Talk:Dollhouse (TV series)/Archive 1

Joe 90?
The premise (of imprinting personae to undertake various missions) sounds like a rip-off of the old Gerry Anderson series Joe 90. Probably should be mentioned in the article, especially if it has been pointed out in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.194.1 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been, but it's hardly a unique enough concept that it would warrant phrasing like "rip-off". The idea of imprinting a different personality for the sake of a mission, unless I'm mistaken, was also in Total Recall. I think there's also stories with a similarly "mission-based" premise that involved, say, robots - or people whose characters were just really good actors, minus the memory wipes (like Alias). Honestly, both aspects of the concept? Been around for a while. Please keep an open mind, since the series has yet to air, and we know relatively little about it thus far. I say this because, in addition to you being the only person who seems to have drawn this connection (making it - especially at this stage - original research unless a "reliable source" media source has also drawn said connection), you chose to use the more than somewhat non-NPOV language of "rip-off". Please try to stay within more neutral language in the future, 'kay? 70.118.80.144 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... "It hasn't been"? Try googling: dollhouse whedon "joe 90". A lot of people seem to be drawing the same conclusion as 86.142.194.1 -- OK, maybe "rip-off" is too strong, but a line or two about how people are comparing it to Joe 90/Total Recall/other things would be OK. 138.251.192.96 (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you'll see mentioned about a bajillion times on Wiki (and I won't argue that I hate it sometimes) but forums and blogs are not considered reuputable sources for here. It's also not a terribly specific plot idea, and you also have to keep in mind that any idea has likely been done at least twice already. If a review ends up coming out comparing the two then it will be notable, but then again it's going to be a rather long time until that happens. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Neuromancer
The concept of renting your body out for sex and murder and having your mind wiped clear afterwards is also used in the book Neuromancer. TheTyrant (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)TheTyrant
 * So? There isn't a "what other shows have variations of this plot been used" section, and nor should there be unless distinct connections are made or there is some sort of article that refers to it.  Anything else should really just be discussed at one of the various message boards based on this show. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference to Neuromancer would be too vague; but there is a page about the specific character that was a doll (meat puppet). I think the reference is valuable, and I've added it in a "see also" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.144.69.234 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Alias
The premise sounds a lot like the first season of Alias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.72.149 (talk) 11:24, 17 November, 2007
 * agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.102.47 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Wait, Sydney Bristow had her memory wiped and constantly had new memories imposed on it? Either I missed something back when I was actually watching that show in exactly the season you just brought up, or you're zeroing in an awful lot on the spy stuff and ignoring the rest of it. :P That said, both aspects of the concept, as well as the existentialism stuff that will no doubt arise, are common in science fiction. Joss Whedon does tend to have a real penchant for taking genres or concepts that are fairly common, and putting a different spin on it. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (feminist fantasy + subversive horror-comedy + Lovecraft-esque backstory), Angel (noir + vampire genres), Firefly (western+"used future" SF, + Asian influences), and Fray (used future + fantasy with dare I say it, the tiny touch of cyperpunk?) are all good series examples of how he's done just that. Not to mention individual episodes, where he has subversive or otherwise fairly unusual treatments of everything from the nature of evil to musicals, or of course, existentialism. There's a reason a number of academics actually bother to study and publish essays about his stuff; it's absolutely rife with references and twists and subversions of all kinds of older material and concepts (noir is a favorite of his, as is existentialist works, and old comics and plays - heck, somewhere I even saw it pointed out that this series in particular's title is probably a reference to A Doll's House, which was additionally referenced in an episode of Angel, so we at least do know he knows of the play's existence), which is the kind of a thing a lot of them seem to go for, given it gives their memory/research/analysis skills a good work out. However, I don't know if he's an Alias fan or not. It did have a strong female character at the center, and at least one of his Firefly actors was on it at some point or other, so it wouldn't necessarily surprise me, just I've never seen it mentioned anywhere ... 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * *cough cough* Never watched Alias myself, and I know this is a pretty superfluous comment, but 'here here!' regarding Joss and his awesomeness. It's hard to find something that hasn't been done before, yet when Joss does it, it's fantastic. Let's not compare it to any other shows until we've seen it. Etimodnar (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

and yes, watching it, it IS a lot like Alias. Incredibly so, short of the key difference: One character is conscious of the roles she takes on, and the other is not. --24.47.158.216 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Casting process
I'm not sure, if it has any relevance to the show, that elliott, dale and campbell auditioned for Dollhouse, but lost out to other actors. I may have been relevant back then, but right now it seems kind of out of place. shall we delete it? Wiesengrund (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- I see no need for a casting page now that we have the cast of characters listed and the show is already in its Season 1 run. I am going to delete the casting page. Someone can add it back or discuss it further if they think it's pertinent. weswilson4 Feb. 24, 2009

dollhouseforums.com
i wanna talk about this paragraph:

"Eager Joss Whedon and Dollhouse fans began campaigning to hype the show's January 2009 premiere episode a full 9 months before its initial airing on FOX. Originating on the popular fan community, DollhouseForums.com, the campaign has been well documented in numerous internet[14], radio[15] and magazine features. Along with the strong press to hype the show, campaign organizers encourage viewers to hold viewing parties, purchase products from companies that advertise during the show's commercial breaks, create their own fan websites with free web-space and domains provided, and participate in Dollhouse cast and crew interviews held at the community."

i'd like to point out, that for any TV artist that has been around for so long it is pretty much not very notable, that he has fans that are "eager" for his new show, and that they will start forums and "hype" the show in advance. this is not notable, in my opinion. and even if it were, the "popular fan cummunity" shouldn't be mentioned, since a) they are defnitely not the only community hyping the show, and b) the "campaign" wasn't noted by reliable sources for it's hyping of the show, but because the campaign started out as a "Save dollhouse"-campaign on said forum, meaning that fans were trying to "save" Dollhouse from cancellation 9 months before the first episode even aired. every reliable source, inculding the two linked in the above paragraph, doesn't talk about the notability of fans hyping a show in advance. they are talking about how strange it is that fans are already seeing the show in danger of cancellation.

now, after that issue was discussed in the community the campaign-starters themselves changed the campaign to a "hype dollhouse"-stance, but we're still waiting for one reliable source to acknowledge this as being notable. because, as i said before, in my opinion it isn't. because of all these reasons, i think this paragraph should be deleted.Wiesengrund (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello? Two things that should be pointed out right now.  One: notability is a guideline about article creation, not article content.  It does not matter in the slightest if the stuff we put in an article is notable as long as it's established that the subject of the article itself is notable.  Dancter was right that it's too long for the lead section, but the fact remains that in terms of article content, the relevant policies are of verifiability and original research.  And the fact of the matter is that if you want to claim that NPR is not a reliable source, I'm going to have to enter a plea that you're insane.  It may be necessary, though, to repaint the information in such a way that it focuses on the same thing as the sources (i.e. its early stages centered around cancellation fear).  I suck at writing this kind of stuff, but we have sources and I don't think there's any reason it should be left out. Maratanos (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what i would suggest. If we want to cite these sources, then the paragraph should acknowledge that they are dealing with a "save Dollhouse"-campaign dealing with the fear of cancellation. I really didn't want to give the impression, that i considered these sources to be unreliable, but they are talking about a different matter than the one described in the paragraph.
 * I also agree that it shouldn't be in the lead, maybe a new Response-section would be cool, where we could also start collecting and citing reviews.Wiesengrund (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't really understand what the problem is here... minus the fact that the site name is in the paragraph. A simple mistake that I have seen happen several times on the site. That could have EASILY been edited out. I think this bit of information concerning the fan campaign is VERY relevant to the show and should be documented. If you go to any other wiki page for a show which has had a fan campaign, there is detailed information about it.

Five years
I found some stuff that implied the idea of the five-year contract for Actives showed up in the pilot script. Unfortunately, nothing struck me as reliable enough for Wikipedia. I don't doubt that it's true, it's been popping up enough that it'd have been corrected if it weren't, but I'm not really sure where we could get a source. Anyone have any ideas? Maratanos (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Echo
The current information for the character Echo reads so implausible that it almost reads like vandalism. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mellie
To the editor constantly adding the name "Mellie" to the recurring characters list: stop it. Until you find a reliable source confirming the name "Mellie", it will consistently be reverted. kingdom2 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of plagiarized copyrighted material (2.18.09)
In this edit, a lot of good information was removed (quite rightly) based on the text being copied from the Fox website. Some of this could be rewritten, a bit less gushily, citing the Fox website as a source, to avoid both the NPOV and copyright issues. I haven't followed this series much, so hesitate to do so myself. TJRC (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't really be expected to follow a series when only one episode has aired. Yes, a lot of it was justified. But not all. For some of the characters, he deleted everything - up to and including - the actor's names, and left nothing in its place. There is no justification for that. We tried to take away some of the rumor sources and use the FOX character page as the primary source, but apparently that was bad. I rewrote most of the characters and added back some of the old references. kingdom2 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is indeed justification for it, it's called copyright law. Copying that much copyrighted material, word for word, is not only plagiarism, it's copyright violation, which I explicitly noted in my Edit Summary. And some of it was not from the FOX site, but was unsourced and/or POV, the removal of which is justified by WP:V and WP:NPOV. It has nothing to do with using that page as the primary source being "bad". It has to do with proper paraphrasing of the material, which had not been done, and which could leave Wikipedia open to a copyright lawsuit. Rewriting it as you did was the proper thing to do. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with the copyright vio bit or the NPOV BIT. The character descriptions were nothing if not cringe-worthy. But you actually in some cases deleted the names of the actors playing these characters, leaving nothing but the character names. That has no justification. And paraphrasing what is already there isn't exactly a difficult job, but going back in after someone else has hacked up a section and fixing it is. I do not think I will ever understand the "delete it all and let someone else make it appropriate" mentality, because that's what that was. kingdom2 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looking over my edit, I see that I accidentally deleted the names of the actors playing Topher, Sierra and Lubov. I can assure you (and as you might've surmised), this was unintentional, and I apologize for that. As for the issue of paraphrasing, policy requires the removal of such material. It does not, however, require editors who find the material in that condition to paraphrase it instead of deleting it. It requires the editor who originally added it to do this. But if a third editor wants to restore it in paraphrased form, they can simply cut and paste it in the Edit Window, and then modify the wording there, which isn't that hard. Either way, the situation is caused by the editor who originally violated both policy and copyright law, not the editor who properly upheld them. Nightscream (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alpha
I believe that, given the events and provided back story of "The Target", that an entry for Alpha in the recurring characters section is called for. While an actor has not yet been revealed and all we have seen are silhouettes and a naked back, the character itself has appeared in two episodes, making him recurring, and he carried sufficient weight in "The Target" to make him notable. I also think that, while the plot-based information given on the character far exceeds those of the other characters, the nature of the character demands it. I am posting this in order to avoid having the character deleted, as it was last week and for good reason. Before this episode there was simply not enough information on Alpha to write an entry. Who agrees? kingdom2 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, Alan Tudyk is NOT ALPHA! It was a rumor that has since been discredited. Read the current source on Alpha and you will see this. kingdom2 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And neither is Sean Maher. kingdom2 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Alan Tudyk, but I'm tired of debating it on here. weswilson4 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this source, which was released after the original sources claiming Tudyk is Alpha were, and is the source cited at Alpha's entry, Alan Tudyk is NOT Alpha. It even goes on to say that the very identity of the actor portraying Alpha might be a spoiler, implying that he is someone we either have seen or will see on the show. While this source is also on shaky grounds of reliability, it is worthy to note that, not only has no other source has come out claiming Tudyk to be Alpha since its release, but the source cited here also previously believed Tudyk to be Alpha before correcting themselves. kingdom2 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because the producers of Dollhouse prefer it to remain a secret. They are trying to throw people off the trail. I will gladly eat crow if it's wrong, but I have it confirmed from two reliable sources to be fact. weswilson4 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * God, Wes, would you GET OVER YOURSELF!!! If the secret came out that Tudyk was Alpha, and I hope you understand this, there would be no point in trying to keep it a secret!


 * Also, I must once again address your concept of what constitutes a "reliable source." I have told you this before - what you consider reliable and what Wikipedia considers reliable are two different things. We are much stricter here. The only sources that you have put forward are fansites, which are not considered reliable sources.


 * And as for proving this to be nothing but a rumor, let me take you through the time line. The rumor surfaced 1-2 weeks ago, and it was only found in fansites or other sources deemed "unreliable." At this point in time Tudyk would not be listed as the actor portraying Alpha, even if it were true, because, as stated, these are not reliable sources. It matters not how many sources you have which confirm a piece of information - if none of them are reliable, the information does not go in the article. However, a mere two days later, these same sources recanted this information which they presented as "fact." And in the time since the original release of the rumor, no reliable sources have published the information. All of this evidence points to the fact that this is, at present, is nothing more than a rumor. kingdom2 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you need to watch your tone. No personal attacks, and try to remember Good Faith. Not everyone that comes into a currently popular Wiki like this is fully versed in policy, so try to have patience. That goes for the other side, too; people need to realize that Wikipedia does have strict guidelines as to what a reputable source is or is not. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe me now Kingdom2? Again, I work for a news station and have sources inside Fox and Mutant Enemy. Please feel free to link to more reputable sites that discredited the "rumor" that Alan Tudyk was Alpha. They obviously have better inside information than I do. weswilson4 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Time for a little lesson on Wikipedia courtesy and sourcing, children. The above comment is a perfect example of being something that one becomes for calling another out on, in this case personalizing a disagreement with cleverly hidden sarcasm that doesn't fool anyone. Your comment amounts to nothing but an "I told you so", which is immature at best and dickish at worst. Aside from that, though, as stated many, many, many, MANY times before, Wikipedia is NOT journalism, and the rules and practices of journalism DO NOT APPLY ON WIKIPEDIA. When posting information on Wikipedia, you MUST have a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personal knowledge and investigations count for nothing because they are original research. Make no mistake, even knowing what I know now, I would still have reverted your edits. kingdom2 (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Wes, something else. Do. Not. Fuck. With. My. Postings. That is a one way ticket to a banning. kingdom2 (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, clearly you have too much time on your hands to link to the wikipedia definition of "dick." Happy editing of future people's posts, Mr. Mensa. weswilson4 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it links to an essay on being a dick and what constitutes being one. And I have never edited other people's posts. kingdom2 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, way too much time on your hands. weswilson4 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being dragged into the personal muck and losing the policy high-ground, I will refrain from directly responding to anymore of your postings. kingdom2 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you lost the "high ground" when you linked to "dick." weswilson4 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A tone question about "recurring characters," etc.
There is something about the tone of this article, especially in its slightly earlier version, that grates on me. Ostensibly, this is an encyclopedia entry about a television series. So far, there have been two episodes of this series--a few critics may have seen a few more than that. But the article discloses a good deal of narrative information that has not actually appeared in those two episodes. For instance, Mellie was listed as a character before she made an appearence, and the whole idea of "recurring characters" after two episodes is kind of dubious.

Now, I'm overthinking this, but it feels like a WP:IN-U situation. There is not a recurring character called Mellie in a television series called Dollhouse. There is a television series called dollhouse, in which a character called Mellie has appeared, whom the show's promoters have told us will reappear. It seems like if we fail to make this distinction, the encyclopedia entry becomes co-opted into the show's promotional material. Am I making any sense? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The content of these Wikipedia articles are to be based off of information from reliable sources - which does not exclusively mean the television show. A reliable source has given us information on these recurring characters, so we will gleefully admit this information into our articles. And this is not an IU situation. In-universe is when you write about a fictional thing as if it were real, not a fictional creation. kingdom2 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference, and that this is not a typical IU situation. But it seems to me that when we are combining the fictional work itself (which we do cite) with the creator's claims about that fictional work, unless we distinguish them from each other, we get a kind of IU effect all the same.  If I realease a TV show with a monkey, and I, as the writer of the show, say in an interview that the monkey is really a killer alien robot, but this will not be revealed until a future episode, I don't think the wikipedia article should read "Lala is a show about a monkey who is really a killer alien robot."  I mean, I could be lying about it as a ratings stunt, or I could change my mind, or the show could get cancelled the next day.

Now I will go have coffee. -Ethan Mitchell, forgetting to sign in.


 * We do not write based on an internal IU perspective, which is what you are describing. We write about the topic as the public learns, not the people in the show. If information is from a reliable source, including any wacky, audience-hating writers, it goes in the article. I am sorry I cannot give a more details, but you are not very clear with your issue. Describing a topic as it is seen in the real world, which I believe is what you are describing, is the definition of out-of-universe perspective. kingdom2 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am down to nit-picking, and I would probably have the good sense to shut up, but I do think there is a pattern here that I want to highlight. So here's a nit (there were a lot more, obviously, when this whole section was a cut-and-paste from the Fox site.  Sierra is described thus "She is instinctively drawn to Echo, but lacks her self-awareness."  This claim is not cited, and is probably banal enough that it doesn't need to be.  Except...in the two extant episodes of the show, we haven't seen Sierra do much more than get zapped and shoot a bunch of dudes.  Neither of which provides any evidence for the statement above.  So I'm guessing that that statement comes from the producers/directors/writers, rather than from the content itself.


 * I realize that this sort of critique is completely inane in specific terms, but I do think the broader concern is real. In an article about a fictive work, the reader is likely to assume that generalizations or unsourced facts are taken from the work itself, rather than from the surrounding nebula of claims made by people associated with that work.  If that is not the case, we should probably highlight it. Sorry to be obnoxious....Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it is irrelevant if it has been seen in the work itself. As long as the information comes from reliable sources, it doesn't matter. As for Sierra, all information on characters, if not given a specific reference, share the reference at the top of the characters section, which leads to the characters page on the Fox Dollhouse page. And also, that short sentence is a paraphrasing form a longer description, done to avoid copyright issues, so it only includes the pertinent facts, and apparently that is what Sierra is going to be in the show. kingdom2 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With specific lines like the Sierra one, it would probably be best to add a citation directly specifically to clarify that this is a description by the producers and not one sourced by the show itself or reviews of the show. Also "seen in the work itself" only works in the most direct cases, issues involving unvoiced and subtle issues like emotions and interior motivations largely boil down to original research without a noted source (aka - just because most viewers would interpret it in a way, it's still based on personal interpretation and not a stated fact). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources and Alpha
Folks, this is simple. We have Wiki guidelines for sourcing. Basically, we need reliable, secondary verifiable sources when we cite something. Sites like http://www.freewebs.com/alantudyknet/news.htm#348211176 are not reliable. The picture cannot be verified, so until we get some secondary sources, do NOT add anything about Alpha. Or really, to anyplace else. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Topher Brink
About him. Is it said specifically in the show that he invented all the technologies the dollhouse(s) use? He seems kinda young. And the dollhouse seems to run for a longer time and he probably would have a higher position if he invented all this things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.101.3 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of that is largely irrelevant fan speculation, or in Wikipedia terms Original Research. Basically, this isn't the place to discuss it. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So someone should go ahead and remove the statement "Topher Brink (Fran Kranz) is the computer scientist who has designed all technology at the Dollhouse ...", yes? And wouldn't Topher be a neuroscientist rather than a computer scientist ?  69.227.129.110 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless we've got a reliable source saying he's one of these, calling him either is original research. Pi zero (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tone and style
Does anyone else think that the tone of the Characters section is really off? It comes off as very amateurish and almost fancruft-y. In general, character discussions should be written in a neutral tone without any real speculation or OR. I'm gonna try to edit these down a bit in the next few days. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As has been noted, the character descriptions are largely rewordings of the official Fox descriptions. To fit the tone requirements of Wikipedia they really should be edited, but the complication is that the further away from the original material we go the more there is a need to cite additional sources to avoid issues of original research.  As it stands it is a balance of tone and avoiding copyright infringement without having to overly cite additional references that may or may not even exist in valid forms; I've not personally checked around.  Do try to edit them down, but keep in mind some of the issues that have resulted in the current form. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Hearn
While Joe Hearn does technically qualify as a recurring character, is he really important enough to mention? He was in a handful of episodes and is now dead, and, unlike Buffy, I don't think that dead people are going to be coming back in this series. Ivy doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I think she should stay, but I think Joe should definitely be removed from the list. kingdom2 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point isn't to keep a "current tabs" on the show, but as an encyclopedic entry on the show as a whole. As far as the show is concerned, he has been a recurring character.  Future episodes may completely ignore his previous existence, or it may continue to have focal points about it.  Basically we don't know, and that's not the point anyhow. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings
I don't think that we need to record the ratings and share info for each and every episode, or at all. Nowhere on Lost (TV series) (a featured article) can I find such a grid, and the only thing on List of Lost episodes (a featured list) is the viewer numbers. I think we should delete the weekly ratings section and transfer the viewer numbers to the List of Dollhouse episodes. kingdom2 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 90210, Samantha Who all have ratings tables like that. 81.129.151.28 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific in your links. I assume the 90210 you are referring to is 90210 (TV series). The problem with those articles are the classes that they are ranked. Articles are grouped into Wikiprojects based on topic and users sort the article based on importance to the project and an objective ranking of the quality of the article, or class. 90210 is only ranked as a "B Class" and Samantha Who? isn't rated at all, while Lost (TV series) and List of Lost episodes are a featured article/featured list, respectively, which are the highest ranks that an article can obtain. All editors should try to model other articles based on featured ones, as they are of the highest quality in WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. And, in both the above-given articles and the other featured articles Firefly (TV series) and Arrested Development (TV series), complete weekly rating are not kept, and if viewer numbers are tracked, they are kept in the episode list. kingdom2 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only point I can muster is that in terms of real-world relevance, the instability of Dollhouse's ratings / its chance of renewal forms much of its press persona/public identity. Whereas Lost? Big ratings, even after a decline, and guaranteed sixth and final season.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What you said for Dollhouse could just as easily be said for Firefly, Arrested Development, and Veronica Mars, all of which are ranked "Good" or higher and all of which were canceled for their ratings. However, none of them have a weekly play-by-play of Nielson ratings, just seasonal ones. My point still stands. kingdom2 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are completely right. However, each of these have complete seasons and therefore an accurate seasonal average can be calculated. I'm suggesting we leave the episode-by-episode ratings for now.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting that we only keep the weekly ratings until the season is over? That's acceptable. kingdom2 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They're gone now, and I don't support bringing them back. None of the many edits have had sources, so basically so long as an anon doesn't edit in "apple" for the weekly ratings we have no idea if they are correct. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That entire section had been sourced by Zap2it and TVByTheNumbers, both of which are acceptable sources (e.g. tvbythenumbers is used repeatedly on List of Heroes episodes.) We could have added the sources in, if someone had at least said something rather than just blanking it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "If someone had at least said something"? There's been numerous comments about unsourced changes to this area; this removal isn't out of the blue.  If you can ad the material in with sources for it all then try; it's not like you can't just work from the previous version and would have to remake it all from scratch. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm just wondering if it's really worth the effort to dig up all those links. I don't mind doing it, but if it's just going to get reverted, then I'll save some time by not doing it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth it, but I also think it would be required to have the info. The material removed just simply isn't worth the effort to properly source it as well as make sure it remains valid.  If it's in there properly it won't be reverted, but I'd honestly question your sanity if you replaced all of that with the amount of referencing required. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Looking at other pages, it's probably not worth the effort. Most other TV shows list the number of people who watched an episode, but they do it on the episode pages. I'm fine with that as a solution. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the ratings section as it was entirely unsourced. If you check the posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media, I wonder how any of these shows can justify adding the ratings. Plastikspork (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dolls and Robots: A reference to Rossum
The name of the company, Rossum, looks like it is a reference to an old play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Čapek. Does anyone have support for this theory? Is there a way to write this in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R._(Rossum%27s_Universal_Robots) Cate108 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. Wiki isn't for theories or for things you just came up with. And this talk page isn't meant to be a forum for discussing theories about the show. There's a Dollhouse Wikia if you want to try this on them, but they might not want this either. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. When Sting refers to "that book by Nabokov" in reference to an older man in love with an underage girl, we don't need a citation to say that he is presumably referencing Lolita.  When Whedon uses "Rossum" in reference to a business producing programmable people, we don't need a citation to say that he is probably referencing R.U.R. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No way. You're totally reading into it. The fact that you had to write "presumably" into your edit means that it's entirely your conjecture. And Wikipedia does not allow for original research. Until you can come up with a definitive source that shows that they were referring to RUR, it can't be allowed here. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude's right. No reliable source, no mention. kingdom2 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need a reference to show that the doll's names are based on the NATO alphabet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.33.203 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viktor explained in one of the episodes (where the dolls had their original identities but no memory) that the dolls names came from the UN alphabet so we don't need a citation in that case but I agree with your sentiment. If I'd spotted the reference I'd have just linked Rossum and wrote it in that way, making it less likely that people would insist on a citation for it and the does seem rather obviously intended in retrospect.  Having said that when writing about Terminator I did have to deal with trigger happy deletionists who hadn't heard of Harlen Ellison only to find one of the existing article citation already gave enough reference to back up the connection I'd spotted. I'd put it in,  or at the very least insert a comment in the source warning anyone else tempted to add it to provide a citation because I'm sure others will make the same inference you did. -- Horkana (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Police's reference to Lolita in that song does need to have a reliable source backing it up. I totally agree with the contention that this is a reference to R.U.R., but without some support from a reliable source (like an interview with Joss himself, or a reviewer commenting on the reference), we can't really mention it. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a large difference between inferences from the name "Rossum" and a character specifically saying "that book by Nabokov" in reference with an underage child. One is a reference (Rossum can be interperted in many ways), and the other is simply not stating the name of the book but instead the author and subject matter.  I don't think it's the most important fact, but there is a difference between the two. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha#2
I noticed that this is being used a source and I just want to know what makes it an reliable source? Also is a source needed to state that the actor who plays Alpha is unknown? ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 02:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read number 10 on this discussion page - the previous section on Alpha and this subject. kingdom2 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It answer my second question but not my first one. How is io9.com a reliable source? ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't, but that was also address/implied. The point is that there is no reliable source to either possibility, but io9.com is a source that both helped to start the rumor and then later reported it as discredited, hence a source for "Unknown". Also, before adding the source and the comment warning not to change it, we had to deal with reverting people who added in Alan Tudyk every day, and it was getting annoying. And also, if you had another question concerning Alpha and his sources, you should have asked it in the existing "Alpha" section. kingdom2 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well since it isn't a reliable source then it should be removed but the hidden note should stay. Also, I didn't notice there was an existing "Alpha" thread. I just clicked on "new section". ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He's confirmed to be played by Alan Tudyk near the end of Briar Rose. As for Stephen J. Kepler, late in the same episode, Alpha is revealed to have assumed his identity after killing the real Stephen J. Kepler and planting the body in Twoson. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sierra
My edit 'was not a volunteer being placed in the Dollhouse by a man' has been undone without explanation.

I think the point about not being even nominally a volunteer is important for the character and also the show.

The following is dialogue from the 'Needs' episode which I think is conclusive:

Priya: What you did to me, putting me in that hell, what did I ever do to you?

Nolan: You said no, nobody ever says no to me.

Priya: Because I wouldn't have sex with you you took away my whole life!

Nolan: Do you have any idea how much trouble that was? All the strings I pulled and the palms I greased I could have bought Priya an island but owning you is better than real-estate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence000 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominic working "on behalf of" Rossum??!??
The current text of the article says that "Dominic is in fact an NSA agent working on behalf of the Dollhouse's parent company". That wasn't my understanding from the latest episode ("A Spy in the House of Love"), in which Dominic was exposed. I thought he said that he had been planted in the Dollhouse by NSA in order to prevent Rossum from losing control of the Dollhouse to even less scrupulous people — but that's not the same as saying Dominic was working on behalf of Rossum. Would anyone like to propose a rewording? Or did I misunderstand? Richwales (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't misunderstand. I was confused by the edit and I thought that I just misunderstood the episode, but if Dominic were working for Rossum, then Adelle wouldn't have sent him to the Attic. kingdom2 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Amy Acker
Moon-sunrise was right -- on Hulu, episode 9 immediately after the first commercial break, "Guest starring... Amy Acker..." (other people were then listed). Banaticus (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A statement that something is implied is not necessarily speculative
A statement that something is implied is not necessarily speculative. For example in Heroes, Sylar was implied to eat brains in order to absorb powers, this was later revealed to be incorrect, however, in numerous interviews, the writers have confirmed that, although they changed their minds, they originally intended that he acquire powers through brain eating and dropped hints pointing in that direction. As another example, in the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it is implied that Faith becomes an antagonist long before she actually becomes one. Character's motivations are often implied and only rarely explicitly stated in film and television (at least within the show or film itself). November's motivation for joining the Dollhouse is strongly implied in Needs, however Wikipedia's strict original research and verifiability policies would probably require a citation to back up this claim. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing with me. And yes, saying that something is implied is always original research without a reliable source that says "here we are implying that ...". Without said source, anything that you type in is based on your own observations and conclusions, which is the definition of original research. kingdom2 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Critical criticism
I'm all for the balanced critical perspective, but take a look at this.
 * On the other end, the Miami Herald says "To the extent this sounds interesting, it isn't: Half the dialogue seems to have been written for barking dogs, the other half for mewling kittens, and the cast performs accordingly.

It doesn't even make any sense! Can't we find a better negative review than that? — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk|contribs) 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, criticism has to be in the form of a logical criticism. If someone at the NYT said "there aren't enough aardvarks" then I wouldn't expect it to be included, and I would have to assume that whomever added this line was either grasping at straws or found it as hilariously laughable as it actually is.  I vote for removal; there is valid criticism out there. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How does this not make sense? The critic is saying that half the lines are short, loud, and aggressive (like a dog's bark), and the other half are quiet, passive, and wimpy (like a cat's meow). His criticism is that there is no middle-ground in the dialogue. It may not make sense as a criticism, but it is by no means nonsensical. kingdom2 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to quote a line line that, because it's only partially review and mostly flashy wording. There's a difference between citing a criticism and using an overly-dramatic quote.  Also, the line does not say that it is too short, loud, passive, wimpy or anything of the kind; the quote says exactly what it does.  It could just as easily be included as "critic X commented on the lack of gradation of dialog" or the like.  As I said before, that line in itself isn't criticism, it's an "attention grabber".  There's no need to use a direct quote from a critic using such phrasing, at least in my opinion.  As I said before, there are more than enough criticisms of the show that don't resort to sensationalism. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with that. The argument initially put forth was that the quote itself made no sense, so that was what I responded to. kingdom2 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think that's your own interpretation; the criticism doesn't make sense in the sense that the quote is nonsensical. It's not someone going "the acting is bad", it's someone using the same phrasing that a million fanboys (or anti-fanboys, as the case may be) would use on a forum.  It's not professional, and I think that fact alone makes it inappropriate for inclusion in the face of so much other professional criticism that exists.  If nothing else it goes against the ideas of neutrality in articles; there isn't a quote saying "so awesome with bobbies like snapdragons and her acting is tight as her ass."  I understand that it's a criticism section, and more to the point criticism of a television show, but it still isn't fitting with standards for articles.
 * Since you've voiced agreement this is largely just elaboration and explanation for other editors, but I'm just trying to make sure the point (and the view on this quote) is made clear for any other editors kicking about. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Influences from other science fiction novels
Orson Scott Card's The Worthing Saga, contains descriptions of a society which extend their lives through suspended animation. For suspended animation to be possible, people download a scan of their brain into a 'bubble' which is used to restore their memories after re-animation.

Also another science fiction story, which I can't recall the name, contains a society where the social elite and those who can afford it regularly have a brain scan done every few months, similar to how computer users regularly back up important information on CDs, DVDs regularly. When the person dies, his or her latest brain scan (which includes memories and personality) can be implemented into a close relative or friend or anyone who applies, as a secondary personality inside the recipient's brain. In the novel, the main focus is on a CEO of a business who is attempting to have the court allow him to have the latest, or next closest, brain scan of a dead successful business rival implemented into his head so that he may gain insights on how the rival became successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.236.174 (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to be blunt about it, but none of this observation has any place here. It's original research until there is a reputable source discussing it, and there isn't.  In a more direct sense, all of your examples are only similar in the sense that they involve digitization of brains; not really uncommon fare in science fiction. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Blunt is fine. But I do think there should some room to discuss or rather note the influence earlier work has had on Dollhouse. I mean it strikes me as flat odd that its similarity to the anime Gunslinger Girl isn't mentioned in the article. Dirk2112 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also given the sorry state of media criticism I wonder what counts as a "reputable source" right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.159.57 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Human 2.0 is right - we need to avoid original research as much as possible. If you want to know more about what is considered a reliable source, read WP:RS. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To elaborate: The examples that you have given are original research. While connections can be drawn between Dollhouse and previous works, this (as of yet) it simply the views and opinions of viewers and the like.  If a NYT critic was to write about these things, or the writers themselves, that would be another thing.  That's just not the case, though.  As an asside; I can draw connections between Dollhouse and Red Versus Blue, and have had agreement with folks I've talked about that these are certain setting similarities and that could lead to an assumption that this material had previously been viewed and been in mind when the show was written.  However this is just original research; there isn't any source to back it up, and more to the point material on Wikipedia needs to be more than "backed up".  Even if you cite a material that has a similarity, this is still more akin to how you would to citations in a personal paper.  It's still original research.  There are more than a few outside locations to discuss this stuff, but Wikipedia just isn't it.
 * The criticism section does need a bit of work in multiple regards, but not in the ways that this discussion would entail. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Uninformative citation concerning "hiatus"
The reference provided for the following statement: "After the May 8, 2009 airing of the season finale, Omega, the series went into hiatus, and may not be recommissioned.[3]." does not actually support what is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.33.40 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the statement and provided a similar reason.--J.Dayton (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't access eonline.com to check but what was written in the previous edit (and is back up there now) isn't factually accurate. Tim Minear and the Whedons have made very clear that the fate of the thirteenth episode is completely independent to the fate of the series as a whole and that wording suggests that it isn't. MultipleTom (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Season Two
Maybe it should be mentioned that FOX will decide it's fate tomorrow (Thursday). Pic Editor960 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should have, if it was citeable to a good, reliable source. Duh? That's... a rather important detail to leave out, when citeable to such. I also can't help but notice that over the weekend, no note at all was posted about the MANY entertainment news orgs - including the LA Times entertainment blog and Entertainment Weekly - reporting that the show was potentially being renewed; I could swear one of the large business mags, like Wall Journal maybe even, covered it (well, at any rate, by the end of Monday they had IIRC). Yet not a single mention of it, even though it could have been worded very easily in a manner that would have been appropriate in terms of covering the facts and only the facts: "Over the course of the weekend of May 15-17, 2009, many online news sources[insert references here] began to report that the series may have been, or in fact was, renewed for a second season; however, no official announcement will be made until the Fox network's upfront presentation on Monday." There. Would that really have been so hard? I found it strange the Wikipedia did not even mention the new development, considering how much coverage it was getting. o.O 70.118.24.50 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true, this page hasn't been updated since the comments above (which were eight days ago.) But I took what you started today and reworked it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Opened a Second Archive
81.129.22.190 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored two recent conversations. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok ;] This is Pic Editor960 not signed in btw. 86.147.50.61 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New Reviews Section
I did some basic reformatting of the reviews, just added a minor section header and rearranged to point form which looks neater. Further editing of the text should be a litle easier I hope ewe2 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. Bullet lists should be avoided wherever possible and there is definitely no need for them here. kingdom2 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Take a look at Lost (TV series), which was a featured article. No bullet points, just well written prose. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I've reorganized and rewritten the text to follow the style of the Lost section. I didn't want to do much more as there's likely to be more information to follow. What do you think? ewe2 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I furthered your reformatting by just dividing it into three paragraphs that would make it easier to navigate through: Positive (metacritic rating is fine as part of the introductory sentence), Negative (one Mixed), and those who found the series got better as it progressed. I also edited some bits to conform more with prose. ⇒ DarkAngel 007 06:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Crew
I wanted to add this before making any changes to the infobox, but do you think we should remove the "written by" section in the infobox? No other popular TV show articles contain this, as episodes are written by multiple people and the list will only grow in the new season. If the show was exclusively written by one or two people, that would be different. Can we get rid of that?

The producers section needs to be changed as well. Elizabeth Craft & Sarah Fain left and are now on "Lie to Me", while Tim Minear has been promoted to an executive producer. Steven DeKnight only produced for the first half of the season also, he was only consulting. The only unknown is Jane Espenson, she was a consulting producer for the second half of the season, don't know if she'll be back or not. Should these changes be made now or just wait until the new season premieres? Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Epitaph One
I removed some information from the cast section about the events that occurred in "Epitaph One". Given that the episode was never aired, that it was produced primarily for contractual reasons, that the setting therein is very different from that of the episodes that were aired, and that we have little or no evidence that the events in Epitaph One will ever become canon, it didn't seem right for half of the space in the cast section to be devoted to describing how the people were completely different from the description given in the other half. 84.50.234.173 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Epitaph One is canon - Whedon and others have said so in various interviews. It aired as part of the normal run in the UK. And the second season is slated to be switching between the two time periods. It would be fairer to say it was produced as a transparent pilot for a second season, though we'd need a source ofc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.148.106 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters
I'm removing the International broadcasters section on the grounds that it's not worthy of inclusion here. The list is going to just grow and grow until it takes up the whole page, and there's nothing really notable listed. If you look at other FA-class TV articles (Firefly, Lost) you'll see that they don't have lists like that. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, I find that information quite helpful. The reason why Firefly doesn't have one is because it's on the episode list page, which needs to be cleaned up. As for Lost, it states for every season when it started airing in the U.S. and Canada which is very unclear (to me), all over the place and limited. I've also undone your blanking until the discussion is over and resolved/agreed upon. Other contributors; if you have an opinion about this share it with us.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 13:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." So just because you find it helpful doesn't mean that it should be included. And the Lost pages mention just two countries, not every country ever. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I opened a thread on WT:TV about this, and a response over there said that such a list would eventually violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and there's nothing particularly notable about the airing in any of the countries. As such, I'm going to remove the list again. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Lost had a list of every country, I just think it's weird that for some reason the premier date of Canada (the show isn't filmed there) is included but the rest of the world is ignored. Also just because I find it useful doesn't mean that I'm the only one, maybe useful was the wrong word. If something has some notability (which international broadcasts, which are a big income for a network, are) it should at least be considered of inclusion. That said, I see your point and will leave it out.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)