Talk:Continuum season 4

Canadian Viewers table
This was originally labelled as U.S. Viewers table, when I came to this page I noticed that the dates listed in the table were for the Canadian airings. I changed them to the American ones assuming someone had made a mistake. I was reverted by Alexthewhovian who made a rather snarky remark "Well, luckily for us, then, this table isn't for US viewers". Confused by this, I re added the dates as after all this was an American table. Of course that wasn't good enough for this editor who said "Then we fix it! It's not a US show, hence we don't list US ratings" so I decided to remove the table because it was geared towards the American ratings, as Canada doesn't have an 18-49 system etc. I was accused of "unfounded removal". How is it unfounded to remove a table that by all accounts was set up to log American ratings?

This editors excuse seems to be that because it's a Canadian show that only the Canadian ratings should be reported. However, I've seen quite a few pages on Wikipedia of American shows, especially the NCIS(Recent seasons) ones that log ratings for both countries. Is there a guideline that states only the ratings from the country of origin should be logged here or is this one editors opinion?

At present that table on the page is completely redundant as it will never be filled. Canada doesn't release 18-49 ratings or weekly cable rankings. Can we get some kind of consensus on removal please? 86.14.62.209 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As it is, the article has no reviews or ratings section, which is problematic. I would add this info back in myself, except I know nothing about how TV rating systems work, so I'd request that someone with the knowledge of such things add an appropriately labelled section (or post some references so I can add it). As long as we make it clear whether we're citing American ratings or Canadian ones, I'd assume either one would be appropriate. —2macia22 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of "Lost Hours" article
The article on the first episode Lost Hours has no new information except for a single review that could easily be put on this page. It seems pretty un-notable and redundant to me; any objections to merging it here/suggestions for how to best go about doing this? —2macia22 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Final Episode synopsis
For discussion.

I had adjusted the wording "sent him much further back in time than he expected" because he did not expect to go "back in time" at all! Thus, the revised "reveals that Kellog's stolen coordinates sent him to the distant past" is a more direct statement of what transpired.

In an early edit I had used the term Pre-Columbian era, which applies to North America and defines a period which ended 500 years ago. When other editors felt there was not enough information to make the Pre-Columbian claim, I switched to the descriptive but generic "distant past". I did not start a "Talk" at that time, as distant past was adequate. I would suggest that today's revised edit using Stone Age, which ended 4000 years ago across the planet, definitely moves beyond what can be confidently applied here. I'm open to discussion of Pre-Columbian as an option, but distant past serves well without needing major debate.

The statement about Kiera's son "and that he would understand the situation in time" is slightly awkward, and does not add much to the more important(and already stated) fact that there is another Kiera in this timeline who is the "rightful" parent to Sam – "our" Kiera has succeeded in restoring a much improved version of the timeline, but there is still a price she has to pay for doing the right thing.

Thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the semantics and any other rephrases... the phrase "the distant past" seemed a bit confusing and imparted essentially no actual information about the scene itself which was actually shown in the sequence. The second phrase, left an open hope for the protagonist that Sam may understand what happened later in time, the lack of which makes the ending with no room for such. Feel free to word it something that reflects both cases imparting the information I was attempting to add. I agree, in the first case, the era was vague.. then again, it was vague in the scene too. I suggest use of a term that further disambiguates the fact that it was not just a distant pass of the same era and hence leaving no room for any come back. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The show establishes that the time machine works at its geographic coordinate, which equals Vancouver, North America. For this reason, I would like to go back to Pre-Columbian - but will wait a few days for any other comments, here, on that point.


 * I don't recall elder-Alex specifically mentioning that Sam will understand "in time" why there are two Kiera's, but I will rewatch tonight. If the statement is there, how does this sound "Alec shows her that Sam is safe, but that he is the son of the new timeline's Kiera, suggesting that Sam and his Kiera could eventually understand the existence of the time travelling Kiera." ? (I guess the main stumbling point was the phrase "understand in time", which can be confusing in an article where time-travel/somewhere-in-time is different from the normal passage of time, during which Sam & his Kiera can get comfortable with the story they will someday hear.) Jmg38 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I had removed the first mention of Pre-Columbian era because I thought that specifying any era when none was identified in the show was presumptuous, but reading the (Wikipedia) description of Pre-Columbian, that actually seems like a reasonably accurate term to use for what was portrayed in the show, and I couldn't come up with any better way to describe it anyway. As for the final phrase, I was under the impression that this Sam would never even meet "our" Kiera, because she was now unnecessary in his life, so I don't see any reason to use this phrase. If there's something in the scene suggesting this, then I missed it completely. I thought this was one of the more touching points of that scene, actually, that she would never get to interact with him again, only watch from afar. —2macia22 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer the wording originally used for the last sentence... but I guess I'm biased, since I wrote it. So I'll let other editors decide what it needs to say (though I'll probably still copy edit if needed to make it read cleanly.) —2macia22 (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just watched the ending again. It matches 2macia22's comments - elder Alex tells our Kiera that not being able to interact with Sam is her "price for making the world a better place", that not being able to be with him "is the price of love", and that our Kiera "will understand, in time."


 * I'd like to keep Pre-Columbian (again, waiting a day or two for other possible comments). I'd also like to suggest a few extra words to capture that "the price she pays for making the world better is never being able to interact with Sam again."  If these two thoughts are agreeable, perhaps 2macia22 could do the honour of adding a version of those extra words (mine are just a suggestion).  Thank you 2macia22 and  TopGun for this robust discussion.   Jmg38 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, my apologies, Jmg38 wrote the original version of this episode's summary, not me. I copy edited it, so my wording wasn't the "original." Sorry about that.

Secondly, we're a little over wordcount for this summary, as it's recommended that they stay under 200 words... but I'm not going to care about 20 words here or there if no one else minds.

And, let's see, a suggestion for the final sentence: "Alec shows her that the Corporate Congress was never created, but she pays a price for it, seeing Sam only from a distance as the son of the new timeline's Kiera." —2macia22 (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just verified the second phrase about Sam from subtitles, I must have heard "He'll understand, in time" while it's "You'll will understand, in time" in Alec's explanation to Kiera. So my bad about that part. However, 2macia22's suggestion is better because it does not conclude that Kiera will never be able to "interact" with Sam again as that is not impossible if she 'comes clean' and would be WP:OR anyway. Just capturing what the scene actually showed, above suggestion is quite precise. About Kellog, as I said, any thing that imparted the information him being sent to a time way before modern age is much more clearer. Jmg38, you're right, it worked at geographic coordinate and Pre-Columbian era would make sense without adding any information that was not actually there in the scene. I will prefer that Pre-Columbian era is wiki-linked though. Btw, shouldn't these summaries be citing WP:RS? A link to a video or subtitles would make sure we are following WP:V. I'm not really aware of which subtitle website would be considered RS though... I guess any officially endorsed site should do as a reliable primary source. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree... 2macia22's suggested text looks good, so go for it. Also agree with TopGun that Pre-Columbian should be wiki-linked.  As to the final monologue of elder-Alex, I would suggest that the thread of the whole speech gives us enough support to overcome any concern about his cloudy enunciation of "you'll" versus "he'll", so that we probably will be fine with out adding a reference from a subtitle website. Also agree that the extra 20 words should be okay for the final wrap up of an entire sereis. (...and I so wanted to mention Dillon learning the truth of time travel, and also mention that he is killed, and mention that Kiera had a deep attachment to Fonnegra, and....  Oh well.) Jmg38 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I'll go ahead and make the changes. Cutting summaries of favorite shows down to 200 words is hard! As for references, I've been working with episode summaries lately, and they never have references in this format. The table format is enough to demonstrate which particular episode is the source for which particular summary, and I think (released) episodes are considered a source that any reader could look up on their own to verify, without needing a direct citation. —2macia22 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, so we have a consensus and the summary looks good and does justice to the show itself ;) About citations... ah, ok, I was curious why these summaries never had inline citations. Makes sense that the tabular format is a citation in itself. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)