, you go with what works best, and in this case, that's clearly the U.S. dates. We're talking about a ten-episode series that probably won't be renewed, based on its ratings and what ABC has renewed so far. It's not worth becoming a battleground. --Drmargi (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to convince me. :) - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I also tagged your talk page with a 3RR warning just as a heads up; you're OK for now, but were getting a bit close. --Drmargi (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I saw the notice just now. I actually adhere to a (self-imposed) 1RR policy at all times, so you needn't have worried. :) - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it, then. I was just erring on the side of caution, but you've got it in hand. --Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one further question, just for future reference: Does the "of origin" argument only apply to countries, or also to individual channels/companies? If, for some hypothetical reason, this series were to air on another US channel the day before it aired on ABC, which date would be the relevant one, considering that it's an ABC production? - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, given that wouldn't happen in the U.S. --Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Harrumph. - 46.115.0.103 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm no help! The networks and studios control licensing and distribution in a very complex way, and programs are produced for a specific network; in other countries, the shows are syndicated, which is quite different. --Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Series Synopsis and DVD Information Added

I've added some minor information pertaining to the series synopsis description as well as the DVD information as recently announced by TV Shows on DVD. Reference was also added for proof. 98.209.246.195 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you've done is plagiarized two sources and posted copyrighted material in violation of WP:COPY. To cite your grade school teachers, use your own words! --Drmargi (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And you even removed the plot information I added from wikipedia cited sources? That's why Wikipedia sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.246.195 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi is correct here. Sourced or not, you don't plagiarize another source's information and put it on Wikipedia, which is exactly what was done verbatim. Write your own material, then put it here. This holds true for Leads, Plots, Episode Summaries, even DVD releases. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

98, when you plagiarize content as comprehensively as you do you run the risk of wholesale reverts, even if some of what you added is original information. It's not my job to pick through it and find what might follow policy; it's yours to adhere to WP:COPY, thus assuring what you add won't be reverted. If Wikipedia "sucks" (can't you come up with anything more original than that tired word?) because it kept you from representing another's work as your own, that's a good thing in my book. --Drmargi (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

98, you did the same thing here for Episode 22, which I removed. You took it from TV Fanatic's finale details, which I doubt you wrote. The point Drmargi and I are trying to make is: it's okay to put anything on Wiki, as long as it's in your own words. Keep plagiarizing, and someone will flag and check everything you do. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a simple concept that should be followed: If you did not watch the show, you should not be posting any episode summary details. Marc S, Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Show Editing

When the pilot episode was repeated, did any of you watch close enough to notice if the show was edited down for more commercial time. I remember thats what happened on CBS, when the short-lived series "Smith," with Ray Liotta, aired. Great show. It was an action show with lots of location shooting like Missing. Only difference was the main character is a criminal, instead of law enforcement. It was a great show, but maybe it should have been produced as a ten-part mini-series. Maybe some of you noticed the same thing on missing. Probably a point, that you dont want to put into the article, although a brief mention might be made. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source, meaning newspaper or magazine, notices and reports about the editing, it can't be added here. AMC's show Mad Men cut down their episodic production schedule to accommodate more commercial time too. I don't think it was added to their articles either. Most shows run about 42-47 minutes without commercials. Those times are added in with most main series pages. And that doesn't mean the episodes can't air two minutes of a show then five minutes of a commercial at a time. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha: You say Mad Men cut down their episodic production schedule. With specific regard to "Missing,"I was not talking about episodic production schedules. Read what I wrote; I said "When the pilot episode was repeated, did you notice if the show was edited down." Im talking about episodic production that is aired once or twice, and then the repeats are trimmed down from the original broadcast, for more ad time. Its something I've see done with other shows; I frankly dont like the practice. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. And its probably the network trimming it rather than anyone associated with the show. You may mention your "problem" in the article, but I bet it gets yanked, since no else has commented here about it. And it's funny how you wanted to overlook my non-specific Missing comments when your first one was mainly about Smith. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary editing

There was some slight editing done by someone, on my "Ice Queen" episode summary. Not quite a good edit job. The person left the part about Interpol Agent Rossi fishing mary out of the Bay. Leaving that in the summary, is pointless, if you're going to take out the part about Mary being kidnapped by the mysterious blonde lady. Also, I re-inserted the part about becca dangling the diamonds over the bay, and the blonde woman putting her gun down. This is a key part of the summary. Otherwise readers of the summary do not understand why the blonde woman tells Becca that the whole kidnapping of Michael was all about Becca's husband, not Becca. Marc S., Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have two concerns with this. First, a philosophical one: this is not your summary. Once you post it, you open it up to editing and it ceases to be yours. There's caveat right below the SAVE PAGE button that says: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." So be prepared for the summary you wrote to be edited on multiple occasions. Second, as it stands, the summary is 439 words, and needs considerable trimming. An episode summary should generally be roughly 200 words; as yours stands, it's both overly wordy and overly detailed. We don't need to know everything that happened in the episode, just the big ideas. --Drmargi (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

^ Agree! ^ Notice the section on the main page is called "SHORT Summary"? — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read my previous comments, I was not whining that I was edited. I gave specific explanation why I was in disagreement with the specifics of the edit changes; ANWAYS, to make everybody happy: I trimmed it down a little. New word count: 326 words; Satisfactory??? Marc S, Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc, firstly, no one considered your complaint as "whining". Drmargi was just pointing out that once an editor posts anything on Wiki, it can, and most likely will, be edited by someone else, whether their new edit makes sense or not. Secondly, perhaps, being a fan of the show who watches every episode, you should create an article for each episode where you can have up 500 words in the plot synopsis? Although, some people think those articles should also be "notable." I, myself, do them anyway, in order to prevent things like the above happening. Series pages, lists of episodes pages, and the like should be as concise as possible. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New word count: 288. Marc S., Dania Fl 74.166.156.250 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc, as noted, no one accused you of whining. My intention was to be sure you made your edits with the proper understanding of what other editors will expect to be able to do, and that you not feel any ownership of writing over which you have no control any longer. As for word count 288 words is not roughly 200, it's roughly 300. I don't have time to revise the summary for the next few days, but will see to it soon. --Drmargi (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's now 243 words!!!!!! There's a big point you're missing here. I understand your point of the "short summary," but you have to understand something. We're talking about a television show. The whole concept of the "short summary" was invented by the newspaper and magazine industries to give just enough plot information, within a very limited space, to bait viewers to watch TV shows. Wikipedia's purpose is not to draw people to the show. Wikipedia's purpose is to be informative. To suggest the conventional concept of the "short summary" should carry over to Wikipedia is an incorrect interpretation. You probably disagree, but thats my opinion. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:13, 3

I further shortened each episode summary that I originally wrote. This whole section "summary editing": can we delete this whole section from this talk page? marc s. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The practice is that these discussions stay on the talk page, then are eventually archived. The only thing removed is vandalism or discussion not related to improvement of the article. This definitely does not fall into either category. --Drmargi (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

to the other editor of episode 5: you make a major mistake: in episode 5, Dax is not threatening to send Becca home. He wants to follow her. He wants to see who she talks to, and if she makes contact with paul. Second mistake you made: Oksana did not escape with michael. Michael escaped by himself, and they he came back, because he does not want to abandon oksana. third mistake you made: you messed up the timing of the events. you should mention pauls bank account BEFORE you mention that becca and Rossi go to Prague. it makes sense. They go to the prague because they have found out about the bank account becoming active. Marc S., Dania Fl. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down and review WP:CIVIL. You are verging on edit warring and ownership of the episode summaries. I disagree with your criticisms, my summary did not say Oksana escaped with Michael and events in a summary need not be in temporal order. I feel your recap has too many issues to stay in place. Rather than edit war and then aggressively attack my writing, you had the option to leave a message on my talk page, pointing out what you felt were errors, where we could have worked toward a summary we could agree on. You've lost that opportunity now. --Drmargi (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary of most recent episode, and summaries in general

(edit conflict) I recently revised the overly wordy, overly detailed, choppy and hard to follow summary for the April 12 episode, providing and edit summary why. The summary I wrote reads smoothly and provides the key points of the episode without excess detail. Soon after, my summary was removed by 74.166.156.250 with no explanation, and his original summary restored with no improvements. I reverted the edit, requesting he provide an edit summary to explain his edit, and discuss if he felt the summary needed restoration or rewriting. He reverted again, again with no explanation. I have now warned him regarding edit warring and use of edit summaries, but I'm concerned with the general quality of the summaries, which are all too long, too detailed and very poorly written. They need revision to improve quality and remove detail, not an edit war from an editor who cannot accept revision of his writing. --Drmargi (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi: Do you watch the show?? or you just edit summaries without even watching the show? 74.166.156.250 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC) poorly written? do you want a work of literature, or an episode summary that communicates the event of the program? to me, events written out of order equates to poorly written. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:CIVIL, and now WP:AGF. You're bordering on problem editing now. I'd be happy to discuss the show and the article when you're prepared to do so constructively and civilly. Meanwhile, a guiding principle is that you discuss the content, not the editor. --Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Episode 5: Contents of the Box

Are they stock certificates or bearer bonds??? 74.166.156.250 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Stock certificates for Helios Corporation, the Russian company Becca visits in the most recent episode. --Drmargi (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing "Cancellation Rumors False"

How is it that Wikipedia allows biased websites to be cited as official information? The source links given in this report have been cited by "off the wall" websites like TV By The Numbers.com which are not official information but merely websites who engage in speculation. Neither TVline.com, Entertainment Tonight or any of the other "legit media" reporting websites have reported on this and I find it appalling that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.246.195 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Many of these so-called "off the wall" websites more than meet the standards of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. I'll point out TV by the Numbers, which is widely used across the entire site is as reliable a source as one could ask for. They get their information from official sources and from press releases. They are not engaging in speculation, simply reporting the information they get from networks. The fact that you would consider something like Entertainment Tonight "legitimate media" is also laughable. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Theres nothing "non-legit" about entertainment tonight. They report news stories, They have an obligation to check resources. They interview the people in the news. I think you call it laughable, Schruted, perhaps only because in the heat of sarcasm, you lose sight of the fact that its an ENTERTAINMENT news source. Their main mission is hollywood fluff stories. That does not make them "Non legit." Marc S. Dania F. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But let me go on a tangent and mention the political commentator Glenn Beck. He had a CNN show. He moved to FOX, he had a one or two year contract on Fox, and then he quit Fox. Now he has some sort of Internet news channel called GBTV, and he has a news website called "The Blaze." Legit news sources? Or Glenn's personal propapganda machine. Glenn is an obnoxious, whining, pontificating, sarcastic zealot, and when you have estabilished news sources of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, I find it highly asinine that this guy goes and starts his own news agency, instead of working with the established news agencies. And when he says "Why isnt the media reporting this?" well, theres too many newspapers and news stations to make that blanket question. Marc S., Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the question at hand, Missing's cancellation has been widely reported by a range of media, including the Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide and the media cited. This week, the networks host what are called the "Upfronts", the announcement of their new fall schedules. It's typical that the last cancellation and renewal announcements come the final few days leading up to the Upfronts. Missing's ratings have been middling, and the cancellation is no surprise. Some entertainment websites do engage in speculation and rumor mongering, but those of us editors who are experienced with them know which ones do, and which ones, such as TV By the Numbers, Futon Critic and Zap2It get their information from, and often publish, network press releases. --Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast

Any Actors which should be moved from "Recurring cast" to the regular cast section? Similarly, any actor names which should be moved down into the recurring cast section? 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. If there is, someone would have done it. No need to be the hall monitor. --Drmargi (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)