Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles).

unless this one's stopped, i fear we may soon lose all episode articles... 89.248.165.10 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity

I think someone really needs to write a continuity section, or perhaps we can write an article about the continuity problems throughout the seriesDeftalC3AU (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you, like, read this talk page? Fritter (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renewal

We're getting multiple online sources saying the show has been renewed, and they're citing some good sources in turn. Nonetheless, given Wikipedia's bias against blog-like websites (even news sites) the two links currently provided should be replaced by a "reputable" source (i.e. one of the trade papers cited, for example, or the AP) when this information becomes available. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andy and Derek Reese

The current wording is a bit spoilerish and possibly incorrect as well; Derek claims that he did not kill Andy, although I guess he could be lying. Luis Dantas (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, after Derek claims he did not claim Andy a scene is shown where he does in fact walk in and kill Andy. Though, I don't recall if it occurred in the same episode or not. -- TreyGeek (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was shown that Derek killed Andy, and furthermore, there's no concern of spoilers on Wikipedia. You assume the risk by opening the article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Just giving the official ColdFusion seal of approval, required for all decisions, public and private, the world over. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Manson

Why is Shirley Manson being removed from the Starrng/Main Characters sections? The argument used is that sources say that she will be a "regular" and not a "star", but if that is the case, then Brian Austin Green needs to be removed, too, as the source for him merely says "regular". Ophois (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Cromartie is a regular. He is in almost every episode, and he's listed as a minor character, for a good reason. He's no starring character. Derek Reese, although in almost every episode, is also more of a side character. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not list Manson as a "star" until we see how prominent her character becomes. --Fletcher (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not about how "prominent" the character becomes, as detailed in the note for Main Characters in this article. It is what the producers list them as. The term "series regular" means that they are starring in the show. As for the example with Harriman, he is a recurring character, not a regular character on SG-1. Ophois (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidently not everyone employs such a liberal definition. --Fletcher (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but the media considers "series regular" as being a show's star. As most sources say that she is a "series regular", within the context of the article source, it means that she will be a star. Ophois (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet that does not seem to be the consensus here. While the word may indeed be used more liberally, in common usage a star is "an actor who plays a principal role" ( regular != principal ). Regardless of which if either usage is more "correct" please note that the narrower usage makes it easier to delineate the leading cast members and those with supporting roles. Perhaps more importantly, listing characters who have not even appeared yet strikes me as fanboyism, and may be confusing to readers who don't recognize the character/actress. It should suffice to note that Manson is joining the cast. --Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, a star is someone who is listed as "Starring" in the opening credits and is thus a series regular. Otherwise, a person is a guest star or recurring, with the latter being the case of Brian Austin Green. This is similar to some characters on Stargate Atlantis. Carson Beckett is in about 21/22 episodes of the first season but is only a recurring character. He doesn't become a main/starring character until the second season, even though he is in more episodes than some of the starring characters. And I find it interesting that you think it is "fanboyism" when a person updates the article to reflect updates on the show...
As for it being "confusing to readers", (which no offense, but that is an utterly ridiculous excuse), that is what the character description is for, to provide details about the characters. Ophois (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't find it confusing. Duben17 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Except this particular character doesn't exist yet, and scant details are available about her. I think Wikipedia should reflect the body of work as it has been shown to viewers. It's silly to be listing characters we know next to nothing about. Please be patient and add the information when the episodes begin airing. --Fletcher (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the concensus is 2 to 2, so I'm going to add a request for comment. Ophois (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I count 2:1:1. 2 against, 1 for, and 1 commenting but not saying whether it should or shouldn't, but that's just a technicality I guess. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Manson as cast member

Quick summary for reviewing editors: Between seasons, an actress is reported to be joining the cast of a television program. The actress's character has never before appeared and almost nothing is known about her. There is no dispute over mentioning that she will join the show, but there is dispute over whether our article should list and describe her with the other main characters, even though the character has never been shown to viewers. (Yes, it's that silly). --Fletcher (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the same way that any article updates to keep with incoming news. So if a new series is going to premiere, are you saying that the article can't be updated until the show actually airs? I'll diret you to an earlier edit of this article, eleven months before the series premiered, which listed all the main characters/stars. Ophois (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say an article can't be updated. And you should be waiting for others to comment; otherwise, what's the point of an RFC? --Fletcher (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to your blatantly biased summary of the incident... And yes, seeing as you keep reverting updates with multiple cited sources, you apparenly don't want the article to be updated. Ophois (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do want the article updated, and I did not remove any updates with sources. That I don't want it updated the same way you do does not mean I don't want it updated. Don't mischaracterize me. --Fletcher (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it was ColdFusion650 that removed the cited stuff. I apologize. Ophois (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy. Making accusations like that shows how right it would be to just ignore everything else you have to say, at least until you have time to cool off and start thinking straight. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not crazy. You all have shown that you follow personal opinion rather than verifiable sources. Ophois (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the "it's your opinion" line. I was waiting. It's your opinion that it should be in there. It's our opinion that it shouldn't. So, bringing up that point is really irrelevant, because we're really on equal ground here. And saying that we don't want the article update at all, is either a bad case of hyperbole, or paranoia. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not "my opinion" that she should be added. I'm merely following the way that Wikipedia is supposed to go. When new information becomes available, the article is supposed to be updated to reflect it. Shirley Manson has been confirmed as being a star, and thus is supposed to now be added to the Starring and Main Characters sections. Ophois (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

She's already in the article. It's your opinion that she should be put in those sections. Having an opinion is not a bad thing. That's how the world works. Just don't get mad when other people express theirs as well. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the "Casting" section, but not the actual "cast" section. If she's been added to the cast, then she needs to go in the cast section. This is the same case as with Brian Austin Green. The size of his role in the second season isn't known yet, but he is included as a main character and as starring on the show. You all are picking and choosing what to include. If, according to what you're saying, she doesn't belong there, then neither does Brian Austin Green. Ophois (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference, as pointed out above, is that Green has been on the show almost a whole season, whereas Manson has not been on the show one second. So, there is a difference between the two. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Using your own arugments, that shouldn't matter. His role in the second season could be bigger than it was in the first season, or it could be smaller. As you all keep saying that Manson shouldn't be added until we find out how big her role is (even though sources say she will be a main character), Brian Austin Green should be removed as well. Ophois (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Until she has actually appeared in an episode, you can't call her a character. Mentioning her in the casting section is adequate for now. As for Brian Austin Green, he's already been in several, and whether his role in season 2 is big, small or nonexistent is besides the point. Think outside the box 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That is contrary to other TV articles on wikipedia. So I guess that means that I have to now go through articles such as Dollhouse (TV series) and remove all the characters and stars because they haven't been shown yet? Ophois (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a wiki; anyone can create new articles, and it may be a while before questionable material is challenged. Pointing out that other stuff exists does not work as a counter-argument. If the character does not exist in the primary source yet (the show itself) I don't see the encyclopedic value in listing him or her, since there is so little information to be found. In general, our articles on fiction rely on the primary source to describe the work itself (bolstered by secondary sources to provide critical commentary). When the primary source doesn't exist yet (Dollhouses, or TSCC with Shirley Manson), the only information ultimately comes from what the people involved with the show choose to release. As a consequence, the Dollhouses character list looks really corny and TV Guide-ish, since we have no information other than brief sketches released to the media. In fact Topher Brink's entry is outright plagiarized [1]. So it looks like these types of entries will tend to suffer from copyright vios or synthesis as editors struggle to say something without being able to reference a primary source. --Fletcher (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the character, Shirley Manson will be starring in the second season, so there is no reason to not have her listed in the Starring section. Ophois (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION Okay, I don't know much about television programming in general, so this may sound naive. If it's sources with a reliable source, and if (this is what I'm unsure of) the previous season has closed, I'd say add it. If they've announced that someone is appearing starting next season, but they haven't finished filming this season, I'd say hold off until the off-season. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the first season finished airing three months ago. Ophois (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION This is quite a bit like the fights we had at Heroes over both David Anders and Kristen Bell. First thing I think we need to remember is - We do not need to "scoop" anyone. This is not a news service, it's a wiki. Getting it right means more than getting it first, so we have the luxury of waiting until the show airs and making sure reality happens the way everyone says it will. That being said, it's also not paper. Put it somewhere and say something - then change it if you have to. My feelings? I'd say, without a character I'd just list the actor in "Starring" and wait to see what else pops-up. When we can get a reliable source for character or status we'll update the entry. Padillah (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I use the word "starring" more restrictively than Ophois, and it still looks odd to me to see a name listed for character that hasn't been shown. But the situation should rectify itself in just a few months, so I'm ok with the compromise. --Fletcher (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)