Talk:Touch (American TV series)

Touch premiered in Canada and the United States as a result of the time, ah!
Touch premiered in Canada and the United States as a result of the time, ah!Qa003qa003 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Three Little Birds deletion
-- Drmargi, please explain further your deletion today of the Three Little Birds release sentence. Are you saying I have to wait until the link is available to confirm the source on iTunes? I don't want to advertise but Tim Kring did say in an interview that he and Kiefer want to pursue the inclusion of music in the show. RKDia (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that until you have a reliable source, such as a print interview or press release, the release information cannot be included in the article. Please review WP:RS for details about sourcing.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I'll read it. I understand more now having looked at some other show pages where songs are involved. It was Karen David herself who told me and it's on the Fox TV facebook page and the Vice President of Fox TV has confirmed it. RKDia (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting that. But we have a policy that statements such as what you've added have to be verifiable, and so far, yours isn't.  In time, it will be and we'll add it to the article!  Let me know if I can help.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye out for any official release material from Fox/Sky, I've asked Karen but she doesn't know of any, she just finished recording it a few days ago to coincide with the official launch of the series in March but Fox suddenly said it's out on Feb 28th, with a video to follow. Any help will be most welcome, thank you. RKDia (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a 'making of' video released by Fox TV on Youtube. I've contacted Live Wikipedia editing-related help and they viewed the video and said it would be ok to use as a source, although primary one. So I set up a 'Production' section, yes? --RKDia (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

China mainland can watch FOX Asia
Not believe that other Wikipedians misunderstood! News Corporation to enter the mainland only Star TV Qa003qa003 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your English is marginal, hence, your point is missed. Perhaps MORE information, overall, would give proper context for your statement?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-added sections deleted by other authors
I re-added PREVIOUS summaries of the plot of upcoming episodes. Whilst it IS unreferenced currently, it reflects upon Wikipedia's tradition of reporting of current series. Besides, it ATTRACTS viewers, as viewers NOT highly interested may well see the "teaser" reference and seek the program, which IS rather worthwhile (THAT is OR and indeed, opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! You and I BOTH re-edited upcoming episodes! Either Wikipedia has ONE standard or seventy seven or something. The HISTORY of Wikipedia is that of forwardness and adjusting if said forward evidence supports a different view. NOT one of a new item lacks reference, hence they're deleted! PER the MANY history pages I've viewed over the few years! I WOULD champion a forward of a "Currently not referenced, as not on the air" view.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure who the you in you and I are (unless we're in Taxi Driver territory), but you were reverted for violating WP:COPY. Please be sure to write episode summaries in your own words rather than using, or in this case restoring, copyrighted material.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this copyrighted material? If so, thanks for the catch, as it was removed previously without comment on the talk page.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The original revert and the revert of your re-add both clearly identified the summaries as copyvios. --Drmargi (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, thanks for correcting any copyrighted information errors. I have no wish to expose Wikipedia to legal issues. I only sought to retain episode information. Had the reversion been mentioned in this talk page, I'd NOT have re-added said information. Wzrd1 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we're good now. But the information you want is in the edit summary; the talk page is for discussing the article and resolving issues related to it.  Copyright violations are a mundane problem, easily covered in an edit summary.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed reading the episode #4, #5, #6 thumbnail-sketches; and we have watched episode #4. Looking at the Article this morning I see they are missing and now understand why, after reading here this section. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) PS: I think episode summaries should appear here after they are shown on TV.


 * They don't belong here. They belong in the article, and you're free to write one at any time as long as it's original work.  The issue was that the advance summaries that were removed were copyrighted material plagiarized from their original source, which is unacceptable per WP:COPY, whether it be before or after an episode is broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant 'here in the Article'; also, look at what others have done over at List_of_Nikita_characters — linked from Nikita. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it?
Am I the only person who has noticed that this wiki entry actually never tells you what the show is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.185.53 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, but lack the skill with prose to create a scenario/plot line for the page.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. So much, so rich, so entertaining. It is about theoretical physics/mathematics/metaphysics, plus dad-son relationships. Why always the connection to troubled third-world countries? Watch the openings of each episode. In the fourth episode the Dad pursues finding out about his wife who died on 9/11 in Twin Towers. Yes, a summary of show thesis is needed. .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Orbs? Season 1, episode 2
@ 29:40 - 29:46...3 orbs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.24.33 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

'Supernatural'?
The article describes the series as 'supernatural thriller television series', but I don't see anything supernatural about it. Autistic savants are known to have amazing - even incomprehensible - powers of perception/observation/calculation.

I think it might qualify as 'sci-fi', or 'mystery' or some other word but I see nothing supernatural about it. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you evaluate that on the premise that the son is an autistic savant, you're starting from the wrong place. The producers have been clear in multiple interviews that he is not autistic, and although he demonstrates a ritualistic obsession with numbers (ritualistic behavior being one of four characteristics of autism), his use of them to communicate and his willingness to interact with others eliminates autism.  This is an emotionally disturbed electively mute child who communicates through numbers.  And the show isn't supernatural in that sense, I agree.  But the "six degrees" element is more than coincidence, and arguably takes the show into that realm.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem, in my view, is that what has been called 'supernatural' is misnamed, such as slaying vampires. "Touch" is truer to what the genre should be. Look at the WP page mute to appreciate some among us, apparently, (never met a mute). Further in my view, it is premature to say who is 'disturbed', the mute youth or the world around him. I would say rather that he is immature. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The mute issue is tangental to the point above, but there is a well-documented psychological disorder known as elective mutism, which is what Jake has; the show made that clear in the pilot. Although the show inaccurately portrays how he would be treated in such a case (a speech-language pathologist, not a social worker being the needed therapist), the term is still accurate.  You can get into a philosophical discussion about where the disturbance lies on a show message board, but it has no place in this article, nor does speculation about who is/isn't disturbed.  On the other hand, describing Jake as having autism is WP:OR based on far too many assumptions and inaccurate media portrayals of autism.  The same is true of calling him immature -- that's your judgment and thus WP:OR.  (BTW, your link goes to a disambig. page, and the article on muteness is little more than a stub.)  --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the muteness article is small, it is very informative, linking to ten other articles. There seems to be little interest to expand that article, a few years old. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the producers say that he's not autistic then fair enough, although I'd like to know their reasoning for him disliking physical contact and obsession with numbers as well as him seldom looking at people's eyes. Mute autistics do try to communicate BTW, many are known to write or type, as well as some really off-the-wall attempts at communication because it isn't for the lack of trying, but the ease of verbal communication or direct gestures that comes so naturally to us isn't the same in an autistic's brain - I'd be very interested to know what other kind of disorders can present in such a way.  82.32.11.95 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the four characteristics of autism? He only exhibits one, the ritualistic behavior, as do most people with OCD and any number of other emotional disorders.  Moreover, there's nothing to suggest he doesn't like physical contact, just that he hasn't allowed others to touch him.  Dislike or resistance to contact is not exclusively characteristic of autism.  Moreover, not only did he hug his father, but he initiated the hug, a reciprocal social interaction which is not characteristic of autism.  Most telling is he uses the numbers to help others, which suggests empathy, a social emotion absent in children with autism.  Sounds like you've been reading Bicklen's theories of autism that accompany his widely disproven facilitated communication strategies.  --Drmargi (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have Aspergers and have worked for the National Autistic Society as well as having helped experts conduct research - I was often used as a 'go between' because I could relate to the fully autistic people. While there are traits similar to OCD, people with OCD are usually distraught at having to perform these rituals, whereas he seems absorbed in it because familiar behaviour is what makes autistics comfortable.  So I think if it's not autism, it's not OCD either (hence my wondering what other things it could be).  It's got nothing to do with Bicklen, in fact here is a very interesting video about an autistic girl that communicates via typing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNZVV4Ciccg


 * He definitely doesn't like physical contact because he has screamed on the 2 occasions that someone else has held him, the hug could be seen as a breakthrough I suppose (possibly because inside he was overjoyed that his dad finally understood him), and because he initiated it he felt in control.


 * It's a common misconception that people on the autistic spectrum don't care about other people's well being. The case is far more often that they don't realise others' troubles or can't imagine being in someone else's shoes, but certain things like pain, hunger, death are blaringly obvious even to an autistic and because the higher functioning ones tend to be highly rational and they often support or advocate charitable causes, not through empathy but because rationally they know it is the 'right' thing to do, as I think Jake does.


 * On a side note, autistic girls are often more empathic than neurotypicals.


 * But as it's been said, the producers say he isn't autistic, although if it was a real life situation I think that's what he'd be diagnosed with (unless someone else can offer up suggestions for what else it could be which I'm quite interested in). 82.32.11.95 (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We had wondered if Jake were also deaf; but at the end of Episode 5, he is listening to a bedtime tape his Mother made. It is the climax of the whole episode, with his Dad coming to greater understanding of their family relationships. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To all the people talking about Jake's emotional characteristics, I believe you've missed the point, he doesn't have a problem with emotions, he has no place for them. He exists on a higher plane where there are no human emotions, having any would just hinder his task. Danny Glover's character explained this and as a cultivator of a high-level Buddhist system (Falun Dafa) I know that to reach a higher realm you must break away from the 'seven emotions and six desires.' RKDia (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Drmargi, having watched more of the epsiodes and given that entertainment media have described him as autistic, I was wondering if you could give an example/link of the creators saying that he's not autistic? I'm not at this point saying that he is or that you're wrong but I think (from what I've seen on the web) that it's implied that he is autistic within unless there is proof otherwise, so more out of curiosity about the series' creation really. :) 82.32.11.95 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Has the show identified him as autistic? If not, entertainment media labels are speculation or stereotypes. I'l try to find the interviews I saw when I have time.  --Drmargi (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I found an article where they say that he's not autistic. This is kind of a flaw in the programme IMO because he exhibits all of the symptoms; I find it kind of frustrating that they have said that he isn't, because in real life he would surely be given that diagnosis.  Unless of course they actually say what his medical problems are... if you find a source for that I'd be very interested, simply because I enjoy and want to make more sense of the show. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job! He does exhibit characteristics that are, among other things, characteristics (not symptom) of autism.  But when you look at the whole package, he's more ED.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what's ED? 82.32.11.95 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, Jake seems more preoccupied with helping people and saving the world than he is Emotionally Disturbed. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the first episode, the social worker describes him as autistic. The father responds by saying that he doesn't accept that his son is autistic, which means that he had previously been told that his son is autistic. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic
The discussion above was supposed to be about whether "supernatural" accurately described Touch, but quickly became a debate about the nature of Jake's behavioral quirks. The show (so far) has left it up to the viewer to decide whether or not there are any divine forces at work, and unless it becomes more obvious that there are, "magical realism" might be a better term to generally describe the show, since it's relatively realistic with some unusual elements that don't necessarily need to be explained. Alternatively, it could be "paranormal", or "preternatural". B7T (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "magic realism" applies. That goes beyond the scope of the show. If I could think of another show that comes close to this one, the only one that comes to mind is Early Edition. But, that article gives the genre of "fantasy" (which I disagree with). I wouldn't have a problem with using "paranormal" or "preternatural", but I also don't see anything wrong with using "supernatural". --Musdan77 (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What does Fox say? Things like magic realism are so much a product of opinion, I don't see them ever fitting in this context.  It's not a matter of what we think, but of how the show and network describe Touch.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, on Fox's official show page it just basically says, it's a drama..."blending science, spirituality and emotion." IMDb says drama, mystery, and sci-fi (but they only have a limited number of genres -- and it's not considered a reliable source anyway). --Musdan77 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IMDB is fan submitted, so they're of no use. If Fox says drama, we go with drama.  Not everything needs its own special pigeon-hole.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternate title for the pilot episode
(Moved from Touch (TV series) talk page)

Amazon, iTunes, and TV Guide list the Pilot episode as "Tales of the Red Thread". I added the title to the episodes section (with a reference), but someone keeps reverting it. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor, who really should have started this discussion instead of yet another revert, felt that believing iTunes wasn't sufficient in contrast to the number of sourced he felt only identified the episode as the pilot. Use of TV Guide rather than iTunes as your source might strengthen your case, although those titles come from the production company and the network, not thin air.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Use of iTunes would be more accurate than TV Guide since it is the show owners who supply the content for sale on iTunes and they would know better than USA Today or tv.com what they title they approved for any given episode. The note that Amazon and iTunes are not reliable sources is just plain personal opinion and really speaks to a lack of understanding about iTunes and Amazon (reliable for complete seasons but unreliable for individual episodes which comprise said seasons - really?). In the USA it is basically tradition that the first episode of every scripted show be called "Pilot", even when it has an actual title that is something else entirely or isn't the pilot but the first episode of a show that by-passed the pilot stage and went straight to series. Many writers do actually title the first episode of a show "Pilot" but it isn't a rule of the FCC or the WGA that series premieres must be titled "Pilot". When an American series premiere has a title other than "Pilot" it is rare that the actual title of the episode is circulated by the media who are conditioned into calling things "Pilot". The fox.com website lists it as "Pilot" to keep with that America conditioned tradition but if one looks at foxfast.com (media previews) or foxinflight.com (air travel syndication) you will see it is "Tales Of The Red Thread". Likewise with iTunes, TV Guide, Amazon, and a few other places. One thing not too many people understand is that 'the pilot' does not necessarily equal "Pilot". "Tales Of The Red Thread" is not the alternate but the actual title for the pilot episode. Not 'believing iTunes' when the information is supplied by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation equates to not believing NewsCorp about a show made by NewsCorp and domestically broadcast by NewsCorp. This isn't their scandal-ridden news publications. What lovely logic that is and no wonder Wikipedia is an unreliable source. I have corrected the error insisted upon by SchrutedIt08 and Drmargi and really the most effort involved was finding a short url for the Copyright Office sources, one of which had been available for over a year at the time SchrutedIt08 said he couldn't find any. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 04:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What IS your problem? If you're going to go on a rant, at least get your facts straight.  I didn't insist on anything; I never had a position on the accuracy of the title, since there was no definitive information at the time the discussion above took place -- TEN MONTHS AGO.  If you're going to take cheap shots at other editors, at least be sure you review the context and time frame of the edits to which you are objecting first.  There are plenty of sources that "Tales of the Red Thread" is the title of the pilot now.  That wasn't the case in April, 2012, when iTunes was the only source for it -- see above.  Moreover, if you were to actually read with care instead of going off on a reactionary tear, you'd see my comments above were designed to help CollisionCourse find a more reliable source to support his edit at a time when the media sources uniformly listed the episode only as "Pilot"  (the U.S. Copyright Office not exactly being the logical place to look for an accurate title.)  The same day, I added the hidden note re: a reliable source to head off a budding edit war, position neutral on the issue of the title, a common practice on Wikipedia.  From that day until today, no one challenged the title or provided a reliable source that "Tales of the Red Thread" was the correct one.  That you managed to see some sort of conspiracy to force an inaccurate title in that and then twist my two minor edits into my "insisting" on an erroneous title boggles the mind.


 * BTW, the Federal Communications Commission regulates the broadcast airways, not intellectual property rights and creative products broadcast on them, and the Writers' Guild of America is the professional union/collective bargaining unit representing screen writers, so neither has any standing to regulate the title of an episode of a TV show beyond the WGA's ability to negotiate contractual language governing intellectual property rights (i.e. who owns the right to name the script) and the FCC's right to set decency standards by which networks must abide (which would limit use of a small number of words in titles and similar.) That either would have "rules" that a pilot must be titled Pilot is a nonsense.  As for NewsCorp, they are the parent company that owns Fox Television; they do not broadcast anything in the U.S. under their own name.  At the time the discussion you are complaining about was held, Fox.com, the TV network broadcasting the show and the most reliable source for titles, showed the title as "Pilot" as did TV Guide, the leading American source for weekly television broadcast information.  End of story.


 * The rest of your baloney about why episodes are called pilot and what people do and don't know about Amazon.com and iTunes (American companies, I might note) isn't worthy of comment, redolent as it all is of your transparent anti-American sentiments and backed up as it is by nothing. --Drmargi (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet the official episode guide on Fox.com still lists the episode has just being called "Pilot". It seems as if a fair few other sources have started referring to the episode by its alternate title (or actual title, depending on how you look at it.) Does anyone own or have access to the DVD set that was released last year? There have been discussions about issues pertaining to titles on other pages and it has been generally agreed (in those instances at least) that referring to how episodes are listed in their respective DVD set is a good way to decide these issues.


 * By the way, Delirious, it was pretty presumptuous of you to change content based on the new sources when you already knew the title was being discussed. Presenting your evidence here first and seeing what was what might have been a smarter move. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I pruned the excessive list of sources down to two for now: Foxfast and TV Guide.  I've never had an opinion one way or the other on the title, but the DVD seems like a good way to resolve the issue.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My problem is you travel around Wikipedia acting like you know everything and are the final say and every time i disagree with you you insult me afterward.
 * "...there was no definitive information at the time the discussion above took place -- TEN MONTHS AGO" --- so things old either magically correct themselves or are things off limits from correction sometime prior to their being that aged? So i never saw more than a commercial for the show before yesterday and thus never paid that much attention to what was being done or not done here. That it remained in error for "TEN MONTHS" really does negatively reflect on those who had in that time been actively involved here.
 * "There are plenty of sources that "Tales of the Red Thread" is the title of the pilot now. That wasn't the case in April, 2012, when iTunes was the only source for it -- see above." --- It was registered with the US Copyright Office on 3 March 2011 as "Tales of the Red Thread". That is more than a year earlier than when you all started fighting over it. The Futon Critic source was in the article all along as part of the collective of press releases aka 'listings' for the show TFC has and it was ignored or overlooked all of those "TEN MONTHS" which actually would be more like 13 since it was from January 2012.
 * "Does anyone own or have access to the DVD set that was released last year? There have been discussions about issues pertaining to titles on other pages and it has been generally agreed (in those instances at least) that referring to how episodes are listed in their respective DVD set is a good way to decide these issues." --- DVDs are just as good or bad as iTunes/Amazon/etc. Both are official retail releases of the show. Either they are in together or they are out together and if they conflict then they conflict. *cough*|AltTitle*cough*.
 * "That either would have "rules" that a pilot must be titled Pilot is a nonsense." You understood it but didn't recognise it is a joke. Finding another show broadcast by FOX which has something other than Pilot for the pilot is a bit difficult. The pilot of Dollhouse wasn't broadcast, Terra Nova has no pilot, the pilot of The Chicago Code is "Pilot", etc.
 * Broadcasters are NOT the most reliable sources for information and their websites are equally as unreliable because they do pretty much whatever they want to from shuffling the sequence a show should be to something random or renaming episodes or declaring someone who is "also starring" or is even a star of a show in the open credits to be a guest star per their press releases or using their website to suggest a cast member has been promoted to a starring role when each and every episode indicates they are a recurring guest star. NBC decided that the first episode of Southland would be "Pilot: Unknown Trouble" rather than simply "Unknown Trouble" as the script is titled. TNT has since reverted to "Unknown Trouble" but distribution of the episode was initially done as "Pilot" most places i can find today and so it remains. When Shaw changed the name of the fourth episode of season 1 of XIII i went with that. The talk page shows just how pissed off the writer of the episode was with the broadcaster changing the title of the episode and my saying we here do usually side with the broadcaster. That is why i no longer hold broadcasters as infallible and it has nothing to do with the USA. When i was thinking to reply to your comment on my talk page i had a list of many shows which broadcasters renamed to "Pilot" but then i decided it was better to just delete and let it end since i don't have any objection to the outcome. That was before i saw your insulting rant here. Clearly you have never noticed that misinformation can spread and if one so-called 'reliable source' picks up on it then often most of them will but that doesn't mean the information magically becomes correct. BTW this is an American show starring a British dude whose mother is Canadian. If fixing a mistake is proof of my anti-American sentiment then i really am not sure how to respond. This isn't some brilliant Canadian show which American media are declaring to be an American show so i am not sure how my dislike for American media cherry-picking the best of Canadian programming for themselves is relevant here. You have now ranted on my talk page and i ignored it and you came here and ranted for all to easily find. Do i really care? Yes. The talk page got to be too much when combined with what i found here so it is gone. You cut down the references to the two you liked. I was fine with that. You had plenty to pick from and you did just that. OK. You got what you like. Done. Or so i thought. SchrutedIt08, unless you count edit summaries you were not discussing anything about this prior to today. The "star map" that has been described as background for the logo used in season 2 is actually the "red threads" linking everyone together that are usually rendered in white when the logo is b&w. I have seen 3 episodes and it was blatantly obvious to me so how anyone who has seen more episodes than i could think it isn't real baffles me, especially since it is reäffirmed at the beginning of episode 2. It is the premise of the show. SchrutedIt08, to answer your edit summary, the title came from someone who did just a bit more research than you did. The official guide on fox.com isn't the ONLY official source. That is what i was trying to convey by including two FOX sources that are not directed to the viewing audience. You know the phrase 'lowest common denominator'? fox.com doesn't present anything the base viewer isn't expecting to find and a pilot not named "Pilot" is just the sort of abnormality they tend to avoid there. Anyone else remember that The WB renamed many of the episodes of more than a few shows, which is to say sometimes entire seasons or complete shows. Maybe you needed to be where you got Charmed on The WB and CTV or Smallville on The WB and Global/Citytv so that you could know there was a difference to be seen if you looked. If the American broadcaster is the trump then a lot of shows have a lot of errors in their articles. Perhaps it was regarding one of those shows where the discussions of DVDs being trump took place. The discussion, yes there is one. It was brief. It was stagnant for some 10 months, within days of it being started, and went nowhere. That tells me noone else really cared about pursuing or disproving it before i came along. Now that i acted first rather than asked first it is 'too many references', 'being a bitch', 'this is a dead topic', 'irrelevant comments', 'ignored previous discussion', 'didn't use the DVDs', 'didn't discuss it first'. It seems like i am being told i should have respected the outcome of the discussion and left it unresolved as it was 10 months ago or failing that first asked approval from those who prior to yesterday didn't seem to care at all even though that would have been reviving a dead discussion which is its own taboo act. No matter the action i lose. FYI, the review of the DVDs @ TVShowsOnDVD.com says "Tales of the Read Thread", which i am pretty sure is nothing more than a minor typo on the part of the author. There is a 9th reference for you. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What a scary place the inside of your head must be, Delirious. As usual, you've managed to take a minor issue, make it a major one and in the process make it all about you yet again.  You can contrive all the imaginary slights and name-calling in the world, but it don't make it so.  I can make precious little sense of your ramblings above, and can't for the life of me see what TV shows from the CW, paranoia about American co-opting of some damned Canadian show or another, or Kiefer Sutherland's nationality has to do with any of this. But I do find it fascinating that you comprehensively dismiss the arguments of other as opinions, then launch into yet another incoherent diatribe about networks and iTunes and all manner of programs not under discussion, as though any of it was germane to the issue at hand (which is by now resolved), and then expect us to simply sit back and accept it all as gospel with nothing to back it up, stunned that we're not going along on your magical mystery tour with you.  I think not.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Episodes and viewership
To me, the descriptions of the episodes seem well written. Thanks to WP writers. Interesting, the viewership is decreasing. Why is this? The last column shows a drop from 12million to 6million. Is this usual for such a great series? I can't understand the drop; and is that just USA? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Region 1; Region 2; Region 3
The article mentions/lists that Touch DVDs are available in Region 2, but not Region 3 and Region 1. So where is Region 2? I want to go there. I do a 'find' in the Article with "Region" and there are only three 'finds': "Region 1", "Region 2", and "Region 3"; hence, the regions are never defined for readers/editors. A line needs to be added at the bottom of this section. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I say nay. It's not exactly difficult to find out which regions are which. In all my time on Wikipedia, you're the first person to ever have a problem with this. Besides, the release date is referenced, which will take you directly to a site that you can order the DVD from. By the way, R2 is the United Kingdom and it's not out yet. The release is just scheduled for March, 2013. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know that Region Two was England. Maybe I'll be there in 2013. Although I am the first person to ask, I bet most readers/editors don't know. And what are Regions One and Three? I could guess Region One is USA or North America, and Region Three is every country not in Region One or Region Two. Right? Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC) PS: If it is not important to put it in the Article, at least readers and editors can find the information here in TALK discussion. And maybe it isn't important anyway.

Six DVD codes (with map of the world) are listed in DVD_region_code — Thanks for mentioning it is easy to find out, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem
There's something wrong. Episode 8 of Touch in the season 2 section is not showing on the article and it's only seen when you edit the page. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Season 2 (2013)
Good catch, but I can't find the problem. That is a copy and paste of the episode, as it shows up in the edit. It shows up fine here, but not in the article itself. Odd. Kude90 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On top of that, the date of episode 7 says it airs on the 22nd, but it had already aired. Check that out. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. It was the reference for the episode seven ratings. It was incomplete, which edited out the episode eight code. See the difference between revisions for what I mean. But it's fixed now. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know that problem has been resolved. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jake has not spoken a word in his life
But there a lot of references in the Series that he is meant to be not mute. Especially in Gyre (Part 1) as Emilla starts to talk and tells Teller 'that there is need no for speaking'. Davidh2k (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mute simply means he doesn't speak, whether for physiological, psychological or other reasons. The vast majority of mutes either do not speak because a hearing loss means they've never learned language, or because they are selectively mute.  He has not yet spoken; the show makes that clear.  Thus, he his mute.  --Drmargi (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. In the german WP the "mute" association for Jake was edited away a long time ago, so i thought the word is only for that kind of people who are proven of not able to talking (physiological?). Davidh2k (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. A clear consensus has been established here to drop the "2012" from the parenthetical portion of the title. Tyrol5  [Talk]  23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Touch (2012 TV series) → Touch (TV series) – Unnecessary disambiguation, since the Japanese series has "manga" in its parenthesis. A hatnote for the manga already exists at the top of this article, which makes the distinction clear enough. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per reasoning above and page views (76,290 vs 4,069) Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 20:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose we have articles covering multiple TV series by this name, so this is not unnecessary disambiguation. The "manga" parenthesis does not indicate a TV series, so it is not a clear distinction. And pageviews only matter if you're moving this to the primary location at Touch. If this isn't the primary topic, then it should be properly disambiguated. Touch (Japanese TV series) as redirect and Touch (U.S. TV series) could also work. Or Touch (2001 TV series) as redirect and Touch (2012 TV series) also work. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe it should be Touch (U.S. TV series). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and use a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I think it should be Touch (TV series). Mattjsrules (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There is no other "TV series" listed at WP, regardless if another exists. —  Wylie pedia  04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a subsection of WP:D, and so the principle applies to subsets of titles that require disambiguation, for the exact same reasons that we use the primary topic principle in undisambiguated titles. The wording at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is unfortunately not specific either way about this, but that's my view.  Of the (two) TV series named "Touch", one receives many times more views (96k vs 5k in Jan 2013) than the other, and so is clearly the primary topic of "Touch (TV Series)"; this one.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Logo for Season 2
For season 2, Touch is using a new black logo. We should watch this closely and make sure they are indeed using it to promote season 2. The new black logo accompanies a star map in the background of the promotional images. As you can tell, the current white logo on the article is hard to see. The new black logo would be easier to see. We should wait a while, but we would need to find the best image to use for the logo. Example: New Logo for season 2: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559306580761792 Old Logo for season 1: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=465480546811063 Let's discuss this and see what we should do. Mattjsrules (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding, over my 14-month TVWiki career, that the series infobox image should be a logo taken from the main title screen, although the template states it should simply be an image relevant to the show. My vote is the title image (not from an online source, nor user-created). —  Wylie pedia  05:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Currently, the page is using a user-created image that replicates the white Touch text from the main title screen. It is very hard to see on the page, which is why I suggested the logo FOX uses to promote the show because it is easier to view. This is probably why the promotion posters use a different colored logo. Mattjsrules (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The black & white logo taken from the website, which is similar to the new logo (Sutherland's name is grayer) would also work. I have one saved on my PC ready to upload, either way. —  Wylie pedia  03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the logo to the one from the official Touch website. Mattjsrules (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I figured that's what you were getting at. Next time, just be bold. —  Wylie pedia  03:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot Spoilers
In the "Cast and Characters" section, I feel that some of the character descriptions contain too many spoilers of major plot elements, especially regarding which characters die. I am still watching the show for the first time and haven't yet completed all the episodes, so I would have appreciated not knowing actual plot elements involving the characters. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)