Talk:Revolution (TV series)/Archive 1

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

Episode Synopsis

I had a guy delete my entire entry for a synopsis of an episode for it being too long. Fair play, but just deleting it all is just lazy. He should of edited it first.

Anyways, he also deleted the briefer synopsis for the first episode, anyway this can come back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterShiney (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you put a shorter version back in. While it should not have been removed, keep in mind that most episode summaries at least on pages like this should be within 100-200 words as per WP:TVPLOT. Think of how long this page would be with your original summary multiplied by 20 episodes? A better choice for lengthy plots would be to create an article for the individual episodes, but those must have summaries within 500 words max and also be notable (highly covered by the press). The pilot may be but successive episodes might not. A similar situation occurred here (scroll down to the last episodes). Note that those summaries remain but there is a "too long" tag attached? That is what should have been done here, rather than your work removed entirely. Also, remember that we try not to give every detail for those who have not seen the episodes. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I found how to do that by looking at an earlier version. Im still learning. Will make sure that they are shorter in future. MisterShiney (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall

Hi, just wanted to double check that your edit summary's of "If I were you, mister, I'd wait until the final ratings show up." wernt aimed at myself because I haven't edited any ratings. MisterShiney (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit warring

Not a big concern, but there seems to be an edit warring currently happening at this article regarding the external link for the Revolution Wiki, being kept or removed per WP:ELNO, and it is a as it contains nothing worthwhile not already covered in that article, between me, an IP (150.203.222.115), and Caringtype1, but I have stopped removing the link, as I'm unsure at this point. Should that link be kept, removed, etc? Just thinking about WP:ELNO. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the link should be included, its not noteworthy, and doesn't belong here.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree, per WP:ELNO. Regards. TBrandley 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...

  • "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." - of course it would, wikipedia has ONE article with a single short sentence about the characters. There is no info on the other characters, locations or events.
  • "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." - not factually inaccurate or unverifiable as it comes from the episodes themselves.
  • "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida (since Wikipedia's servers are located there)." - As far as I know it contains none.
  • "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming." - Promoting the site is secondary to its inclusion, i intend to give a link to more detailed info.
  • "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." - Nothing is for sale.
  • "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below." - No payments required.
  • "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." - Accessible to everyone.
  • "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details." - None of the above.
  • "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." - Nope.
  • "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." - Nope.
  • "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" - Technically its a fan site i guess but its more an encyclopedia of information, just more specific than wikipedia.
  • "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." - The wiki is not open, you can create an accounts but you would have to jump through some hoops to be able to access.
  • "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." - Its entirely about the wikipedia article subject.
  • "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." - Nope.
  • "Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates." - Nope.
  • "Links that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." - Completely functional.
  • "Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information." - Nope.
  • "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages." - Nope.
  • "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." - Nope.
  • "External links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists." - Nope.

As you can see it violates NONE of the rules, I bet that if the tiny, Revolution wikia link was supplied then it would remain, despite that site being nowhere near as complex nor detailed as Revolution Wiki. 150.203.222.115 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't have "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." You missing that. The link violates that. So, still WP:ELNO. Regards. TBrandley 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahh its the first one. If this article is going to include info on Soldier played by Greg Sproles, then yes it dies violate that but I don't see that happening.... 150.203.222.115 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikia support. I personally think there is no harm in adding the wikia to this article. I didn't even look at the ELNO. As long as nothing similar here ends up there, meaning verbatim show/episode/character descriptions, there should be no reason to add it as a supplement to the article here, either in the External Links or See Also sections. No harm, no foul...till copy-pasting takes place. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yea while im sure that the Revolution wikia is "great" it does not stand up to the independent one, it barely crawls. 150.203.223.120 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Grace's profession?

The article currently states she is a doctor, but at no point does she say so. Someone asks here if she is a doctor, but she says she had the inhaler from her son (and does not answer the question). She later says she was a teacher prior to the power outage. Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Matheson

Rachel Matheson is alive. can the page be changed to show this?

Wingman1 11:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)

Main Character

So the top spot in any TV show's on Wiki is considered the main character, the person who the show centres around. Not the person who is paid the most in the cast, but the person who the whole show revolves around and the other main characters support. I for one, and many others it believe this is Charlie. On IMBd she is the person they mention who's life is changed when the Milita turn up, she is the central character in the foreground on the character posters and it is her who sets out on the journey to go find her brother and explore the big wide world. Yes she isnt known and there are other main characters that the show centers on, but she is the main one. So please, stop putting Billy Burke at the top just because he has a bigger paycheck. MisterShiney (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know Burke gets paid more? No source on the article backs up that claim. Billy Burke is credited before TS, because he is the main character. Charlie is a central and very important character, but BB is credited first. Obviously this means the producers of the show consider him to be the main character.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a lame edit war. It needs to stop. Both of you have valid points, however MisterShiney is basing their argument on experience watching the show and IMDB (which is not a reliable source). Caringtype is basing their argument on verifiable sources. Guess which one wins? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, MisterShiney, you can save yourself the time from going back to add your signature by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of any of your comments before you post them. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for my misguided thought on thinking Billy Burke is paid more, it was based on a misunederstanding that "Top Billing" meant that they were paid the most. Not meaning to sound argumentative but Can I please ask why IMDB is not considered a reliable source? Especially when it is used on pretty much every movie page I find on Wikipedia. In all fairness, you only need to watch the show to see who is the central character, its like Lost, although there was a large cast of central charcters, Jack was considered the main character. In fact, one person's edits originally said as much. Without looking at the credits, I think at the moment the characters are just in Alphabetical order. But you are right, this undo back and forth is silly. MisterShiney (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:IMDB. Besides, even if we went with your IMDB argument, then one could make an argument that David Lyons is the main character as he is the first one listed in the cast. However, if you look at the official NBC website, it lists Billy Burke first. Merely watching the show or making a determination of anything based on a character's prominence on it (or any promotional material from it) is original research, which is not allowed (and premature after only two episodes - things will change). Either way, does it really matter? It's a character listing. Both of you need to let it go and move on. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Being rather new at this I didnt know about the IMDB thing and I wouldn't even say that it was original research... All I am doing is watching a tv show and writing my observations, just like the rest of us. lol. In fairness, yes things will change, but I don't think that they would kill Charlie off, but Miles on the other hand, we might like his kick ass sword skills, but he is expendable to further the story. MisterShiney (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Observing and writing things down is the definition of original research, especially when you draw your own conclusion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that not what we are all doing on most if not all of the TV Series pages on Wikipedia? In my defence, I have also looked at various reviews and at the filmography and I think it's safe to say that the only reason BB gets the supposed top spot in the credits, is because they are trying to put a "well knwon" name to draw in viewers. MisterShiney (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Both of you" meaning me? I made point and have already moved on. I really don't care that much either, I was trying to help "MisterShiney", as he is a new editor, and is unaware of how we do many things here.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) What by reverting it back to a previous edit without even discussing his reason why? Way to encourage a new editor MisterShiney (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "both of you". Did I mistake someone else that reverted twice? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but that was before the issue was brought to the talk page. I put what I thought, and haven't reverted it since.Caringtype1 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ummm You just did when another guy just edited back to what it was before...? MisterShiney (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a fair point. The whole focus of the show at the moment is about Charlie looking for her brother and trying to rescue her brother against the backdrop of the world gone to pot. Miles is a character to help her in this job. 86.151.244.224 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC) After a new person gets involved it gets reverted again!!! Any chance of this getting protected briefly? MisterShiney (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC) the discussion is over. Billy Burke gets the top spot. If any editors try to change it again, it will be reverted because it goes against discussion.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ummm it is hardly over just because the other person involved in the edit war says its over, so I have actually requested a third opinion because it seems to me that because no one agree's with your view you are undoing their edit, as seen by your latest revert when you undid the last undo by a user who just used an IP address. Regardless of who is in the opening credits first, its quite obvious if you watch TV shows long enough they will put the most well known characters first to get interest in the show, and then once the interest has built up they jiggle it around. One person even edited the character description that She was considered the main character! On the NBC Website on the about page it describes the series like so:
"This is a swashbuckling journey of hope and rebirth seen through the eyes of one strong-willed young woman, Charlie Matheson (Tracy Spiridakos, "Being Human"), and her brother Danny (Graham Rogers, "Memphis Beat"). When Danny is kidnapped by militia leaders for a darker purpose, Charlie must reconnect with her estranged uncle Miles (Billy Burke, "The Twilight Saga"), a former U.S. Marine living a reclusive life. Together, with a rogue band of survivors, they set out to rescue Danny, overthrow the militia and ultimately re-establish the United States of America. All the while, they explore the enduring mystery of why the power failed, and if - or how - it will ever return."
So why do you have such an issue with it when on the NBC website it is clear who the central character is? MisterShiney (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not the only one who agrees with me. Did you read any of Jauerback's comments?? There is your third opinion, they clearly agree with me. And you mentioned NBC.com, did you even read that? They clearly list BB first. NBC and the producers of the show list BB as the main character, no matter who you think the main character is, NBC obviously disagrees with you.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as Cast lists go, WP articles should reflect the billing used in the credits. BB is first, TS is second. It's not unusual for the billing to differ from who the protagonist is, but we don't use that to overrule the credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did which is where I saw the above reference to the show. If you knew anything about TV shows, when a new series is launched the produces make much more of a big thing about having "big" names involved that they push them. All the NBC advertising material focuses on Charlie as the Main character. The description on the show focus's on her as the Main Character. Heck even the person who wrote her description on here focus's as her as the main character. Jackback's comments refered to my point not having a reliable source, well it does now. My concern is making this page as accurate as possible, and I am editing it to reflect what the NBC website says about the plot in the show regardless about what the opening credits show, when people come on here they should be able to see who the protagonist is straight away. Having BB at the top provides an inaccurate view. In your opinion, based on what you have seen when you have watched the show, (I assume you have watched the show..?) who is the main character that is the focus? MisterShiney (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NBC.com lists BB first, so that is a source to support my claim, not yours. Just because when you watch the show, you think she is the main character, does not mean she is. She isn't listed first by NBC and the producers of the show, so they shave final say on who is the main character. When I watch the show, personally, I feel that Miles drives most of the action. The show began when Charlie wen to find Miles, and now he is on a quest to save his nephew and maybe turn the lights back on. But that is just my take it on, which has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The Cast list reflects the billing used in the credits. Besides, I see someone calls TS the main character on the list's description. But even if that wasn't there, we don't overrule the credits, regardless of someone's opinion as to why they were put in the order they're seen. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit other people's talk page comments.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is that refering to? If it is myself I do apologise, it was unintentional. For the record you cant "Lay claim to a source" to back your point and then ignore it when the same source is used by another person to counter your claim because it contracts your point. You cant cut out bits of something you like and then ignore the bits you dont like. Sum of it is that like Jauerback we both have valid points. But appparently I didnt have a reliable source before, I came up with a reliable source that quite clearly shows that Charlie according to NBC is the central character (see above), but you apear to be acting like like one of the 6 year olds I teach by saying "you cant have that it's mine" so I would like to suggest that you grow up and that quite frankly agree to disagree and lets see how the page changes when a second season comes out. Oh and seeing as we are all a big fan of sources here, if someone can provide me witha source that says TV shows on Wikipeida list the cast in order of Credits I would be very much obliged. MisterShiney (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Gothicfilm, but the NBC.com source, doesn't prove your point at all. That particular plot summary does focus around Charlie, as does much of the action on the show, but doesn't necessarily mean she is the main character. There are many examples of shows that have several lead characters. I'm not sure if we should designate one character as being the "main character". If you went to NBC.com, and clicked on Revolution, the cast and bios both list BB first. That is a source.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change your text at all. I gave it an indent, which if you look at WP Talk pages, is what you're supposed to do. I have frequently seen the next commentor give an indent to someone who forgot to do it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I have seen that. It is a good way of seeing what comments refer to what. Especially when more people get involved in the conversation. MisterShiney (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to intend, I would of. It was rude what you did. The appropriate thing would have been to add a new comment reminding me.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the definition of rude would be undoing someone's changes after putting a valid point across with a sarcastic comment of "if you insist on continuing with the discussion, they don't change until the discussion is over" that is rude and not very encouraging to new editors. This whole edit war would have been avoided if you had just started a talk page before making the edit. Just like above with Radagast and his comment about the Emberverse. But now we are going off topic. MisterShiney (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No reverting it again, while there is ongoing discussion about the topic is rude. By the way, I meant "then don't change it until..", not "they.." I didn't start a discussion on the talk page, because I wasn't trying to change anything. You were the one who changed its from its original form, so you brought it up here. Nothing has changed, you still don't have a source that provides reason enough to change the order. We're going by the credits. there's no reason why we shouldn't.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We seriosly still talking about this? Noone has yet to provide a wiki source that says that character lists are listed in order of production credits, both our sources are the same. Both equally justified. Will be interesting to see what the opening credits say during the show on Monday. Just today you jumped on an editor, dont know his name but his IP was 189.120.22.182, just changing his undo because it didnt agree with yours, rather than writing on his talk page refering him to here. Nice and helful there by the way. Will be interesting to see if he returns. But thats not the point, you claim to be trying to be helpful but in fact I for one feel that you are very disruptive and have so far given me a negative view on editing on wikipedia. If you had from the begining sent me a friendly message on here saying, something a long the lines of "just so you know, on wiki we list cast memebers in xyz way and be as friendly as you claim, all this would have been avioided and I would have been less argumentative as I have been. I still believe I am right, that BB has only been put there because he is probably the most well know of the cast and that Charlie is the central chracter (as advertised by NBC on their website and in the advertising posters and TV spots), but we will see how the series pans out and how it pans out character wise. MisterShiney (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On the NBC.com source, you are citing a plot summary, I'm citing the listing of cast members. I feel that the listing of cast members is a much better source. I seriously don't why we are still talking about this. I didn't start editing Wikipedia so i could be nice to new editors, and teach and nurture them, I edit Wikipedia to make sure article are in their best form. i don't care if I discouraged that IP user from editing again, his edits were rude, disruptive, and unhelpful, as we were in the middle of a discussion about it. BB was put in the top spot because that is what NBC and the producers did.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You know they are different PARTS of the SAME source right? And that is kind of obviuse considering the amount of toes you have stepped on since you started editing, and that is just the ones mentioned on your talk page. MisterShiney (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Huh... Well, those are all in the past, and I have learned from each one of those experiences,(something I hope you can do form this), and have become a better editor because of them. And I'll have you know, I'm on good terms with many of those editors, today. But that is in the past, and has no business being brought up in this discussion. I, frankly, don't know how many different ways we can explain this to.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What part of "let it go" did you all not get? MS, you really, really need to read WP:OR, particularly the WP:SYNTH part, because you're still doing it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have read that and that is directly refering to academic and historical topics and not fictional ones such as TV series. We are all flipping doing original research for TV series! If someone can give me the Wiki page that says cast lists are put there using to credits I will shut up and that will be the end of it. MisterShiney (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR applies to every article. To put it simply, what you are doing is reading a plot summary from a reliable source and drawing your own conclusion about it. No where does it state who the main character for the show is. It might imply someone has a more important role in the show or on a particular episode, but it has to state this explicitly for your argument. You're right, there is probably is a lot of Original Research going on for many editors, which is very often overlooked and goes unchallenged, because no one really disagrees with it. That's obviously not the case here. As stupid as this whole argument is, it's being challenged. A character listing. On a TV show. With two whole episodes under it's belt thus far. Amazing. I'll state this again to all interested parties: In the future, if someone changes it again, LET IT GO. This isn't worth anyone's time. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
All I have tried to do is make this as accurate as possible. I think it's one of those unique situations where a "big" name is also part of the cast, but in SOME People's eyes, not seen as the main character (and I stick to that viewpoint). I think that my reaction was partly a defensive reaction after Caringtype1 on my first big edit undid it with "unnecessary" and that immediately got my back up because he didn't even give another reason why. So meh. I shall continue to look at the series and see how it pans out. I just can't believe that this is unprecedented before lol. MisterShiney (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is still interested, on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_television page it clearly states:"Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". Hope everyone sleeps better knowing that.....173.61.47.125 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Im happy with that. MisterShiney (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
She is the main character right now, in the first two episodes shown, however perhaps he becomes the main character later on in the series. That'd explain the confusion. I personally couldn't care less what order they are in. You could have her there for now, and when they switch their focus to having him as a main character, then change it. Dream Focus 02:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Perhaps...that will get the feminists wound up. MisterShiney (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll jump in as I haven't read the whole discussion. The billing on American TV series (order and any additionals (and, with)) is generally dependant on negotiating power. It's not necessarily the best, most highly paid actor that goes first. They can be just as happy to go last. Historically, and I'd call this a consensus as I'm not aware of it being disputed, the order listed on Wikipedia follows the titles.--Matthew (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Full Season Pickup

NBC has given Revolution a full season!--SNTMcentral (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add the same info but found that the page has been put under full protection til 10/5/12. Perhaps an Admin wants to add it. Here's a source for the NBC action.[1] Sector001 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pennington, Gail (2 October 2012). "NBC picks up three new series for full season". St. Louis Post-Dispatch website StlToday.com. Retrieved 2 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
I think adding this information should be non-controversial and a good idea. I've made a specific request for the edit below. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Simulated reality premise

Upcoming edits (I'd like to see): As soon as high-quality sourced critics and other media start speculating that the action may be taking place in a simulated reality computer program code-named "Revolution," I'd like to see that included in the article. Once that premise is confirmed, we can add the series to the list of simulated reality in fiction. Oh, dear, I haven't blown the series' secret, have I? 5Q5 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

??? Well, if someone does say so, then feel free to add it. Otherwise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Jabberwockgee (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be the only way this series can be seen as science fiction. Right now it's just post-apocalyptic fantasy. Yngwin (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The section reads:

It has received favorable reviews from critics. It holds a Metacritic score of 66/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[22] Verne Gay of the Newsday gave the show a 5 star rating, noting "The cast is good, even excellent. But Perry's the one who sells Go On."[23] David Hinckley of the New York Daily News described the show as "Maybe the best new sitcom of the fall is one of the first."[24] Hank Stuever of the Washington Post praised the directing of the show, observing "Go On moves quite breezily--much like an NBC-flavored take on premium cable dramadies such as "The Big C" and "Enlightened." It's not as good as either of those, but it has the same happy-sad aura, with just a dash of "Community"-like absurdity to keep the speed limit up.

This is the Reception section from the Wikipedia article on the TV show, Go On, not Revolution.


--JBucknoff (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC) JBucknoff

NBC claims over 29 million people are watching this show while the ratings numbers for both episodes combined don't even add up to 21 million.--Subman758 (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really relevant, but curious. How do they really know who is watching? (Unless you have TiVo, that is)--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Accross the country there are people who are registered to record and submit what they watch on TV and using OnDemand services. So if they have like a list of 1000 like 500 watched Revolution. They could say that 5000,0000 in 1,000,000 in watch revolution. Using this information they are then able get a rough idea of how many people watched their shows etc. . Granted its not an exact art, but it's close enough for the big wigs in the exec level at TV channels. MisterShiney (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the following to the "Production" section of the article.:

  • On October 2, 2012, NBC announced it would pick up the series for an additional nine episodes after achieving an average of 9.8 million viewers for the first three episodes.<ref>{{cite web|last=Pennington|first=Gail|url=http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/gail-pennington/nbc-picks-up-three-new-series-for-full-season/article_c28704a8-0cdc-11e2-9409-001a4bcf6878.html|title=NBC picks up three new series for full season|publisher=''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'' website StlToday.com|date=2 October 2012|accessdate=2 October 2012}}</ref>

This is a non-controversial edit unrelated to the edit war that led to protection and it has the support of at least three editors with none opposed. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Make that 4 editors agree.

I know that I was a part of the edit war, but can I request a lift of the edit protection? I do hereby declare not to undo the character section as it currently stands without just cause. MisterShiney (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm personally not going to use any admin functions (unprotecting the page or adding the above text) since I was involved. However the {{Edit protected}} used above should let any roaming admin know about the edit request. Unprotecting the page can be done at WP:RFED. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 03:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Steam power

I have seen only the first episode. Do they explain why no one in this 'future' uses steam-powered transport/machinery?

It would be the obvious thing to do in a place with no electricity

Montalban (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If this was a forum, I would say go and watch more episodes ;) But it's not so I suggest you go forth and read the edit summaries. MisterShiney ✉ 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Having only seen the trailer in the UK I'm more interested to see how the removal of electricity kills the chemical reaction of the burning jet fuel in an airliner, then negates its ability to glide and puts it into a flat spin, yet leaves the navigation lights on as it crashes to the ground. I hope that there is a bit more care taken in other aspects of the series. DiverScout (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
MisterShiney I was interested to know if information came forth in the plot (which is in the wiki article), that's not so far expressed in the wiki article. Thanks. Montalban (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for this sort of topic. This is how to describe the tv series using cited references. It is not to speculate about the series' many, many faults/plot holes/etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

True, Jack. Sorry - but sometimes you just have to! Hide section as non-contributory to discussion? DiverScout (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it isn't necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
DiverScout, the article describes the show a certain way with regards technology. I thought perhaps that this description may have missed the issue of 'steam power' but as I hadn't seen past episode 1 I wasn't sure if it came up at all down the track.

The article says, as just one example "People were forced to adapt to a world without electricity."

It might have said "People were forced to adapt to a world without electricity, they are forced to rely on other forms of power."

It also talks of a special device, and I know having seen episode 1 at least two people are able to re-start electrical devices as a lady talks to someone using a radio.

I am not debating the pros and cons of the show, etc. Montalban (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Who would do that? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic concept is ludicrous. For instance, to what extent does the electricity stop working? Does it mean that a moving magnet no longer induces a current in a coil of wire? Does the Earth still have a magnetic field (produced by a coupled-dynamo effect in its liquid core)? What about lightning? What about light? That is an electromagnetic phenomenon! Does electricity still exist at the atomic level. If not, there would be nothing at all left. The plot was obviously concocted by someone who knows absolutely nothing about physics and the interconnectedness of the real world. The art of drama is to suspend disbelief. How can that occur if the viewer is constantly questioning the basic premise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.251.10 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Char

It asks "by whom" and a quick web search shows this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/tv/story/2012/09/17/girl-power-fuels-revolution/57791714/1 proclaims Charlie or whatever to be the main character. I'm removing the "by whom" thing since USA Today is notable but I don't know the finer details of what might be needed or if a citation is needed and I don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuggler (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, why does it matter to list "she is considered the main character of the series"? That would be like saying Jack Shephard was the main character of Lost. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As a viewer, I for one think she is, if fingers had to be pointed the MAIN person, with Miles being an equally important, but not as important as her and the rest being very important supporting cast MisterShiney (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Billy Burke gets top billing, in all promos and ads his character is clearly the focus, Charlie is certainly a lead character, listed in the credits she is listed second.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the main characters are listed in alphabetical order, perhaps? Why does there have to be a single "star"? 203.211.125.210 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Now dont start that again. lol. Its ok the way it is. There is a nice line that says its from her point of view. Its of my opinion that she should be at the top and that the only reason she isn't is because Billy Burke is more famous than her having been in those Twilight films and so the promoters put him up the top in everything to attach a "Well known name" to the series. MisterShiney ✉ 11:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Flashbacks

What is the point in naming all the flashbacks in every episode?? That can easily be mentioned in the episode section, and what if the stop having flashbacks in episode 4?? That makes no sense!Caringtype1 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Flashbacks are an important part of the episode and depending on how well the overview is written they can create confusion to the reader. It's just much easier to have them separate. Otherwise people get confused. MisterShiney (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
After three episodes with their flashbacks, I am starting to think this series is going in the same direction as the series "Lost". If this is realized, then such acknowledgement would be necessary--but not certain where this would go.Victorsteelballs (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this is a month after the editor's comment, but I disagree with MrShiney's evaluation that the flashbacks are deserving of their own distinction within the summaries. That isn't even done in Lost, a series to which Revolution has been compared here. However, if someone were to cite some sources that make it clear that these flashbacks are vital and distinct from the storyline, I'd be tempted to undo the work I am about to undertake in incorporating the flashbacks into the summaries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to wait for a bit (read: a week); there might be discussion pending. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
They aren't seperate from the story line. They form an integral part of it. They give us background on the characters and plot points. I don't know why they were not included lost, I can only assume its because no one thought to include them separately. Nothing wrong with them there and sources arnt needed to cite plot points. MisterShiney ✉ 19:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you need a citation to support that they are so very, very important that they deserve their own paragraph. Without it, they will be integrated into the plot summary for each episode. I pointed to Lost, as it is one of those programs that utilize the flashback feature to significant effect; Revolution does so far, far less effectively. Just so we're clear, that last bit was my evaluative statement. I'd never consider adding it to the article. We need something more than your belief in their importance to keep from blending them back into the plot summaries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

It says that where....? This issue has been raised above, another editor agrees that they need a mention. They arnt taking over the page or bloating the plot summaries, in fact, when someone (not sure who) cut down the summaries, they kept them. Just because they arnt important to YOU, that is no reason to remove them. MisterShiney ✉ 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Shiney, this isn't about what I think is important any more than what you think is important. It is about lending undue weight to these flashbacks, separating them from the edit summaries via indenting and bold text. This suggests to the common reader that they are more important than they are.
Clearly, the easiest way to resolve this problem is to present a citation here in discussion wherein a notable, reliable source note thse flashbacks as something very important and distinctive enough to merit the sort of separation that you appear to be advocating. You simply saying 'it'ain't hurtin' nuthin' isn't an effective argument against integration of the material. Lastly, the summaries could easily br trimmed down even more than they are now, incorporating the flashback material (if indeed necessary). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Lets see what other editors have to say on the topic first. At the moment (tenchinally, I know there is only one other editor) the consensus is to keep. So lets see what happens over time. You can't just get rid of something because you disagree with the content. The plots to begin with were quite big and to keep it flowing, it was more natural to have a seperate section (originally I didn't actually put the flashback in hold) because it broke up the flow of the plot summarises. My compromise is to keep until more editors who contribute to the discussion. You've made your point, I've made mine. Anything else is going to get us both frustrated and be unconstructive. There is no hurry to get things changed after all it is on a mid season break. MisterShiney ✉ 18:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of separating the flashbacks into their own section. They could easily be integrated with a simple sentence in the synopsis, and it would look much less clunky. Dayewalker (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Precisely my point. No one is talking about removing them, Shiney. The whole point is to find a way to integrate them back into the summaries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am just concerned that it will come confusing and repetitive to have "During flash backs it is revealed..." and it is just simpler to have a small separate/part of section. Not to put undue emphasis but to have it flow better. MisterShiney ✉ 07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be where the editor's skill comes into play - the ability to be creative enough to avoid repetition. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

William R. Forstchen/Stephen King

What novel? I've just looked this up and I can't see evidence of any such novel by William R. Forstchen. 82.28.146.233 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The novel is One Second After... however, someone also needs to draw the direct comparison to Stephen King's work, including the episode named "The Stand", the name of the characters "Charlie" (Firestarter), "Danny" (The Shining), the use of the alias "Stu Redman" and "Fran" in the episode "No Quarter" (The Stand), and in the same episode the use of the phrase "Shawshank our way out of here" (Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption)... Randall Flynn (Randall Flagg, The Stand), the giving of the book "The Stand" in the episode, "Ghosts", etc. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 04:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That "someone" needs to be a reliable third party source, not one of us. Some of this synth is already far-reaching....... "Danny" is such an uncommon name, right? Has to be from the Shining. Same with Charlie. Randall Flynn can't just be coincidence? Saying to "Shawshank" is obviously a reference to the movie because it would have been a frame of reference both men understood (being around the same age etc), no different than if I said someone "went all Chuck Norris on them", most people in my age group would know I was talking about fighting, not cooking. The Stu and Frannie comment is most certainly a reference to The Stand, but I see it more as a subtle homage than something warranting comparison. Regardless, this still comes back to a reliable third party having to make all this comparison. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just want to reiterate the above -- Stop adding unsourced things. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It's not our jobs as editors to make comparisons and draw conclusions. That is considered original research. Find an independent, reliable source that does that and then we can discuss adding it, first. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't add it to the article. And it is our job as editors to bring up things on the talk page which merit further consideration. I didn't add anything to the article, other than the name of the novel the work was "loosely based upon," including that a citation was needed for that very comparison. So, pay attention and keep the snark for the video game article talk pages.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 23:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Further:

So... take your pick...OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

At least two of those are reliable sources. There might be one or two more. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • TV Guide source: It says they are pop culture references and that it's not limited to him (which is what I said).
  • IMDB source: Not a reliable source
  • Hitflix: mentions that he used the Redmon reference, whcih nobody disputes, but nothing else.
  • 28days later (which I'm not sure is a RS): Again says there were pop culture refs, but nothing about basing anything on them.
  • Screened: says there are references, but nothing else.
  • Crave: see above
  • RevolutionTVshow: Not a RS
  • Undertheradar: Makes the claim that it's a version of The Stand
  • HuffPo: Asks if it is part of a King series (sarcasm) and makes an intention error calling Flynn Flagg and saying it was a mistake because of the other King refs.
  • So what do you have? 9 sources. 2 are absolutely not RS's, 1 likely isn't. 6 say there are King refs, something nobody disputes. 1 says that there are King refs but plenty of other pop culture refs. And a single one says this series is based on The Stand. Color me unconvinced. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? You said that you didn't add anything to the article, other than the name of the novel the work was "loosely based upon," including that a citation was needed for that very comparison. Why bother even adding that? You didn't have a source so why put in a statement (especially in the opening sentence) that draws a comparison without a source? Do you think by adding a {{fact}} tag that it makes it okay? I don't believe that's the intended use of the tag. Most people add the tag to unsourced statements that they find, not to statements that they add themselves. Also, the more I think of it, even if one of these sources was reliable (which Niteshift explained well above that they aren't), that still would not justify adding the statement as you had worded, unless they were getting their information directly from someone involved in the show who explicitely stated that it was based on something. Otherwise, it's that writer's opinion that it's based on a particular novel and any mention of it in this article should state it as such (e.g. "Some people believe that it is loosely based on...") and definitely not in the lead. So, in your own words, pay attention and keep the snark for the video game article talk pages. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all the statement that the series was based upon a novel was already in the article, in the lead section, before I ever touched it [1]. A question was then asked on the talk page as to which specific novel [2]. I answered the question, entered the name of the novel on the article, for the sake of clarity, and then entered a citation needed template for the entire comparison. And, I won't be adding anything further to this article, because it is obviously being squatted upon by a few rude and frustrated editors who apparently have nothing better to do than take potshots at people on the talk page, and add unnecessary lectures. So have fun with your C-class rated article, and if you actually feel like being useful to the community, try reading the reasons why Wikipedia has such problems with retaining good editors [3]. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast bios

  • I think we're trying to jam too much info into the cast bios. These shouldn't be 191 worlds (like Miles) or 163 words like Aaron. Many of them keep trying to tell the characters involvement in everything. These should be a quick "who is this person" and done. Not a mini-recap of the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a rude editor who's squatting on this article to drive new editors out so that it can remain a C-class article, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I think they should be longer. </sarcasm> However, if I wasn't such an editor, I would probably completely agree with you. Oh, I modified your heading so that it wasn't a subsection of the above discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We should cut it down so that it is just character descriptions and not repeating what the plot is about. MisterShiney ✉ 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the section headings. I have no idea what happened to them, but the level-1 headers (a single equals sign on each side) is reserved for the page title. Always use two on either side unless it's meant to be a subsection. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
When I started this conversation, I did it by clicking the "new section" header at the top.....so I'm not sure I'm following your explanation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Eh, that would probably be my fault as noted in my comment above. The discussion above this one apparently had the wrong headings (one equal sign) and when Niteshift created this one (correctly), this one became a subsection of the previous discussion. I hastily "fixed" the heading by removing a set of equal signs not really paying attention that is was the incorrect solution. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin

The article states that the series is "based loosely on the series of novels known as The Emberverse series." Is this just spec, or has S.M. Stirling been involved in some way (even just having rights paid)? Because the basic premise matches, yes, but nearly every other aspect that I can determine seems to be different. Radagast (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the claim for now. I tried to find a source better than conjecture in forums, and couldn't really turn up one. Given that Stirling's premise wasn't that original, (it dates back to at least 1943), I think we need a bit more to support the possible connection. - Bilby (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope SM Stirling sues them because it's almost EXACTLY the story that he wrote to include the plane falling out of the sky in the trailer. What a hoax. I thought better of Mr. Abrams.----Scott Nyquist snyquist2@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.15 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the Revolution promo, I immediately recalled a British sci-fi story about electricity mysteriously and suddenly not working. The story takes place several years after the event, and is not a shoot-em-up, more an evocation of what it would be like to live in such a world where steam is the most advanced technology. (In that sense, it was a precursor of steampunk.). I read this story in the 1970s but it may have been a a decade or two old at the time. It was written by a reasonably noted author, but I haven't been able to track it down. That said, I agree that reversion to a primitive level of technology is a prototypical genre--at least as old as the Time Machine, or even Robinson Crusoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latichever (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stirling can't sue because he stole the idea completely from Steven R. Boyett's ARIEL. Latichever: You are thinking of "The Waverlies," by Fredric Brown.

Yes, that's the story I was thinking of. [4] Unknown phenomenon destroying modern ugliness and bringing us back to the beautiful simple days when we were young and hopeful. For people my age, the villain of modernity is not electricity but the transistor. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of you say the premise is inspired by recent sources, without considering those may in turn be inspired by an older work. I remember first seeing the idea of electricity disappearing (or changing form) in René Barjavel's novel Ravage [5] from 1943. So unless you know an even older story, I respectfully suggest you stop bickering about Ariel, the Emberverse and whatnot.Spamarrant (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude....this conversation ended back in September.... MisterShiney ✉ 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dude to you :D It's never too late to learn something. I didn't want to stir anything or edit the article myself, I just wanted to share some interesting information with people who obviously care about this subject. Barjavel's novels were some of the best anticipation/scifi novels I read in my childhood, and I like to share what I like and deem worth of interest, with people likely to appreciate it. Your answer shows at least one new person heard of Barjavel today, so it was definitely worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.172.70 (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous concept in every way. Why would civilisation revert to a primitive hunter-gatherer state just because of a lack of electricity? It should revert logically to an early 19th-century state but one which had the added advantage of all of the scientific knowledge accumulated up to the 21st century. Modern medicines, for instance, could still be manufactured ... albeit more tediously. The only possible entertainment value of this rubbish is that offered to pedants who will compile endless lists of inconsistencies. Will there be lightning (important to agriculture)? Will a compass still work? More importantly, does the Earth still have its magnetic field (which protects it from certain radiation effects)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.251.10 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Might try watching the show before commenting. The show clearly indicates a 19th century sort of existence. There are modern firearms around, but the lack of newly manufactured ammo has forced most to use muskets or melee weapons.

The book, on the hand, does portray a reversion to medieval technologies, but this is a page about the show, not the book.98.247.83.115 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, this is not based on a book. Hence why any reference saying it is based on X or Y book has been removed in the past. Secondly, your personal views on the topic do not matter as these talk pages are not forum's to discuss the topic. MisterShiney ✉ 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Monroe Militia

This is a last ditch effort to get user 108.27.79.130 to stop. I don't think what you are adding, the Monroe Militia, is necessary, nor does it make sense to add it there. The Monroe militia is the name of Monroe's Army. It is not a faction, nor is it a nation. It is an extension of the Monroe Republic, and should be removed. All in favor?

  • SuportKude90 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I've reverted it myself. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I reverted too, it's redundant and obvious Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Just so anyone reading this knows, I've sent a message to the user via his talk page alerting him to this topic.Kude90 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the whole "Nations and factions" section. There are no sources, and it barely helps the reader understand the topic better. To me, it really doesn't seem necessary at all.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Added "boy" to recurring character and character description based on the show.

I hope that this is sufficient to add, but this is the brief summary I've added about the "boy" character featured in the episode "Everyone Says I Love You".

* Aidan Sussman as Boy, the Artificial intelligence of the the Nanites that manifested itself into human form.

Yes, he is a recurring character, which is why he was only in one episode. Wait until, or if, we see him again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosun (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Similarity with Lost

I'm a big fan of this style of series even though I felt a bit disillusioned at the end of Lost. Is it worth comparing this series with Lost? Here are some similarities:

  • J.J. Abrams created Lost and produced Revolution
  • Both are produced by Bad Robot.
  • Flashbacks on characters - many episodes give us more insight into a specific character through a series of flash backs. This is an interesting device as makes the actions taken by the character believable even though we've only actually seen the reason for that behavior a few minutes prior.
  • Scenes often end with a slightly suspenseful string riff
  • A lot of the dialogue happens while characters are either walking or packing stuff

Danieljohnc (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • First, we don't make those comparisons ourselves. That's WP:OR. Second, a reliable third party source needs to be the one who makes that comparison. Third, the comparisons need to be relevant enough to include. Frankly, those similarities are really weak. So, in a word, no. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1140125064"