Talk:Human Target (2010 TV series)

Hate to bust the bubble, but...
Human Target was made into a TV series twice, and this article only mentions the latter of the two. The original was a summer replacement series starring Rick Springfield and ran during the summer season in 1992 on ABC. It deserves mention here if for no other reason than it means that the current series is the second attempt at TV adaptation. 98.211.124.111 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was mentioned before but got removed. The page used to be called Human Target (2010 TV series) but got renamed since the 1992 series doesn't have an article and so no disambiguated title is needed. The hatnote is already setup for easy addition when the article is created, but cannot be unhidden until the article is actually exist, feel free to create Human Target (1992 TV series). That the comic book has had a previous TV iteration is mentioned on the comic book page. But it has further nothing to do with this series, the setup is also quite different. This show is not a remake of the 1992 one, but a loose adapted of the comic book. It might deserve a mention.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1992 series now has an article (at Human Target (1992 TV series)) but I think a simple hat note is sufficient to resolve any ambiguity for people searching for the 1992 article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Syndicated on FX
I just saw Human Target on FX. I guess it's syndicated on FX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.166.7 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
Whoever incorporated the info about two series did so poorly: "Based loosely on the comic book character of the same title created by Len Wein and Carmine Infantino, it is the second series developed for television (the first being a short-lived 1992 television series of the same name starring Rick Springfield that aired on ABC)."

This makes no sense...the first series developed for television were created 60 years ago. Perhaps this should read "it is the second TV series adaptation of the comic book?" Bustter (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first appearance of the character was in 1972. It is impossible to have had a series 60 years ago, the character wasn't even created for another 22 years. The sentence "it is the second television series adaptation of the comic book" (I would opt to write television out full) says pretty much the same thing.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 09:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What Bustter meant is that there's a difference between saying "it is the second series developed for television" and "it is the second 'Human Target' series developed for television." There were hundreds of series developed for television before the Human Target ever came along. The current wording in the article is fine, though. WaxTadpole (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Within the context of the article, and having just mentioned the comic, it ought to clear to most readers who are semi-fluent in English that "it is the second series developed for television" referd to the Human Target series. However, as Bustter, there is room for some ambiguity here for those without a good working knowledge of English. Clarity is always best if the result is not unnecessarily wordy, and the current wording does just that. - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the fact that the correct sense can be guessed at from the context, to say that Human Target "is the second series developed for television" is flat-out wrong. If I were to ask you, "What was the second series developed for television?" the answer would not be Human Target. Bustter (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If that was all you said, then yes. But if the context were Human Target, then you'd be "flat-out wrong". Context does matter, as you yourself admitted. Anyway, this as been changed, so let's move on. - BilCat (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Renewal
Has anyone seen any info from reliable sources on whether Fox has picked up ths show for another season yet? - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As of April 14, Fox is still undecided. USA Today reports that the chances for renewal are good, but other sources are less confident. WaxTadpole (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully something will be heard soon. Would be unfortunate...seen lots of good reviews, the actors apparently love the show, and most importantly, I like watching it. :P — Huntster (t @ c) 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Userbox for fans
--MithrandirAgain (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Composer
The composer's own site is not a suitable reliable source, nor should we repeat what is basically apparently a press release word-for-word. I've cut it down to one sentence regarding the first season, with a cn tag. It should be airly easy to source tat, but I'm in the middle of other things myself at the moment. I'll try to find a source later, time allowing,and also a mention of his not returning to do the second season (probably a good thing for the composer, since Fox's record for actually airing the complete run for shows of this type, esp mid-season replacements, is quite poor (ie. Firefly. Tru Calling, et al). :) - BilCat (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack - season 1
Should get a mention, methinks. It's on iTunes, among other sources. --V2Blast (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Guerrero as family man
There seems to be a minor edit war in the making over Guerrero's status as family man. I don't recall this being mentioned, which may mean just that. The scene in Cool Hand Guerrero was vague at best. Clearly the IP editor who has reverted over and over doesn't remember either. Given the war in the making, I have added a pre-emptive citation tag and hope we can chat here with an eye to sorting out this element of Guerrero's back story. Drmargi (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see the episode (ah, the joys of working evenings), but if the situation was ambiguous and the "daughter" or family was not specifically stated as being his, then this sentence has no place here. I'll hopefully catch the episode soon and can better understand the situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Baptiste says this in episode eight of season one.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There we go, problem solved. I've left a message on the talk page of the IP who's been reverting over and over.  Hopefully the citation will solve this little problem.  Drmargi (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Guerrero confirmed that the kid was his in the season two finale. --Boycool (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cast and characters
The section is growing by the episode. Perhaps it's time we make a List of Human Target characters. --Boycool (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest orchestra ever for a TV series?
This seems a somewhat tenuous statement - who keeps track? Where would you verify it? How would anyone know? The current series of “Doctor Who” regularly uses the BBC National Orchestra of Wales (which has over 80 regular members, supplemented by other musicians (rock guitarists and drummers, for example) not to mention their Chorus. The London Symphony Orchestra have also done TV soundtracks - how big are they? Even in the citation given, it’s an interviewer who frames a question about the size of the orchestra in terms of largest, rather than a definitive statement of a verified fact - it could just be hyperbole. I think this needs to be better checked, but even then, I can’t see how you could ever make an incontrovertable statement to the effect - it doesn’t seem encyclopædic to me. Jock123 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

De-collapse track list again?
There is no point on collapsing valuable tracklist besides navigation and size issues. Even when the soundtrack is not the main topic, why should a general reader skip through track list? --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you believe the soundtrack of sufficient value, perhaps spin it off into its own article. This is not an uncommon solution, if citations can be found, and would additionally allow the soundtrack image to be kept with the new article. In any case, cherry picking which CD list to display in full is an unacceptable path. Keeping them collapsed preserves the information for readers while maintaining focus on the show rather than the soundtrack. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It gives readers an impression that the tracklist is too unnecessary to read and may interrupt the navigation and the flow. Assuming that readers would skip through the tracklist, since MOS:FILM doesn't apply, what can we do about the tracklist? After all, they contain just music scores and omit vocals. If erasure is not the answer, perhaps convert to prose while omitting titles of scores? --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello I was asked to go here from Third Opinion. I think collapsing the track list is ok. MarioNovi (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Is the tracklist valuable or not? George Ho (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Huntster says. Yes it is valuable. But if it is not collapsed it makes it a harder to browse article. MarioNovi (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Target (2010 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118083430/http://www.fox.com/humantarget/about/ to http://www.fox.com/humantarget/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)