Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)/Archive 1

Dates in infobox
It is common practice to not include future dates in the infobox until the event has happened, no premiere dates until the first episode has aired, no finale dates until the final episode has aired, no episode count until the first episode has aired and only update gradually as episodes are released. Please stop adding them. Thanks. On the documentation note: it says "Date the show first aired." which is in past tense; as in, after it happened.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Common practice isn't always right, documentation should always be followed, since it doesn't say you can't put in, there must be nothing wrong in dong so. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you like to follow the documentation to the letter rather than consensus, lets lake another look at the documentation: "Date the show first aired." which is past tense, not "Date the show first airs." or "Date the show will first air." Indicating only to add it after the fact. Dates are only added when they have happened. This is common usage, and has consensus throughout the various articles, which might not be right but is what is followed.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 117, please do not add future dates to the infobox. By long-established convention, we do not do that; it falls under the "crystal-ball" concept in that we have no control over whether the event will actually occur as scheduled. Dates can be mentioned in the body copy, but we need to keep the fluid nature of television scheduling in mind there as well. Accordingly, we would say "is scheduled to air" rather than "will air", and use similar construction for other forward-looking statements, even if references exist to support the dates in question. One other note - template documentation pages are simply informational, and not the same as guidelines, and as such common practice (bolstered by related discussions) is typically a more accurate guide of what to do. --Ckatz chat spy  19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding the date to the infobox isn't a CRYSTAL violation, we have a valid source. 117Avenue (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not do that, based on long-established convention and subsequent discussions. Note that we don't update episode counts prior to a new episode airing for much the same reason. While the network may well intend to air the event at that time, there are too many variables that can affect it. --Ckatz chat spy  20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Lang Character
What's Stephen Lang's character's name? Is it Frank Taylor or Nathanial Taylor? It's a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.226.249 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary insufficient detail warning box thingy
I think the current summary about an unaired show is exactly 100% perfectly fine. If I knew how to remove it I would! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.8.165 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporal What Now?
Really? That's the plan? Go back in time to start Humanity again 85 million years ago? Instead of space, which is feasible, and doesn't require fraking with time.

On that subject the first trip back would destroy the future timeline - hence no more trips back, because guess what...you just Marty McFly'd yourself into Robinson Crusoe: Temporal Campout Edition.

Can anyone say "Alternate 1985" *underlines with chalk* Wolfe202 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've actually read that it's more like they are going to an alternate Earth that is way in the past. 66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I was thinking of all these things after finding out of the premise of this show. There would be a paradox in so much that there would be a whole new past that would almost certainly belie the ancestry of these would-be time travelers; thus, no one to travel back in time; thus, no messing with the past; thus, messing with the past. Also, if they go back 85 million years, or whatever, this would result in over-population sooner because, let's be honest, after a few generations the lessons of the past will be forgotten and people will procreate like normal. I would have to suggest, not having seen the show, that it must be an alternate earth otherwise this would be a glaring oversight by the producers and writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless, despite having travelled back in time to save the human race, humanity becomes extinct shortly after the events of the series. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if humanity becomes extinct in the future (i.e., the group of humans from which the time travelers came) then this would not disrupt the time loop. But, if the travelers who go back in the past all die (i.e. go extinct), then humanity does not really go extinct but rather it would proceed, presumably, in its normal fashion. Albeit, with the potential for later archaeologists to find some really odd artifacts of a very advanced civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While this conversation is pretty interesting, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please keep it to how to improve the article. Pretty please? Millahnna (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a link to a place where we can discuss it? Maybe someone's facebook wall?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Why do we need to provide one for you, are you too lazy to use Google? I hear it is absolutely amazing for that. Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite; and there are so many of those, it really isn't too difficult to track a few down. They aren't exactly uncommon on the internet. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you have a problem with Wikipedians wanting a forum?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Melican makes appropriate objections. It isn't difficult to find forums and, while "Wikipedians" may want a forum, it is not in Wikipedia's scope to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Haysbert & Raven Symone?
I see them listed as recurring characters. Is this true? I'd love to see Haysbert on here but googling him and the show brings no other matches. i think somebody messed with this page.66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced and the roles don't appear on either of their articles. I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Concept?
The series is claimed to stem from an original concept by Kelly Marcel... Hardly. This concept reflects a plethora of earlier sci-fi; Julian May's The Saga of the Exiles, Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder, ITV's Primeval, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus Dogsbody (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but those don't rely on 'idiot plot' and cliche dialogue... there's your difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.89.118 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added into the text that the major theme has been covered before - in the Star Trek (Original Series) episode All Our Yesterdays. By this I mean where people in peril go to the distant past to start anew. This is not an opinion, but a fact.


 * It was removed without reason. I re-edited it back in and it was removed again without reason. Is there someone protecting the series from edits that show that the series is no a truly original concept?

Montalban (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know who removed it the first time, but I removed it the last time. Your paranoid conspiracy theory about someone from the show notwithstanding, it's simple. Your personal opinions about what shows had similar themes is really WP:OR. If you find a reliable source that makes those assertions, then they might be relevent and added.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The theme of Terra Nova is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.
 * The theme of "All Our Yesterdays" is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.

I make no statement that one has a plot because of the other, only that the theme has been explored before. I made no inferences. I merely stated fact.
 * If one can avoid ad hom that would be great (paranoia being an inference).
 * It's a matter already discussed on fora around the world
 * quote

You know what's funny is Star Trek (TOS) already told this story with the episode All Our Yesterdays. In the episode the Enterprise crew encounters a planet where all the inhabitants have time traveled to the past because their sun is about to die out. I wonder if that's where they got the idea for this new series http://nightly.net/topic/69939-terra-nova/
 * quote

My main issue with Terra Nova tho is that ok yeah it's Speilburg but Brannon Braga is also involved. :/ But time travel always sound fun! Even if the plot is taken from the Star Trek ep All Our Yesterdays. http://forums.outpost10f.com/minibb/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=9592
 * Discussion

Terra Nova vs All Our Yesterdays http://www.freak-search.com/en/thread/5284781/terra_nova_vs_all_our_yesterdays


 * My noting a similiarity is what it is. I'm a sci-fi fan.

Montalban (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem? Get a grip sport. When you start with conspiracy theories about people from the show controlling entries, that is paranoid. It doesn't matter if you are a sci-fi fan or not. You're not a reliable source and neither are those discussion forums you presented. It might be in your best interest to read WP:RS. BTW, tough to take a "source" seriously when they can't even spell Spielberg's name correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, those fail WP:RS in a huge way. If you want to take them to the RSN, fine, but they will tell you the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Post Gazette article is a solid source, but we can't start making it the source for things the author didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Enterprise also had a Terra Nova episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.61.8 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting too is that two of the Terra Nova people worked on Star Trek

Montalban (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the episode is not about travelling back in time at all. It's colonizing a new planet (the TV series is not another planet). So what is similar? The name. Gee......both used the latin phrase for "new land". Remarkable. Maybe this is all related to the Terra Nova (newspaper) in Cape Verde or maybe the Canadian destroyer HMCS Terra Nova (DDE 259). I mean, they have the same name, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The site I added notes it's a cross between Outcasts and Jurassic Park
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11268/1174360-67.stm/#ixzz1ZDpmrwcQ
 * Apparently one can't know why the writer would say this because he doesn't explicitly say so. That's the thing about 'pop' culture.  Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well welcome to the trials of proper sourcing. Just relax and give it a few days and the media will start making the comparison in reliable sources and it will all be good. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all wonderful mystery that for instance I read in the news about President Obama, and 'cause it doesn't mention he's black, he musn't be

Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense. There is no shortage of sources that confirm his race. You might find it enlightening to read the essay WP:TRUTH. To use a simple illustration: If you personally saw a bridge collapse today and wanted to edit the article, what you have to say may be true, but that doesn't mean it can go in the article. You have to wait for a reliable source to print it, even though that reporter might not have even been there. It sounds weird, but that is how Wikipedia works. It's not a question of what people know, it's a matter of what we can show via reliable sources. Again, why not just relax and wait a few days? Chances are someone at a reliable source will make the comparisons. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources that are available today will still be available tomorrow. Sources that will be available tomorrow are not available today. It takes time to build a good article, and as the show progresses and the overarching plot becomes more evident more information will be available to add to the article. There is no rush. Take time and craft it carefully. Rome wasn't built in a day. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to enjoy 'sacred cow' status, even a hint that it's not original gets waves of re-edits. Now a single review that actually shows this connection and I note it's been changed from 'mixed' reviews to 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews.
 * The issue about 'reliable sources' is a non-issue. I posted that it shared a similar theme. I noted that amongst fan-dom this observation has also been made. These citations were removed - but they showed what has been observed. That a professional film critic didn't make the observation doesn't make the fact it was observed any less so. I made no point that the observations show a direct relationship between the development of one show to the other... although it is interesting to note that a couple of key people were also on Star Trek.
 * With so much money at stake I guess the studios are allowed to exert some influence on film critics.

Montalban (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that only four or five reviews are even presented, only one of which is negative. Given the amount of hype this show received, I'm sure it was viewed by more than five critics. Saying it received "overwhelmingly" positive reviews is, I note, flying in the face of WP:NPOV. We should present the facts, not summarize them; that's just original research. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of the positive criticisms also note that the show has drawn on other themes with comments that it's a cross between Lost and Jurassic Park. I don't get why this was an issue. It's not a negative (nor a positive) statement, just an observation. I wonder if the editor who cited The Washington Post realises that they have now added an acknowledgement to this because it says it is a "Swiss Family Robinson-style" show. That is, it follows a theme of the Swiss Family Robinson - which incidentally followed Robinson Crusoe which itself is based on real-life events. None of these connections lessen my ability to enjoy a show.
 * critics aren't sci-fi fans
 * Montalban (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys on about? Most of Shakespeare's stories weren't totally original ideas. He and his plays are still well regarded. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the very thing I don't understand. Initially I noted that the theme of escaping into the distant past had been explored before – like in "All Our Yesterdays" (an Star Trek episode)


 * This was edited out. I don't see it as a negative. It's just a fact. However I get the feeling that some see it as a negative and they've tried to re-edit the article to give a spin that is nothing but positive. Even changing 'mixed reviews' to 'overwhelmingly positive reviews'.
 * Montalban (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing "original" about Terra Nova. The plot, the characters, the conflicts, and the political intrigue are so familiar as to be cliched. That does not mean it cannot be a good show. As long as the producers and writers maintain the production quality and can give new twists to old themes, I'll keep watching.PNW Raven (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All the ...interesting...chit-chat aside, this is not the place for it. Period. Bring a reliably-sourced, verifiable citation from a notable source that talks about the connections between ST and TN and we're in business. Without it, you are simply wasting ''everyone's time, including your own. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

not as credited
"However, they are unaware that the colony is in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs.[4]" This reference not only doesn't contain this sentence but doesn't even state the idea. Further, if you land in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs, possible consequences include getting stepped on or getting mingled with the animal's flesh. Move the reference to something it actually states and then rewrite this sentence to make sense. 4.249.63.28 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Receiving the "Glee" Treatment
Did this show come under fire when Fox said it would receive the "Glee" treatment?P3771 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

tenth?
How is the tenth pilgrimage the first colony when the sixth is already there? Wouldn't the tenth be, well, the tenth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're misreading it. The colony, Terra Nova, is the first settlement established. Only one other (that of the Sixers) is, at this time known to exist. The tenth pilgrimmage is the tenth group of immigrants to that first colony. Each pilgrimmage doesn't set up its own colony. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot Hole?
I'm unclear as to just how it was determined that a colony could be established. If the time rift can only be traveled one way, how could the first person (presumably Taylor) let anyone know that he survived, what he found, that this was a gateway to the past, and that it was possible to colonize here. Did the people back in the 22nd century just assume he made it into the past and started sending supplies and colonist? Or is it possible for the two time periods to still communicate through the rift? If there's an explanation, I'm not seeing it. PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably that will be answered as time goes on. There have only been two episodes so far. I think people are looking too deeply into the mythology at this early point in time for details such as this to be considered plot holes worth inclusion in the article. And again, please note the header at the top of the talk page: Wikipedia is not a forum. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am well aware this is not a forum. My question specifically pertained to the series' overall plot structure, and whether or not this detail had been explained by the show's writers. This is to help me with future edits. I'm sorry if that was unclear. PNW Raven (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I misunderstood. The only possibility that strikes me is that, when they said it was an alternate timeline because the beacon/message never reached the present/future, they were lying about it (for some unknown reason that will become clear later on). Whatever the reason, I'm sure it will crop up as the season progresses. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe some searching in reliable sources would help you more than asking here. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant sneaky content?
In the Broadcast section we are told "Terra Nova was expected to premiere in May 2011 with a two-hour sneak preview..." I have two concerns here:

-Is there really any point telling us what WAS going to happen, but didn't? Is it encyclopaedic?

-What was sneaky about it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that "sneak" probably doesn't belong. The source simply calls it a preview and I've removed "sneak". However, the "what was going to happen" seems significant in this case. They planned an early preview, promoted it and then were forced to move it back due to production being more than they anticipated. That seems relevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it is relevant and encylopaedic. It is part of the information on development and production, and those details are often hard to come by depending on what the subject is. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But in the long term, is anyone going to care? Did Shakespeare encounter any delays getting any of his productions onto the stage? You probably don't know. Do you care? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. It's all part of being comprehensive and is essential to develop the best articles on here. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Shakespeare production was delayed? Why do you care about it? Sorry. Was asking three questions in one post too much? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was; the Shakespeare question was the one I was not replying to. But to answer your subsequent question, I care because it shows the development process of the play. Taking this hypothetical Shakespeare scenario, it would tell us about his writing process, and perhaps a little of the politics of theatre in his era. Was it delayed because of writer's block? Were elements of the play changed from the way he envisaged/first drew it out because of that? How did it change the theme, climax, or emotion of the show? Was it delayed because the people in power (ie. the theatre owners) disagreed with the play he had created (imagine their reaction if it centred around a homosexual relationship back in that day!)? Or was it perhaps the actors who disagreed with the roles they had to take on? Again that leads us into how Shakespeare worked around the writing problems so that the play could, eventually, go forwards. Or perhaps he had financial issues and that delayed aspects of production. I am not a fan of Billy Shakespeare, but I would find any and all of that information to be most interesing. I would counter that it is, in fact, essential information for the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were the Shakespeare article, I'd be concerned. It's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have both missed the point. (I should have guessed three points in one post would be too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans.) We don't know if any Shakespeare production was delayed, and nobody cares. It's trivia. I'm quite looking forward to this show (t starts tonight where I live), but I don't want the article filled with fan column gossip. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans"? There's no need to be uncivil or degrading; there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate and, quite frankly, I would much rather discuss it here on the talk page, with respect, than edit-war over it and sling insults. The Shakespeare scenario was hypothetical; we both acknowledged it as such. You consider the fact that the premiere was delayed to be trivia. I consider it important information on the development process. Neither 'side' (for lack of a better term) is more right or wrong than the other. That's why we have discussions like this and consensus to decide what is to be included. If you want an opinion from editors more experienced than either of us in television articles, might I suggest opening a discussion at one of the relevant Wikiprojects? Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of counting how many (alleged) points you made in a single reply, you should concentrate on making one of them a good one. Just because a question gets asked doesn't mean it merits an actual response. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that valid points I made, and that were not meant to be read in isolation, were ignored, gave me an impression that you were either being rude, or not understanding. I am willing to admit that I don't always understand complex issues, but I don't just ignore what others say. That's where the rudeness started. Once you ignore part of a post, your argument loses credibility. It's VERY frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude. Pat yourself on the back about these imagined "points" all you want. The bottom line is that THIS article has info about the delay and so far, 2 experienced editors disagree with you. Now, you can try to discuss something productive or you can keep whining about what didn't get addressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixed reviews
It seems some object to the term mixed reviews in the sentence Terra Nova has received mixed reviews

Some have re-edited this to overwhelmingly positive reviews, or generally positive.

As far as I can see one can only qualify such if one does a survey of all reviews given and then looks at the ratio of positive to over-all figures. And this has not been done. The best is one magazine surveyed five or so reviews. It can then be said that its survey showed 'generally positive' reviews, but that this figure is only related to the limited data of their survey. Montalban (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the exact same thing could be said for 'mixed'. Such a sentence is inherently original research, regardless of whether the reviews are deemed positive, negative, or mixed. I would think that the best course of action would be to remove such a summarizing statement altogether and just say what the reviews are. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Mixed means simply that some are good and some are bad - which is evidenced by the fact that some good and bad have been cited. Mixed doesn't suggest proportion at all.
 * It is the proportional factor that is original research - unless someone can show all reviews given and how many are positive.
 * Montalban (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gotta go with Montalban on this one. "Mixed" doesn't really imply a proportion to me. And while Montalban knows that I'm no fan or OR :), this isn't OR to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one negative review listed, and the real crux of that review is ignored by the entry. Reading the actual review, he essentially says the series is good as long as they keep the production values up, but he doubts that they will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.199 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the comment "Stargate:SGU by Dr. Seuss" not positive -unless one likes Dr Seuss' contribution to sci-fi. However we'll end up disagreeing on whether we perceive it to be negative, or positive. And, I don't say that the Boston Herald review is typical of negative comments. However this misses the point that there's no survey of all reviews done, therefore one can't say that they're overwhelmingly positive.


 * Montalban (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it's received critical reception, especially concerning what many consider to be bland characters. There's been a lot of talk about the cliches in it. The rebel son, wanting a new life, black people dying like they were wearing red shirts, etc. I'd say that most reviews were neutral but hopeful about the future.
 * "A lot of talk about it" means nothing. What is being chatted up on sci-fi forums etc has no encyclopedia value. When a reliable source writes about the "cliches", then we'll look at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out, plenty of RS and others here, http://www.google.com/#q=%22terra+nova%22+cliche&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=QtOkTprYOcfNrQf3mrDzAg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=243423c6f499f635&biw=1280&bih=857 "guy-eating cliches" "lazy plotting" "it's a bloated mess" "This show is so cliche it's embarrassing." "story lines are extremely boring and a convoluted mess" "The biggest disappointment of this show is how dreadfully boring it is" "The story-telling bogs down into cliches as soon as they arrive" hey well this is kind of fun, but frankly writing about this terminally dull Waltons clone isn't that much better than watching it. Greglocock (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did any of these reviews say something similar to my comment above...?P3771 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a prime example of how Metacritic fails to accurately supply an accurate weighted value.. many of the critical scores are based on the pilot and are rather high.. then there are those who commented on the series so far.. who are naturally less positive.. many original critics don't come back and reevaluate (for whatever reason) giving what has to be a very skewed result... its a shame as in other mediums it is a reasonable system.--MRNasher (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Links to ACE and The Gold Coast need to be disambiguated to American Cinema Editors and Gold Coast, Queensland. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ucucha (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected against editing
Why is this? The page could do with some minor cleanup.
 * Agreed. Semi-protect would have squashed most of the edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection was requested, but full-protection was given instead. It should be lifted either later today or some point tomorrow I think. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.181.171.25, 4 October 2011
The character Reynolds is not fully described, it should add ",a soldier who seems to have a crush on Maddy"

69.181.171.25 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please discuss changes before applying editprotected, thanks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is needed to make observations like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AnonymousAnimus, 4 October 2011
3 episodes have aired now, not 2.

AnonymousAnimus (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The pilot was a single, 2 hour episode. Last night was S1, E2 according to the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is wrong: see here. The Pilot was 2 episodes. The title says too! -- LAW CSI (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the Futon Critic.......Fox knows more about their own show. Episode 1 Genesis aired on 9/26. Episode 2 Instinct aired on 10/3. If Fox says the 9/26 broadcast was one episode, then it was 1 episode. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's funny: In the Genesis episode even pointed out who wrote Part 1 and Part 2. So it must still be two consequences. -- 91.66.23.88 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two parts doesn't necessarily have to mean two episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Declining as there isn't clear consensus for this change right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the pilot was written and filmed with the idea of a two-hour premier, but later reruns can be shown as two separate episodes.PNW Raven (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@InsideTerraNova confirm that Genesis is 1 & 2 and there will be 11 episodes after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.66.226 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the show website still lists 2 episodes so far. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So two official sources are saying two different things. Welp, guess we'll have to wait until the DVD is released. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A link needs to be set up for Rene Echevarria (he has his own Wiki article). Executive producers Braga and Echevarria worked together on StarTrek. (see their Wiki articles for more info) Victorsteelballs (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

a 1 hour pilot was to air in may but it was push back to air with the 12 other ep which was order in 2 hour ep was cut in to two but they air it together so it 1A and 1b so their is 12 more after it not 11 besides it will end with a Episode 12/13 aired together so keep the ep list the way it is.. Genesis was only number 1 that was the pilot..... but something is missing i think this will be answer st the end of the season they say the end will be 2 hours long so let's wait for the answer(note i edited my comment to get some facts right due to forgetting the pilot airdate back in may )--Wjmdem (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Measuring time
They haven't explained how they measure time in "the past", but it was mentioned in the Ocotber 10 episode that Taylor arrived seven years ago. Also, they said in the same episode it is possible to communicate with people in 2149 when the portal opens. Now I assume time is progressing in both places. If Taylor went to Terra Nova seven years ago it was 2142 when he went. If they communicate with "the present" one year after Stepehen Lang Jim Shannon arrived, then "the present" will be 2150. And it will be eight years after Taylor arrived.

All of this, I suppose, needs reliable sources before the article can include it, but I think the seven years for Taylor could be sourced to the episode. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I had taken time to look at the article, I would have seen that not only is seven years in the article, but it has a quote in the Toronto Sun as its source. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image
Now that the series has begun airing, shouldn't the image in the infobox be the intertitle, instead of a promotional picture used 17 months ago? 117Avenue (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be. Feel free to change it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good fortune that the Italian Wikipedia was already using it, I didn't want to figure out how to capture it. 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: All Our Yesterdays
I've removed the section that states that the Star Trek (TOS) episode shares a "similar premise" with TN, as it is filled to overflowing with Original Research - something we unequivocally do not allow in Wikipedia. I am fully aware of the forum-style discussion that took place a few sections above, and just posted a comment there before deciding that the point needed to be made without any hint of vagueness by initiating a section here. Our policies do not afford us the opportunity to find our own connections to other material. When we mistakenly do so, it is called synthesis, a violation of NOR. We find reliable, notable sources that make the connection and cite them, If there are no citations can be found, the topic goes unexplored. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the See Also link toAll Our Yesterdays last night as well. I thought it strange, but wanted to chack it out. I consider myself a fairly good Star Trek fan, but not geek enough to have remembered the exact premise of that episode. I looked it up and decided that the similarities were close enough to leave this in. Remember that the shows themselves are their own sources, so its not really OR to make the link.-- JOJ Hutton  17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out, that isn't our call to make as editors: we are not citable, and our opinion as to what belongs in the article is governed by the policies and guidelines all editors agree to when editing here. Find a notable, reliable source that draws those comparisons - and we can point to how that source being cited says those things. Without it, our hands are tied. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you have a look at WP:PRIMARY. The episodes are primary sources and so, any use of them can only consist of direct reporting of events within the episodes. WP:PRIMARY requires that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." "I looked it up and decided that the similarities were close enough to leave this in" is indeed original research. As Jack Sebastian has pointed out, you need a reliable, secondary source to make the link, like this, which makes the link between Terra Nova and Outcasts. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Think that's a bit of overkill, given the obvious plot similarities. Those similarities are easily verifiable, within the episodes, and any reasonable person would be able to come to the same conclusion. It has been very common for years to point out these type of plot similarities among movies, books, TV shows, and other literature. Why its all of a sudden become a problem here, is beyond me.-- JOJ Hutton  01:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find most of the "pointing out plot similarities" to usually be a bunch of OR about trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Jojhutton's response: I cannot speak to how you think it used to be; I never encountered such that wasn't challenged and/or removed upon identification as OR or SYN. It's the way the encyclopedia is supposed to be, and one of the many things that separate us from blogs and forums. I won't go so far as Niteshift36 and call it trivial, but if it is as important/reasonable/obvious as you seem to think it is, someone notable and citable would have noted it. We aren't saying you are wrong, Jojhutton; we are asking you to find a reliable source for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With over 700 episodes, plus movies, it's easy to link any plot line to a Star Trek episode, science fiction or not. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very true and is one of the reasons why WP:PRIMARY says what it says. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a million (approximately) shows and books that have a "similar premise" to a greater or lesser extent. Trek isn't the beginning and end of its influences. You could write a short essay on this, which of course would be all WP:OR.  It might include Primeval; It's About Time (TV series); The Time Tunnel; Saga of Pliocene Exile;  Time's Last Gift (PJ Farmer); The Flintstones; Pellucidar; Caprona (island); The Lost World (Conan Doyle novel); Dinotopia.... Anyway, the categories it's included in, especially  "Dinosaurs in television fiction"; "Time travel television series" provide plenty of  "see also". Barsoomian (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Final thought I'm a bit surprised that there seem to be a few comments here that actually imply that the show has absolutely nothing in common with theStar Trek episode. Wanting it cited per WP:V is a very fair argument, given that verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Very hard to argue against that. What puzzles me, is that this particular similarity between the show and the episode is so spot on similar that even my seven year old pointed it out to me. Anyone here who is actually denying this similarity, either has never seen the Star Trek episode, or is outright lying, in an attempt to be pointy. It may not be in the article now, but eventually the show won't get picked up for a second season. (Its too expensive to produce, and the ratings aren't high enough to justify its large budget. Sorry for the reality check Terra Nova fans). When that happens, the readership, and eventually the watch list occurrences, will depreciate to hardly anything. The similarities between these two shows is so great, someone will eventually come along and add All Our Yesterdays, and since its almost a spot on match, no one will care or notice.-- JOJ Hutton  02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, okay. Could you perhaps take a peek into that crystal ball of yours and give me the lottery numbers for tomorrow? I mean, since you think this is athe last word on the subject and all. The problem is solved. No one is arguing that there aren't similarities. The point - as you've noticed - is that the deductive reasoning of a 7-year-old (or any of us) isn't notable enough to warrant consideration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tim? Curran
When exactly was he called Tim Curran, all that we know is Curran. Was there a behind the scenes snippet somewhere or did someone just run with it like the IMDb people did with "Dr Katseles"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosun (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unless a secondary source pops up with the character's full name, it's just Curran. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think someone on wikia made it up and the idiots there just didn't notice it. Gosun (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova Wiki
Also see the Terra Nova Wiki, the biggest and best reference wiki for the show (much better than the ~100 article one on wikia) so if you want to beef up some of the details look around. Gosun (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We tend to avoid other wiki's for the very reasons that you noted above - there is little in the way of provenance for the claims they make, making them little better than fan forums. Even if they cite their material, it is usually cited to forum threads - which Wikipedia pointedly rejects as reliable or notable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its cited to episodes, there are very few, if any, off-site citations or forum threads. Anything if not mentioned in an episode is cited to a place where such info can be found out. The one on wikia is all over the place and unreliable. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that isn't good enough, and I suspect you know that it isn't, anon user. Citing to an episode is a usage of primary sourcing (ie. you visually seeing something and interpreting what you see); we prefer secondary sourcing, like an episode review from a reliable source. And forums? Never, ever, ever a reliable source of information. When we have a source that fits the above criteria, we can use it. Until then, I don't see Curran's first name being a pivotal piece of information in the understanding of the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the TN Wiki does not use ANY forum citations, only primary and (as there is only a few) secondary sources. You also seem to be confusing the better Terra Nova Wiki with the crappy, mismanaged, very incomplete Terra Nova Wikia. Wikia are the ones who made up the name with no link to where such info came from. The better TN Wiki could help hammer out some details that the wikipedia page has WRONG because it uses old material from spoilers released before the episode is aired, as such TN Wiki could act as a secondary source, and it does not break wikipedias rules on linking to wikis as it is not an open wiki and has had constant stability since it started. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You make good points, anon user. I would suggest that if you wish to correct information that is wrong in this article, and you want t use the info from the TN Wiki, use the citations that the TN wiki uses. Again, avoid if at all possible any primary references - they get challenged and removed all the time, whereas secondary ones are far more durable. Durable is good because it helps to stabilize the article and move it along towards GA or FA status. If you would like my assistance in helping to you evaluate the 'wiki-osity' of the citations you wish to use to correct errors here, please feel free to drop me a line on my usertalk page or here. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Maddy's age
In the source used to support much of the intial content about the series' characters, Maddy is said to be "Josh’s endearingly awkward 15-year-old sister". This was the only source used and, despite this, her age was changed several times by IPs and new users to "16", without explanation or a source for the change.(examples:) I got sick of reverting these changes so I challenged the last change. A citation was supplied, but User:Jack Sebastian removed it, and other content, only two and a half hours later, stating in his edit summary, "The information about her age has come up at least twice in episodes, and is really not all that likely to be challenged". Given that I had challenged this less than 11 hours before, and the swap between 15 and 16 had occurred several times, this was obviously a poor assumption. I restored the citation, with an appropriate note in my edit summary, but Jack Sebastian removed the citation, this time without explanation as to why in his edit summary, on 27 December. Again it was restored and again it has been removed. Quite aside from there rarely being a good reason to remove valid citations, Verifiability, which is a core policy, "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Since the change was challenged, it needs to be cited in accordance with policy, and the citation should not be removed, as it is likely to be challenged again. Remember, not everyone who reads this article is a dedicated fan of the program who remembers every tiny thing that happens. All content needs to be verifiable, which is why we provide citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are quite right. Clearly someone out there is overly (and somewhat creepily) interested in the child's age. Please feel free to re-add the citation as to the child's age. I deeply apologize for seeking to address undue weight being applied to her age, when the same hasn't been done for everyone else. I wonder how old Tyler is? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Her age is given as 16 several times in the first few episodes. This is an obvious case in which the source is wrong in respect to details to a TV show/movie. Its happened before.-- JOJ Hutton  12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And something which has been pointed out before as well, "the litmus test for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If the observable fact is that we've heard her called 16, and it is opposed by a source that says otherwise, we use the source, and the source alone. As editors, it has been pointed out time and time again that we are not citable as sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The episode can be used as a source, when referring to information that is within it. Her age is given on multiple occasions as being 16. The other source is obviously wrong. we've seen it before. Isn't the first time that a source has gotten something wrong in a TV show,and it won't be the last.-- JOJ Hutton  20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is not "obviously wrong", it was merely reporting what Fox provided in a press release. The same is available at futoncritic.com, as well as multiple other sources. We have no idea where the change from 15 to 16, or vice-versa happened, and probably never will have. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As of today, the page on Fox (http://www.fox.com/terranova/bios/naomi-scott/) reads "The Shannon family’s brilliant and endearingly awkward oldest daughter is enthralled with everything Terra Nova has to offer..." No age specified.  "Oldest" of two?--Gaarmyvet (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, the source must be correct, and the episode is obviously wrong. How could I have so mistaken. We must immediately get a hold of Fox and tell them that the age given for Maddy within the episode is incorrect, because reliable sources say so.-- JOJ Hutton  22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the horse is dead, Hojhutton; the point has been made that citation with trump observation. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. We have citations that say one thing, so we say that one thing. Period. Sorry if you disagree. Take it up with management. This is no longer the place to belabor the point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if the citation is obviously wrong. There is a thing called common sense. I think a little needs to be sprinkled around this article for a while, the wikilawyering is making me nauseous.-- JOJ Hutton  02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you feell the citation is wrong - and this is key - go and find one that contradicts it. It's that easy. If you feel this fairly straight-forward view to be "wikilawyering", you might want to discuss it with users who've been here longer than yourself. Now, if you are done following my edits around, I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, the article already expresses the correct information, with a "citation". And what is being used as a citation? The episode. Because TV shows/films/books, can and have always been used as sources about themselves. If a citation said that Ilsa runs away with Rick at the end of Casablanca, we annotate that information, even if the citation is obviously wrong? We don't do that because works of fiction ARE citations about themselves. So a citation HAS been found for Maddy being 16.
 * Second, If two citations appear to contradict each other, which seems to be the case here, we use common sense, not constant wikilawyering the policies and guidelines.
 * Third,I think I need to pay a bit more attention to what goes on here at this article, in order to help ensure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not being abused and common sense is used when enforcing them. -- JOJ Hutton  14:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is really not necessary, and doesn't help. That there are two reliable sources that differ in the information that they provide is not at all uncommon. It may well be that her age was meant to be 15 and the script-writers screwed up. We don't know and we really don't need to now as it doesn't matter. She's said to be 16 in the episode, so a citation was added to the article 28 days ago. Confusion over this was resolved 3 days ago so I don't know why we're still discussing it. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my stalker was following me around, and felt the need to poke me. We are in agreement; the subject is concluded. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maddy was born in 2133 (She said so in one of the Countdown to Terra Nova videos) so in 2149 she is 16 years old. 58.164.75.158 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

TN Wiki
Was going to debate but why bother. TN Wiki breaks none of the external links "Things to be avoided" but once again little wikipedia is only in love with their retarded cousin wikia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.177.192 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone put the Terra Nova wikia on there, it would stay, despite that wiki being like 0.002% complete while mine if like 99.5% complete. Terrible choices being made. 150.203.223.24 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
If the network and airing schedule is to be included in the lead paragraph (which I don't think it should because Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and the readers aren't limited to America,) the first two sentences need to be rewritten, because "Terra Nova ... airs on Fox on Monday nights" is incorrect in the present tense. I would like to propose:
 * Terra Nova is an American science fiction drama television series. It premiered on September 26, 2011 with a two-hour premiere,[2] aired on Fox on Monday nights, and the first season concluded on December 19, 2011 with a two-hour finale.

I hope this neither confirms or denies a second season. An alternative is to simply say it premiered on September 26, 2011, (let the North American broadcast section discuss Fox and America), and remove the American bias from the lead. 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common to include the network on which the program originally aired in the lede but "airs on Monday nights" needs to go. The lede should follow WP:TVLEAD, where there is an example of what a lead paragraph should look like. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem of when it airs going away. But if it remains, since the show has not been canceled it would need to be "airs" not "aired." If we talk about the 2011 season then surely it is "aired" but otherwise we keep the present tense or nothing at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is original? It is simul-cast in Canada, and it is followed days later in several countries, including where it was filmed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with AussieLegend on this: the bit about what day of the week it airs is just not necessary. That it airs is encyclopedic; when it airs, not so much. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Terra Nova is" and "follows" are conditions; "aired" is now historical. It may or may not be back.  It may or may not air of Mondays.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate universe
Spidey keeps adding the working of 'alternative universe' as opposed to the universally-accepted 'alternate universe', citing MOS commonality. The point is, there is no such thing as an 'alternative universe', or if it in fact used, it is used far, far less commonly than the simpler term, "alternate universe". Coupled by the fact that the more common term is used within the series itself, I don't think we should change it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary says that alternative universe is an alternative form of alternate universe. Noting A. di M.'s comment, alternate is not uncommon in Australian English either. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Alternate" is common in American english. "Alternative" is common in British english. The section within MOS that I linked to specifically states that "alternative" should be used instead of "alternate" in cases like these. ''' Sp id ey  104  20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both "Alternate universe" and "Alternative universe" redirect to "Parallel Universe;" let's use "Parallel."--Gaarmyvet (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The in universe term used in episode one is "new time stream". suggest we use that per the MOS and move on from this quickly.-- JOJ Hutton  22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, parallel works better. Since when do we use in-universe definitions of real world terms? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We really should be using a term that provides a real world treatment, since the plot should be understandable by all readers, and not those who are fans of the program and understand the in-universe terms. As indicated above, both "Alternate universe" and "Alternative universe" redirect to "Parallel universe", so that seems the least problematic term since it covers both spellings. However, Parallel universe is a disambiguation page and since we are talking about a fictional environment, the target should probably be "Parallel universe (fiction)", making the link " Parallel universe (fiction)|parallel universe]] ". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't care what term eventually gets used, but find a "reliable" source before including that sentence in the article. The citation given doesn't mention either term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this source or this source, which uses "alternate timeline"? Or this one, which uses "parallel universe"? Any way you cut it, "alternative universe" doesn't appear to be one of the choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, yes, no. The first is a blog...absolutely no. The second appears to be MSN... and uses "alternate timeline" and "alternate past", that's fine. The third is a homemade page...absolutely no. And I quickly found blogs discussing alternative timelines in terra nova like this so now your answers are suspect. Blogs cannot be used as sources. I pause in writing this to look a little more and found comic news editor "alternative". probably best to use another term to describe things but without sources it's useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the actual episode and have changed my opinion on this slightly. The term time stream is actually used by Maddie and there is an article on this, but it's a six-year-old-stub. Looking at the episodes and the refs it's not only "possible" that it's an alternate reality/alternative reality/parallel universe, it's well established that it is that. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Fyunck; I did a qucik Googling, without clearly checking that the links were indeed blogs. My bad. But seriously, no one uses alternative history - well, except maybe for those sorts of knuckleheads who have misheard 'buck naked' as 'butt-naked'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either use what reliable source actually says or use the term which is actually used in the episode. But everyone stop making up your own definition of what is said in the episode. "New Time Stream" is a real world term being used in a "in universe" situation. Better to go with that, then to argue over a few letters if another word. JOJ  Hutton  19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fyunck, for helping us to find "parallel universe" as the best solution.
 * Jack, my changes had nothing to do with hearing but how the vernacular usage of terms in Britain is different than it is in America. For example: "fag" and "lieu" are used for "cigarette" and "toilet," respectively, in Britain. There was an entire category of articles that was renamed from "alternate" to "alternative" because of the MOS section I linked to. Now I am asking you to apologize for implying I'm a pre-pubescent boy who likes to hear the word "naked." Based on your typos and bad edits I would bet serious money that between the two of us I am probably the one with the higher level of education, so get off your imaginary high horse. ''' Sp id ey  104  21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No insult was intended, Spidey104; I think maybe you should grow a thicker skin. If you had come here to the discussion page the first time you were reverted (or the second...) explaining your reasoning in-depth, a lot of this would have been unnecessary.
 * And let's not get into an educational dick-measuring contest, Spidey104. Sure, I might be a lousy typist, but I am pretty sure that the term is 'loo', not "lieu". It's derived from 'gardez l'eau' , a warning to passers-by in medieval times when people used to throw their sewage into the street, and French was the language of court in England.
 * And for the record, I am a grown man, and I totally enjoy hearing the word naked. I am going to gallop off on my imaginary high horse now. Maybe I can bum a fag off a bird who's nifty on her pins. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have been necessary to come here to explain my changes if you had bothered to really read the page I linked to in my edit summary (that is why they have edit summaries). If indeed no insult was intended (doubtful) then I apologize for my harsh response, but you sure picked an odd example for your comments. My skin is plenty thick, I just don't put up with unnecessary shit. I do apologize for my mistake on the spelling of a word I have only said before and never typed. Also, you should have used "spelling" instead of "term" since my meaning was obvious despite the mistake as you demonstrated by being able to interpret it properly. ''' Sp id ey  104  15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, Spidey, you want me to be the bad guy here, go right ahead and think that. A little AGF goes a very long way, and wouldn't twist your knickers to provide. No insult was intended, and your proper response after my post should have been, 'gee, I just took your response the wrong way. Sorry.'
 * Instead you turned what could have been a pleasant, professional interaction into one where where I instead point out that a) when you are reverted, you bring your ass to the discussion page - otherwise you are edit-warring; b) if someone disagrees with your reasoning and makes more than a token effort to explain why you were incorrect, it isn't "unnecessary shit" - its learning, and c) you shouldn't call someone on their grammar and/or spelling if you aren't planning on making the effort to actually practice what you preach.
 * Now see? Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer of you to simply swallow your defensiveness and work with others? Now, since you are almost certainly going to be upset because I called you on your foolishness, feel free to take your tale of hurt feelings elsewhere. I am done cluttering up this article discussion page trying to make you feel better about yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If no insult really was intended you should bother explaining where your example came from, because it was so far out of right field that it was closer to left field of the next park.
 * a)If I did that every time some new editor or IP address did that I wouldn't have time to do anything else. Due to the lack of explanation for why it was "not the correct term" I mistook you for an inexperienced editor. Sorry. b)I was referring to your "not insult" and not the discussion; that is clear when taken in context. c)I do practice what I preach; I apologized for my spelling mistake on a rare word, but you have yet to apologize for your spelling mistake on a common word.
 * I did work with others. Notice how the word has been changed and I have not been a jerk and tried to change it back to "alternative"? By the way, did your horse grow? ''' Sp id ey  104  03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but my patience has grown short. I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Brevity" edits
I recently came across a series of bold edits by an anon user which I felt added excessive detail (1, 2, 3), so I reverted the changes, noting "the point is to summarize, without excessive detail. Want to discuss?" The idea was that the anon would then come here to defend the edits, arguing for a modification of the article. That didn't happen. Instead, the same essential edits was proffered again over the course of two edits (4, 5), with the subsequent edit summaries: "Summarized with less detail. That better?" and "several edits for conciseness". Frankly, it wasn't, and I reverted again, noting in my edit summary: "Summarization means "brevity*, not excessive detail. Please use DISCUSSION page to work this out". Also caught up in the revert was one by AussieLegend, seeking to fix edits which - imo - shouldn't be there in the first place. One can be concise and still brief. We are here to give an overview of the series, not just the pilot, and not a detailed and nuanced reliving of each episode. That means we do include the details of the end of season 1, even though the give away the ending (as per WP:SPOILER). That also means that we aren't going to get into the detailed histories and psychological makeup of each character. We have links at the bottom of the page for those users who want to explore more deeply the mythology and characterization of the program. That isn't our job. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what is your problem? It's basic copyediting to try and get the point and description across more clearly.  You reverted the plot section -- again -- to something that's far more awkwardly worded.  As for the Characters section, I actually made it less verbose and cut out unnecessary detail and you still reverted that for some reason.  What will satisfy you? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel for you anonymous ip. I understand how it is to deal with Jack. But in this instance I tend to error on the side of brevity. Plot sections do not and should not have "beat by beat" descriptions of every single thing that happened in the series. To be fair, I haven't actually looked at the edits in question, but anything that keeps the plot section small and concise has my support.-- JOJ Hutton  18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that vein, I want to thank AussieLegend, as at least they have been reasonable in this regard. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So ... tried again now. Hopefully third time's the charm.  The Plot section is no longer than before, merely copyedited for less awkward wording and better clarity.  The Characters section is significantly shorter, with excessive/unnecessary detail edited out from the entries on Skye, Maddy, Taylor, Kara and Curran, and minor clarifying edits on Mira, Josh, Malcolm, Deborah and Wash.  None of the above are more verbose.  Better? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked what my problem is; I thought I made that clear with my last post here. The problem with your text is that is doesn't actually address "awkward wording", but that it is rife with speculation, in-universe fancruft and totally extraneous information. When you are asked via edit summaries not once but twice to come to the article discussion page to find out what the problem is with your edits, it would seem prudent to actually try that, instead of simply adding the same information three times in a row. Since you clearly seem to know where the discussion page is, your actions make it seem like you sim ply want your edits in, no matter what our policies, guidelines and editors think. That sort of behavior tends to piss me off. Not a great way to start editing, my friend. Since you appear to need in-depth explanations as to the problems with your edits, let's look at them singly (I'll set aside the OR issues that AussieLegend dealt with):


 * Original text: "Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of colonial separatists from the "Sixth Pilgrimage", who are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's own son Lucas, all of whom are determined to strip the distant past of its resources to send back to 2149."
 * Your text: "Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers", who arrived in the "Sixth Pilgrimage" and are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in an effort to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and send them back to 2149. At the end of the first season, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 to destroy the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to and from the past."

Feel free to tell me why you think this edit is better than the original text. I think that's a good start. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain the removal of all the information about Taylor, specifically the vit that explains Lucas. I think it needs to stay because it is the crux of the conflict within the series. (6, 7, 8)
 * Alright. I'm getting seriously mixed messages from you.  First you want more brevity.  Then you want verbose explanations left in.  And all the while you blanket-revert my edit work like I'm some common vandal.  From here, it sure looks like you are the one hell-bent on having their way.  (Did I stumble upon a pet article of yours or something?)  If you're not prepared to accept another person's edits in good faith, perhaps the PEBCAK does not solely exist on my end.
 * If I did not feel I could improve the written prose of the article, I would not have bothered. My criteria for an edit is: does it read better than before?  Does it get the necessary information across better than before?  And does it include everything that is necessary for an adequate understanding of the subject at hand?
 * Feel free to go back into the article history and compare the version just before I started editing with the article as it stands now. Despite our misunderstandings in the meantime, I can confidently say that yes, it does read better now, and yes, it gets the critical information across more clearly.
 * To wit, here is the entry for Taylor, before I made any changes:
 * Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, then began building a community as new settlers came through; he has been the leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure to her. Taylor has a son named Lucas, who has abandoned Terra Nova and is working with the renegade Sixers. Lucas blames Taylor for his mother's death which Taylor was unable to prevent; Taylor, ashamed of his son's betrayal, has told everybody that his son has gone missing. In early development, Nathaniel Taylor was named Frank Taylor.
 * Here is my first attempt at a better entry, in which I attempted to make the distinction between "Lucas' mother simply died" and Taylor's actual "sadistic choice" which was spelled out in the episode. The "in early development" bit I felt was unnecessary and has no bearing on the show -- no other character has such a note, so why should he?
 * Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. Later in the first season, it was revealed that in 2138, Taylor's wife and their son Lucas were abducted in Somalia and Taylor was forced to choose between them. He chose to save his son, leading to Lucas blaming him for his mother's death as well as for alleged resentment both before and afterwards. Lucas eventually came to Terra Nova on the Second Pilgrimage, but Taylor soon discovered that Lucas was in league with the Sixers and their employers, and Taylor was forced to banish him from the settlement in an attempt to stop his plans.  Taylor, ashamed of his son's betrayal, stuck to the story that Lucas had simply gone missing.
 * After you reverted that, I tried again to say the same thing in fewer words, so as to not clutter the article with a TLDR paragraph ...
 * Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. His son, Lucas, blames him for continuous resentment as well for as an incident in 2138 in which Taylor was forced to save Lucas at the cost of his wife's life. Lucas eventually came to Terra Nova on the Second Pilgrimage, but Taylor soon discovered Lucas' true allegiance and was forced to banish him from the settlement, claiming afterwards that Lucas had simply gone missing.
 * ... yet you reverted it again. I figured, even that must not be good enough, so I tried to pare it down further, to the version that exists now, and which is actually shorter than it was before I touched it.
 * Stephen Lang as Commander Nathaniel Taylor, a pioneer and leader of Terra Nova. The first person to arrive, Taylor survived 118 days on his own, helped build a community as new settlers came through, and has been the colony's leader for seven years. When Skye's parents died, he became her legal guardian and father figure. Taylor has a highly adversarial relationship with his son Lucas; after Lucas arrived in the Second Pilgrimage, Taylor discovered Lucas' true allegiance and banished him from the colony, claiming that Lucas had gone missing.
 * You're right, that doesn't get across the precise origin of their animosity. I do think that is a weakness but I felt you wanted me to cut down on the verbosity and a lengthy backstory did not seem useful (as their adversarial relationship is a constant in the series proper).  Maybe, if we want to include more details, we should move all the character entries to a page titled List of characters in Terra Nova and the characters can be described at length there instead of cluttering the main Terra Nova (TV series) article.  Other major series have character pages, so it is easily justifiable and rather practical.
 * On to your next point: the Plot description. Seeing as the first paragraph changed little, I will focus on the second/third.  Originally, it read:
 * Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of colonial separatists from the "Sixth Pilgrimage", who are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's own son Lucas, all of whom are determined to strip the distant past of its resources to send back to 2149. The first season ends when Jim Shannon travels back to the future to shut down the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to the past. However, it is revealed that in an area called the Badlands, artifacts from history are ending up in the past as well.
 * This omits the name of the Sixers, as well as the name of the corporate industrialists (the Phoenix Group), as well as the reason for Lucas' betrayal of Nathaniel (in short, they are estranged). The Sixers are classic antagonistic figures, a well-established trope.  The first season does not technically "end" when Jim travels to the future; there is a sequence of Taylor's group returning to the colony as well as the reveal of the ship's prow before the episode ends.  Jim destroys Hope Plaza; he does not shut it down.  The final sentence read awkwardly in my opinion.  Lastly, artifacts from Earth's modern day cannot naturally turn up 85 million years in the past; therefore, their mere presence indicates that at least one other time fracture exists (and possibly more).  Hence:
 * Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers". So named because they arrived en masse in the "Sixth Pilgrimage", the Sixers are working in concert with corporate industrialists known as the Phoenix Group as well as Taylor's estranged son Lucas in order to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and return them to 2149. For much of the first season, Lucas, a theoretical physicist, works to develop a mathematical solution to the problem of making the time portal function in both directions.
 * At the end of the first season, Lucas Taylor's efforts come to fruition and the Phoenix Group send their mercenary army through the time portal to take over the Terra Nova colony. In response, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 and destroys the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing the link between the two time periods. The soldiers of the Phoenix Group, now stranded in the past, make their way towards an area called the Badlands, where they have begun to discover artifacts from Earth's modern history.
 * This, I felt, better conveyed the coordination between the "villains", but you're right, it went too far and had a lot of verbose detail on the season finale, something that more accurately belongs in the synopses on the List of Terra Nova episodes page. But, you felt the appropriate answer was a complete reversion, so I tried to go shorter, seeing as details on the season finale were apparently unwelcome:
 * Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is an antagonistic group of separatists known as the "Sixers". So named because they arrived en masse in the "Sixth Pilgrimage", the Sixers are working in concert with corporate industrialists known as the Phoenix Group and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in order to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and return them to 2149.
 * ... but this got it reverted again, and it was made clear that you wanted the finale details kept. So, I felt this was an appropriate compromise:
 * Opposing the colony and its leader, Commander Nathaniel Taylor, is a group of separatists known as the "Sixers", who arrived in the "Sixth Pilgrimage" and are working in concert with corporate industrialists and Taylor's estranged son Lucas in an effort to strip the distant past Earth of its resources and send them back to 2149. At the end of the first season, Jim Shannon travels back to 2149 to destroy the gateway that controls the wormhole in the future, effectively severing their ability to travel to and from the past. However, the colonists discover that a nearby area called the Badlands holds an artifact from Earth's history.
 * Sure, I skipped over AussieLegend's edits, but I'm prepared to accept that he knows better than I do what is O.R. and what is not. Still, if Terra Nova truly is set in the past -- and we're willing to make huge leaps of faith to believe it's even a "parallel universe" at all with so little evidence -- then the only logical way the modern-day artifacts could have ended up at Terra Nova is through other, heretofore undiscovered time-fractures.  That is not "speculation" or "fancruft", it is heavily implied by the very sequence itself.  But yes, that is never explicitly spelled out in the episode, so I can see how it qualifies as OR.
 * This is incomplete but I have to run for now. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying you. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As an update, I have gone and restored the mention of the backstory between Taylor and Lucas -- you're right, it is crucial to the central conflict of the series. Feel free to further edit it if you do not think it is suitable.  Again, I suggest that a List of characters in Terra Nova page be created to house expanded descriptions of the main and recurring characters, as well as (possibly) photos of the actors either in or out of character. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you found (right off the bat, so bummer for you) one of my major pet peeves while working in Wikipedia. When I suggest that discussion should take place in an edit summary, I find that someone disregarding that suggestion to be annoying in the extreme. Most of my AGF goes right out the window - which is what happened here. I will take more time in the future to not let my peeve govern my interactions so much. I'll re-read your post above and reply momentarily. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies also for not clueing in that you wanted the discussion done here (and not, say, on your user talk page or something). I was also rushing to redo the edits in what I thought was a more acceptable fashion without consulting first.  Meh, we're all human -- something the Internet is lousy at conveying at the best of times. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this really O.R.?
In the interests of keeping the preceding section from delving too deep into the realm of TLDR, or reintroducing edits that were classed as WP:OR:
 * In the first season finale, the Terra Nova colonists discover a ship's prow from the modern era, recovered from the "Badlands". Seeing as Terra Nova is 85 million years before human civilization developed, this is mysterious and sets up developments in the still-TBD second season.  Now, the fact that modern-day sailing ships do not belong 85 million years in the past (the Terra Novans never built any) and the fact it turned up on dry land indicates that it must have been put there somehow by an unnatural phenomenon.  Is it really O.R. to include what is heavily implied: that there are one or more time fractures in existence in the Badlands that were previously unknown to the characters?
 * Also, in the series premiere, the only evidence presented that Terra Nova is in a separate time stream/parallel universe/alternate universe is the idea that the humans of the 22nd century sent a mechanical probe through the fracture and never found it in the present day. I might be more convinced if there was some statement like "the continents are shifting differently" or "there are species here that never existed on our Earth" or something concrete like that.  Instead, we're supposed to believe that a two-foot-wide metal probe not surviving 85 million years on a geologically active planet is incontrovertible proof that TerraNova!Earth and 2149!Earth are in different timelines.  The same premiere makes a big deal out of showing the probe perched atop a monument in the Terra Nova settlement; the first season finale shows that same monument destroyed in the Phoenix Group's attack.  There is nothing that has transpired on TerraNova!Earth that can conclusively separate it from 2149!Earth.  In the absence of any solid evidence, is there any reason why treating the "two time streams" idea as an unproven theory is O.R.? --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer to your first question is yes, it is OR. You aren't allowed to make explicit an implication. If someone citable (read: reliable and verifiable) can see the implication, they will likely write about it. If not them, then we need to wait until the show does the same thing. We can cite them when they make the implicit explicit. It extends from the idea of remaining objectively neutral. We cannot cite our own deductions.
 * The answer to your second question is much the same as the answer to the previous one. We are not allowed to import our deductions, speculations or genius moments into the article. The fact is, you are pointing out major problems with the series that many others have. This article is not, and cannot, be about that. We focus on what reliable sources say about the program. I am sure some nerd at Wired or Ain't It Cool has performed the autopsy on the mythology of this series. Until we have reliable citation noting the discrepancies, we cannot include them in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair. If the article were to delve into pointing out the plotholes, it'd be a massive Wall Of Text and no one would want to read it. -- 24.150.178.154 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

85 million years ago
The article currently contains " they travel 85 million years into the past. " Time being what it is, 85 million years ago could be any period from 85-85.99999 million years ago, covering both the Santonian and the Coniacian. Since neither of these periods was mentioned in the series, specifiying one or the other is original resarch. For this reason I removed it, but it was restored. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Late Cretaceous (99.6–65.5 Ma) is unambiguous, we will never get any source for a finer subdivision. Barsoomian (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I check Santonian again, I realize that 83.5-0.7=82.8, so it could be wrong. Otherwise my argument would be that 83.5 wouldn't be said as 83 in normal conversation. Sure, Late Cretaceous works. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree also.74.178.186.35 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)