Talk:Outcasts (TV series)

Plot Outline
Well, after watching the first episode, that rosy, idealistic sounding plot outline can be jettisoned. I realize it was probably a cut-and-paste of whatever press release there was from the Production. But I wonder if it should be re-written to reflect what the actual episode/series is about, now? R0nin Two (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saving it up to watch tonight, but for sure the plot outline should be factual rather than just based on a press release. The Guardian review and the Independent review might help. - Pointillist (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some other potential sources - Pointillist (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Times May 2007 article about original announcement
 * The Telegraph Episode 1 review
 * The Telegraph Episode 2 preview
 * Cultbox Episode 1 review
 * Cultbox interview with Ben Richards
 * Digital Spy overnight rating for Episode 1

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/05_may/13/outcasts.shtml. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Pointillist (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't rewritten the copyvio, btw. - Pointillist (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the copyvio in the plot section. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Episodes
The are 8 episodes to air for this series. I don't understand why somebody is changing this to only those that have aired as this muddles to encyclopaedic usefulness of Wikipedia. The unknowing reader may think that there are ONLY two episodes in the series. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only two episodes released, this is current convention, take a look at the last discussion at Template talk:Infobox television were this came up along with the dates.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but IMO this is a big flaw in the usefulness of the page to a novice viewer Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if we must only update the episode count once each episode is broadcast, we should at least have something like: (as of 8th February 2011), beside the episode count. So that way the unknowing reader will be not be confused.Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Iamthedoctor2009. --Marker10 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what is done, if you want to change consensus on this I suggest you go to Template:Infobox television, and start a discussion there.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to close this off, AFAICS this question has been debated several times at the Infobox television talk page (in the original proposal and archives seven, eleven and twelve) without really getting to a conclusion. So Anthony of the Desert, Iamthedoctor2009 and Marker10 were right to question this. My two cents is that it isn't good wiki-process to include something that would make the article inaccurate if it isn't promptly updated after every broadcast, and never seems to have a source. However, if a large number of TV series infoboxes have been maintained on this basis for a long time (as Xeworlebi implies) then it is probably better to go with the flow than try to fight it. "Eight parts" is stated clearly in the lead sentence with two sources anyway, so let's move on. - Pointillist (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is argued that a series may be dropped mid-season while there are still episodes that have been produced but not broadcast, and those "un-aired" episodes may or may not be released on DVD or on-demand, so the infobox should state only the number of episodes known to have been aired/released.
 * On the other hand, already-produced episodes are rarely entirely suppressed, so it could be argued that the infobox should show the total number of episodes produced, with a note of any that weren't released. The "Boston" episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a good example of this: the infobox reads "No. of episodes 100 (1 unaired)", one episode having been locked away after the 2007 Boston bomb scare controversy.
 * The BBC never cancels shows in mid-run, although it certainly does look like they've yanked it from peak time. Expect all the episodes to show up on iPlayer's Series Catch Up menu once they've finally aired. Lee M (talk)

ACs
HELP! I came here to find out more about the show but have become more confused... in the episode summaries it mentions "AC". What on or off of Earth is "AC" and what does it refer to? And why mention something so obscure and specific to the show without expanding on it? (sorry, that last question is really rhetorical) Could someone with subject matter expertise please provide some further definition? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.29.234 (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Advanced Cultivars" apparently. Something to do with cloning, I think.  I don't think the show has defined them very well, but they are the "outsiders" or "others".  I looked for a decent reference but even the BBC site just refers to the initials. Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Advanced Cultivars" is correct (see ep.1) - basically just 'enhanced' human hybrids. I've inserted a brief definition in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.54 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Writers

 * I have difficulties finding the names of the writers. Are all 8 episodes penned by Ben Richards ? Hektor (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he was listed as a co-writer in ep3, not credited as a writer at all on ep4. Not sure about ep1 and ep2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.120.180 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Bamber as a 'star'
Jamie Bamber should probably be removed from the list of stars at the start, and moved down to a guest-star spot in the Episode 1 summary rather than being in the regular cast list, since his character died before the first episode has ended. Unless his character has an evil twin I doubt he'll be returning in a regular role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.34.123 (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Science fiction
The BBC puts this show in the genre Drama sub-genre SciFi & Fantasy. Basically every article about this show calls it science fiction: "…new sci-fi show…", "…new sci-fi series…", "…sci-fi drama starring Liam Cunningham…", "…BBC sci-fi thriller…", "…shiny new sci-fi drama…", "…sci-fi drama Outcasts…", "…new sci-fi drama…", etc. How is this not science fiction?  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, it is science fiction, and has been cited as such by numerous sources. I can't imagine why anyone would claim otherwise. --88.104.39.55 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The complaint here is that many of the show's plots don't arise from its science fictional setting. One critic (don't have the article to hand, sorry) complained that it was just EastEnders on a not entirely alien-looking planet. Lee M (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But the fact that it IS on an alien planet, in the future, with interstellar travel, makes it science fiction. SF doesn't have to be adventure and action only. Very many quite respectable SF stories could be described as ____ in space/the future/Mars/etc. (And of course most mediocre SF is no more than that.) What he's saying is that it isn't very good SF, which is another thing entirely.  I once tried to change Heroes (TV series) from SF to something else (fantasy seemed most appropriate) but the resident fans were very hostile to that idea, even though there is not a smidgen of science in the whole series. Outcasts though is SF, no doubt of that. Whether the BBC calls it Drama/SF or SF/Drama makes no difference. That's probably them just trying to claim some greater "seriousness" or credibility. Again, being "serious" (or soapy) doesn't mean it stops being SF. Barsoomian (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Blogging & neutrality
I have removed the opinion of "Blogger Gerard McGarry". The website cited makes it clear that A) anyone can sign up to blog there B) McGarry designed the site & should therefore be viewed as a self-published source of no established expertise.

If any editor feels that the removal of this opinion makes the reception section too "positive", then it should not be too much hard work to find a reliable source that says pretty much the same sort of thing. --88.104.39.55 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RATINGS
The series Pilot opened with figures of 4.8 million. episode 3 averaged with 2.9 Million REF: Overnight data is available each morning in mediatel.co.uk's TV Database, with all BARB registered subscribers able to view reports for terrestrial networks and key multi-channel stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.246.1 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloated Reception section
I've cut down the reception section significantly, with just the key information remaining. What was there was excessive and repetitive, made up largely of episode-by-episode quotes that would be excessive even in individual episode articles, and were becoming little more than variations on a theme. All that was needed were the two that remain, representing the range of views on the series. I've also remove the quote and sourcing from Twitter, which is unreliable, and replaced with a reliable source reporting the cancellation. Drmargi (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm staying away from this article until I've seen the last episode, but I'd like to revisit this in a few days. I agree that it had become repetitive, but I don't think it is encyclopedic to have only the reviews of the first episode, and to cite only a couple of sources. Though this is rarely followed in practice, actually critical discussion should form the majority of any cultural article. - Pointillist (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can certainly see the wisdom of fleshing the section out a bit. I didn't intend to cut it quite so short, but found what we had was largely a collection of quotes, most of which addressed the same issues as the two remaining but targeted to a specific episode, or which picked at details of the episode.  Now that the show has been cancelled, there seems to be discussion emerging in the media as to why the show failed, which could allow for additional content in the article.  I think you'd have to make your case re: review being the bulk of a cultural article; in the cultural media that's unquestionably true, but I'm not sure the editorial guidelines here allow for that, nor am I sure it's appropriate in an encyclopedic format.  Regardless, this discussion is here, and hopefully folks will avoid a bulk revert in favor of a discussion that could craft a more appropriate reception section.  Drmargi (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fan reactions
There is an edit war over the inclusion of claims of apparently adverse fan reaction to the shows cancellation attributed to unspecified social media sources. Now every show has its defenders, and a bunch of online comments from the fanbase do not in themselves warrant recording in an encyclopaedia. I propose that, in accordance with Verifiability, this material is only worth reporting if it is recognised as significant by reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers. Skomorokh  18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Has no place on the article without reliable sources/independent coverage. Rehevkor ✉  22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has a short block in place, but I'm not sure how much of a deterrent it will be. Drmargi (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was my first day on Wikipedia. While I was blcoked I read through the Wikipedia Do's and Dont's and have found out that what I was doing was against the rules and that all infomation has to have a reliable third party source. Sorry. Oddbodz (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Script/plot issues
Have added this section to mention the unusually polarised debate over the many script/plot "issues" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.54 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are all these "issues" mentioned by the sources? Rehevkor ✉  15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact many more in all three sources. The interview is particularly interesting - the writer actually replies to fans and critics - dismissing some as irrelevant or nitpicking, and admitting other errors.

Perhaps a sentence along the lines of "fans believed many of these points were deliberate mystery, and were to be addressed in a second series" might be helpful?

It just felt "incomplete" to not mention some of the controversy the script stirred up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.54 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well putting what "fans believed" is fine except you can't source directly to fans saying it, you have to link to coverage of them saying it, if that makes any sense? Rehevkor ✉  15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Might be better to leave it neutral, just mentioning some of the issues - anyone interested enough can go and see the discussions for themselves I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.54 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This section wasn't sufficiently well-sourced to stay in the article - it appeared to be clear original research, so I removed it. However I left in the links to discussion sites so readers can still go find this stuff for themselves if they want. Robofish (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fansite link
I added a fansite link which appears to have been removed. I added it again as other TV shows such as Teachers and The Dresden Files have links to fansites. Can someone quote/cite a rule on fansite links/references?

--220.253.89.21 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake, a rule was provided but I missed it. I have removed the link.


 * --220.253.89.21 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ended or Cancelled?
I was previously told that this was a mini-series but this article stated that the show was cancelled. Not sure if the official statement indicates cancelled or non-renewal. I mean, did the last episode of this serial drama contain a cliffhanger to merit the status cancelled? If yes, please update the television template to include such status. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.130.3 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What year is it?
Does the show itself ever say it is 2040? or is that just from press materials? I ask because Mitchell's Psych Profile says he was born in 2023. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)