Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)

The correct number of episodes is 12.
There are 12 episodes of Terra Nova. The first 2 hours were produced as one episode but of course are split in syndication to fit into an hour slot. The last 2 were shown back to back but separately produced. A 13-episode order is common and so you will see people associated with a show referring to "13 episodes" or "13 hours" for brevity, but a 2 hour episode is still just a single episode if it's produced that way. Amazon.com, itunes, and FOX all list it this way. I would like to change it to 12 but will wait for discussion before I do.68.102.150.123 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are officially 12 episodes of Terra Nova. The first episode was 2 hours. The final two episodes aired on the same date back to back but were separate episodes. Amazon.com, itunes, the Library of Congress lists them this way. Other Wikipedia articles on shows with double-length episodes list hour long episodes as one episode (i.e., Seinfeld).

Production codes are for business use. All episodes of double-length of any series have 2 production codes. That way people get paid for two episodes (since a double-length episode is twice the work).

I'm going to change the information to reflect the correct information, which is 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the previous discussion, you may realize that those two episodes that originally aired as one episode, have two production codes and two writers and are billed as part one and part two. Also, those episides air seperatly in syndication. This was brought up in the last discussion and the agreement was to go by production codes. Unfortunately uour edit warring is going to get your up address blocked from editing. JOJ  Hutton  00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How the episodes air in syndication is irrelevant. The fact is there were 12 episodes. If it were decided to air them in syndication in half-hour blocks, would there now be 26 episodes? That wouldn't make any sense. The last 2-hour-long block was produced as two episodes. That's why it's 12 and not 11. Just check the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The two-hour pilot for Fringe had only a single production code. Production codes don't necessarily mean whether it is a single episode or a double.  In this case, two different production codes, as Jojhutton pointed out, combined with the fact that the episode has two sets of writing credits and were identified as being in two parts in the opening credits would seem to indicate that it is two episodes.  On top of all of that, the DVD release identifies that the series contains thirteen episodes, which includes the double-length pilot.  Check it.  -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first episode had a single title (Genesis) and press releases advertised it as an episode, not episodes. It contained a single set of credits with no discernible transition between part 1 & part 2. It was only broken into separate episodes later. The episode as aired didn't mention parts in the opening credits. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Still 13 episodes in my view. Nothing has changed to make me see it otherwise. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

12 episodes were produced. The first was produced as a two-hour episode. It had two production codes because that is how dramas are produced. People get paid by the hour. If any video cameras were used in the production, the people working with that equipment would had 4 paycodes for the two-hour episode (because they normally work in sitcoms and their guild does insurance, etc. by the half-hour). Hence, the codes are meaningless. What matters is the end product. If two people worked on the pizza you ordered, would you call it two pizzas?

The last two episodes were produced as two separate episodes. FOX decided to join them later. The only edit is pretty much to just show only one set of opening/closing titles. There is no producer input because they've all ready prepared for the possibility. Hence, the canon versions of these episodes are as separate episodes, which should be pretty obvious given their separate titles.

Any series that has double-length episodes will have those episodes prepared in advance for syndication and the need to have double-length episodes air as two parts. That's why the DVD's are released that way. The people who put out the DVD often have nothing to do with the production. Often, shows are released with syndicated versions of a show by mistake simply because no one who knew or cared had anything to do with the DVD release.

So the answer is there are 12 episodes. That's the official number. That's what belongs in an encyclopedia. Calling the first episode two episodes is a obsessive-compulsive desire to have everything fit into a nice chart (with one production code, set of writers, etc.) at the expense of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.154.161 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We have an interesting situation here. We had a long-standing consensus that the episode list should show the episodes as aired, that is as 11 episodes. Then we had three editors who decided to overturn that consensus and insist there were 13 episodes. Uninvolved editors at the RfC indicated that if the episodes aired as single episodes then that should be mentioned, but that has been ignored. Now we have another editor who claims 12 episodes, and has introduced sources to prove it. This demonstrates that the 3-editor consensus from May is not strong at all, so this really needs further discussion. I know that certain people don't want to discuss it, as evidenced by the refusal to participate in the DRN discussion, but there really is no way around it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "long standing consensus" is gone. I was part of it. Aside from you, who has expressed support for that defunct consensus? As for your RfC, you don't win by default. We all ignored it because you had nothing new to say. Just hearing you say the same thing over and over wasn't going to change anything. In short, that RfC was pointless and it serves as NO indicator or anything other than a lack of interest in duplicating this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is very little new information being presented by the ip or by AussieLegend. The fact that there are 13 production codes, 13 writer credits, 13 episodes on the DVD, 13 episodes in syndication, and 13 episodes on Netflix are what I believe motivated the change last May. Nobody argues that the first episode aired as a single entity, but that is not the only factor that was considered. I believe that the stronger argument was for 13 over 12 or even 11, and having AussieLegend or even a new anon ip come here regurgitating the same old tired argument, isn't going to change anyones mind. Unless there is some new information that hasn't been discussed before, there is no point in continuing to go though this again and again.-- JOJ Hutton  00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP has presented exactly the same type of evidence that you used to overturn the original consensus. He even presented a source to demonstrate that there are 12 episodes. It wasn't just me who commented at the RfC, there were others and their posts demonstrated that your three-editor consensus is not really a consensus at all. That somebody has come along only three months after the last discussion clearly demonstrates that we're going to have to discuss it whether you like it or not. We need to look at the suggestions from the RfC and incorporate them in order to stop this happening again and again. There is evidence that that the series aired originally as both 11 & 12 episodes in the USA but has since been split into 13 episodes - All of that needs to be incorporated, whether you like it or not. If you ignore it, then you're not acting responsibly or encyclopaedically. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, mention that episodes 1/2 and 12/13 aired together, but, since May when this last came to light, there has been no new evidence to suggest that the episode count is any different that what it is now, 13. Frogkermit (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" at the previous discussion was to ignore how they aired the articles were edited accordingly. It's not true that no new evidence has been presented. The IP added this to List of Terra Nova episodes, which lists 12 episodes, not 13, but it was reverted. That source is a US source, not the UK source currently used in the article. When dealing with US TV programs, US sources have more weight than foreign sources when it comes to issues such as the number of episodes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, why, in may, did you seem adamant that 11 was the nimber of episodes and the only possibility, when now it seems that you are quite happy for it to be 12? Frogkermit (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @AussieLegend. The reason why nobody wants to constantly take part in your umpteenth attempt at trying to overturn consensus is because there is nothing new being brought to the table. The Amazon.com link is still the same old tired argument. The Amazon link is invalid anyway because it's just the POV of some random seller and not a reliable source. The original consensus to consider the number 11, last year was formed because most people decided to go with the number of air dates decided by Fox, and not by production codes decided by producers. But last May new information was presented that changed consensus to 13. Those include the DVD release with 13 episodes written directly on the cover, the syndication of 13 episodes, and Netflix airing the show as 13 episodes. Even an editor who agreed with you last year, changed his mind when the new information was presented. You can't stand in a corner by yourself and continue to scream at the rest of the room that they are wrong and you alone are right. Now an anon ip comes along and wants to go against the consensus and you seem to see that as an opportunity to open up the same old argument that was considered, but dismissed last May. JOJ  Hutton  20:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "why, in may, did you seem adamant that 11 was the nimber of episodes and the only possibility, when now it seems that you are quite happy for it to be 12?" - The US copy of the final episode that I have shows the finale aired as a single episode, with one set of credits, as I've previously stated. Even the press release referred to it as a single episode. The IP has now provided evidence that it's being treated as 12 episodes so I'm willing to compromise, provided that we still mention how the episodes originally aired.
 * "your umpteenth attempt at trying to overturn consensus" - There is no valid consensus. The agreement that you three came to, to completely ignore the way that the episodes were originally aired was a weak consensus at best. the comments by uninvolved editors at the RFC, e.g. "as 4 episodes were aired back to back in the states, this should be reflected in the broadcasting section" and "If the episodes were broadcast together then they should be listed together in the episode table" weakens that to the point where it's clearly not a consensus.
 * "The Amazon.com link is still the same old tired argument. The Amazon link is invalid anyway because it's just the POV of some random seller" - An Amazon link is being used in the episode list as "proof" of 13 episodes. Using your own argument, that link is invalid.
 * "But last May new information was presented that changed consensus to 13" - There was no new evidence presented. The notion of 13 episodes was discussed when the episodes aired, and disregarded because we list episodes a they aired, not as they are later broken down for distribution on other media.
 * "You can't stand in a corner by yourself" - Clearly I'm not. There's an IP who disagrees with you and the opinions of outside editors at the RfC have to be considered.
 * "Now an anon ip comes along and wants to go against the consensus" - Normally, I'd reply with consensus can change but there never really was a valid consensus in May, as I've explained above. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Subject
The following EDIT:

It premiered on September 26, 2011 with a two-hour premiere,[3] and concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour, two-episode finale.[4]

was "improved" into:

It aired one season from September 26 to December 19, 2011.

with the following reason being given for the change:

one, two, 10 seasons this is relevant, NOBODY asks "I wish I knew if it ended with a double episode finale" The "improvement" was very quickly reverted to the original EDIT with the following reasoning:

Nonsensical reason for removal of valid content.

Argument
"two-hour premiere", "two-hour, two-episode finale" is valid content.

To put "two-hour premiere", "two-hour, two-episode finale", however, in the overview section of an article is "non-sensical", because it defeats its purpose: to summarize the essentials of a series.

Conclusion
Whoever upholds, defends the following text:

It premiered on September 26, 2011 with a two-hour premiere,[3] and concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour, two-episode finale.[4]

defends or argues for the following principles:

thus more information is "always" better than less information
 * 1) the overview section of an article should/or can contain trivia
 * 2) it is impossible decide what essential or trivial information is,

Quessler (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit summary used for the edit that was reverted was one, two, 10 seasons: this is relevant, NOBODY asks I wish I knew if it ended with a double episode finale. This makes no sense, hence "nonsensical". Your argument that the content is trivia, might be true for a series that lasted for several more than one season, but that is not the case for a single, 11/13 episode season. Please note that per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when an edit of yours is reverted in good faith, do not immediately revert as you did. Instead, discuss on the article's talk page to gain consensus for your edits and, while discussion is underway, the status quo prevails. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

factually false statements "defended" by AussieLegend
the series is about

the Shannon family's life and adventures as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up 85 million years in the earth's past

it is not about

the Shannon family's travel 85 million years into the past

it is not a travel adventure series, it is a series about colonists in a foreign, remote "country", in a "terra nova".

Quessler (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the statement that you claim is "factually false" is not being defended by the "original editor". This statement has been in the lead for years. Secondly, nobody has claimed that the series is a "travel adventure series". You changed the original statement to "follows the Shannon family's life and adventures as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up 85 million years in the earth's past, to escape the dystopian present of the 22nd century". "life and adventures" is the sort of thing you'd see in a press release. It's not an encyclopaedic tone. "85 million years in the earth's past" is factually incorrect. It was established less than 33 minutes into the first episode that they travelled to an Earth in a parallel universe, not to their own Earth. There's even a citation in the plot section for that. You need to start looking at edit summaries, which explain why your edits are actually being challenged (it was established in the first episode that it was the past in a parallel universe (see the citation in the prose)), and not why you think they are being challenged. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly,

the statement that you claim is "factually false"

is not being defended by the "original editor".


 * so it is even worse, not a writer defending his writing, but a  scriptural literalist doubling as wikipedia editor:

This statement has been in the lead for years.

Secondly, nobody has claimed that the series is a "travel adventure series".


 * read the following sentence to anyone who does not know the series:

follows the Shannon family as they travel 85 million years into the past


 * what do you think they think the series is about

the traveling or the staying


 * the travel, of course, hence my assumption that readers of the article in its present form will make the factually false assumption that

TERRA NOVA is a "travel adventure series"


 * is correct, describing the series as

follows the Shannon family as they travel 85 million years into the past


 * is tantamount to describing it as a

"travel adventure series"

Thirdly,

you changed the original statement to "follows the Shannon family's life and adventures as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up 85 million years in the earth's past, to escape the dystopian present of the 22nd century". "life and adventures" is the sort of thing you'd see in a press release.

"life and adventures" ... It's not an encyclopedic tone.


 * I agree, this would probably be better

documents the Shannon family's experiences as they ...


 * but, apart from its tone, it is, you must admit, factually correct


 * actually, you probably did not check the factual correctness of the different text versions, at all,
 * rather you only checked the tone, and instead of admitting this now,
 * you prefer to save your face and defend your papal infallibility,
 * defending the indefensible: the number one virtue, of course, any wikipedia editor should have.

Fourthly,

"85 million years in the earth's past" is factually incorrect.


 * What do you think, why I removed the term parallel universe, just for fun? or because I just watched the series in its entirety and concluded that

"parallel universe" is non-constitutive plot point.


 * put another way:

there is no episode where the concept of parallel universe is of any relevance for its plot.


 * put another way:

The concept is merely used to explain, diffuse the question viewers might have, as to why the colony could receive multiple waves of colonists (essential plot point) from the future if, what is the subject of so many other scifi-movies in this genre, the past changes the futures.


 * in other words

summarizing the series as a                     travel 85 million years into the past to an Earth of a parallel universe creates false expectations, and associations in the readers' mind, and makes them think of Terra Nova as something similar to FRINGE.


 * so far, to simplify my argument, I "acted" as if the term "parallel universe" is actually used in the series, it is not, of course:


 * in episode 1 they talk about the "fact" that going back in time through a time fracture "creates" a new time stream: the exact quote from the episode being:

this (because they could not find the beacon they sent into the past in the present) is how they knew they were dealing with new time stream


 * and this is how the article about the episode correctly puts it:

scientists use a time fracture allowing people to travel 85 million years back in time to prehistoric Earth in an alternate timeline.


 * in other words

the term "parallel universe" is not used in the series. It is rather a "misleading", "easy" inference, interpretation of an "uninformed" editor.


 * the authors, creators of Terra Nova, I think, quite intentionally, scrupulously avoided the term "parallel universe",
 * because of its connotations, non-representative of the series,
 * and so should the corresponding wikipedia article.


 * but it gets worse, the wikipedia editor neither watched the episode for verification,
 * nor did he even closely read the episode article he advises me to consult,
 * how else to explain the following, as we now know, factually false statement:

It was established less than 33 minutes into the first episode that they travelled to an Earth in a parallel universe, not to their own Earth. There's even a citation in the plot section for that.


 * so you, and the original editor "boldly" assume:

that going through a time fracture and creating a new time stream, is exactly the same as going into the past of parallel universe


 * if that is the case,
 * please be consistent,
 * correct the "false" summary of the first episode in the corresponding wikipedia article and
 * merge it into the time stream of your "personal" "private" parallel universe.

Quessler (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * When responding to a post, please do not tear apart the post you're replying to and intersperse your comments amongst the fragments of the previous post. That's a breach of the talk page guidelines. If you want to respond to a post, quote the parts that you wish to, but leave the original post intact. There is no need for your persistent overuse of and  tags. Just use tq or quote using quotation marks. You're using far too much page space for what you're trying to achieve and it turns people off reading what you've written, as well as making it harder to understand. Have a look at threads above the ones that you've started for examples. And please, don't use horizontal rules around your signature. Horizontal rules are used in headings to separate one section from another. WP:SIGAPP specifically says not to use them in signatures. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"The series is based on an idea by British writer Kelly Marcel"
it is not factually false, but misleading, writers write books, Marcel has not written any book, she is a screenwriter.

it is not factually false, but misleading, Marcel created the series, she is credited as creator/writer of the series on imdb.

quickly penned a 15-page treatment outlining her characters, the world they were living in and a story arc for the first season – as well as a 30-page "bible", which summarised how the show would pan out over five seasons.

To, thus, describe her contribution as "giving an idea for a series" seems to intentionally minimize her role.

Quessler (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Imdb is not considered to be a reliable source. The article you've cited is correct but your opinion, and new edit to the article is WP:SYNTH. She is is not credited as a writer so you can't claim that "The series was written by former actress and British screenwriter Kelly Marcel". You need a source that explicitly states that she wrote it, not just the idea for the series. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

opening sentence of article
Currently, the opening sentence of the article is:
 * Terra Nova (English: New Earth) is an American science fiction drama television series.

To me, this incorrectly implies that the show was called "Terra Nova" in some regions, but for broadcast to English speaking audiences, the show used the alternate title "New Earth". i want to be bold and edit that opening, but i'm not sure what a clearer way to present the information would be.

71.121.143.195 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Mido Hamada’s status
According to a press release which can be found here, Mido Hamada was only a guest star. However, on the actual show, Mido Hamada was listed as “starring” (i.e. main cast, not a guest star) in the first episode. To be specific, Mido Hamada was listed in the credits between Naomi Scott and Alana Mansour. His name appears on screen at 18:22. The first credited guest star’s name (Simone Kessell) appears ten seconds later, at 18:32. Which takes precedence on Wikipedia: the press release or the credits shown on the series? --185.73.100.19 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. When the article was changed I checked the episode but didn't see a cast listing (I didn't think it would be so far in!) and the press release showed him only as guest. The source that was used in the article said he was going to be a regular, but "regular" does not necessarily mean "starring". I've checked now that you've provided the time and you are correct. Interestingly, the credits of the first part don't show Rod Hallet, so he shouldn't be where he is listed. Cast are listed per WP:TVCAST, which gives on-air credit precedence, so I'll fix this now. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)