Talk:Travelers (TV series)

001
It admittedly doesn't make sense to me, but the traveler possessing Vincent Ingram is identified as 001, not 0001. This is inconsistent with the other travelers' numbers, but it is what it is. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a traveller 014, not 0014. For some reason some travellers only get 3 digits. Not sure why. Masterhatch (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Weeell.... Are there travelers with numbers starting in two zeroes? It would make sense to me that you start with number 1. Or if you think there might be hundreds of them before you're done, then maybe you start with 001. Also has a nice ring to it, like 007. But then, when you pass 999, perforce they all have four digit numbers. It was getting into the 7000's before the end of Season 3, so if it kept going much longer, after 9999 you'd have to go to four digits.

If there are travelers with numbers like 0099 or 0068, well heck. Only way I can explain that offhand is that a revision in nomenclature was made at some point fairly early on, when it began to become apparent that there were going to be a lot of travelers before we're done.

Another little glitch with the numbers is that while in general the travelers have increasing numbers starting with 001, when a dying David asks McLaren his real name, he replies with his number, suggesting that his traveler number was the number he already had, not part of an increasing series. Make up your rationalization for that.

Anyway, what we're doing now is "general discussion of the show", not the article. 35.129.66.46 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

On further review (binge watching the earlier seasons, plus consulting the Travelers Wiki) there ARE travelers whose numbers start with 00. Although the first traveler was 001, and in general new travelers have higher and higher numbers, some, such as 114 (the engineer who built the laser to destroy the asteroid) arrive with low numbers. Low numbers are generally very important people. Grace Day is 0027. (Trevor, who knows the engineer well and is older than everyone else, is 0115, so maybe the initial 0 is optional). In one episode where the Director makes repeated efforts to save the team's mission, the travelers who keep getting thrown into the fire are consecutively numbered starting with 5000. MacLaren said his name in the future was 3468, his traveler number. You'd almost think the writers didn't have a consistent system :-| but there seem to be three general rules: people involved the project since its earliest days, or high up in the hierarchy or both, tend to have low numbers. With numbers less than 4 digits, there may or may not be a zero, or two zeroes, at the beginning. Most new arrivals have higher and higher numbers. You might reconcile the two general conventions (high numbers more recent, low numbers big shots) by saying that most newly arrived travelers are also project members/volunteers of less seniority, and that's why they have high numbers. Only on special occasions does a senior project member volunteer to be a traveler.35.129.66.46 (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable resource response.
Joeyconnick asked in their latest edit if renewcanceltv.com is a reliable source. Anecdotally, the site has always had reliable information for shows that I’ve looked up. And it has become the default source for most smaller and medium sites. ScreenRant.com uses them as a source.

The only problem is that they rely on a lot of “inside sources” to feed them their info before the networks/studios officially announce renewals and cancellations.

Thoughts? ChiXiStigma (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Recurring characters?
The term "recurring" is a term-of-art in television series. I think someone has mistaken it for "other people who have appeared in the show". Is this worth a cleanup request?
 * Riventree (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can take a crack at it. I'll separate it into "Recurring" and "Other" and if you think anyone's on the wrong side of the line, we can tal about that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot NG has no clue?
Just got a notice that one of my edits has been reverted by ClueBot NG, with the rather less than constructive feedback: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Travelers (TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted."

The edit I made was to append "(contains spoilers)" to the section heading "Premise". Specifically, I did this because the section refers to the Director as "an artificial intelligence monitoring the timeline from the future". This is a plot point not revealed until the final episode of the first season (although there are hints earlier). It is information that is not part of the premise for the show. A premise should give enough information to set up the framework for the story, without revealing too many plot points. The notion of "a" director, yes. The understanding that the Director is an AI, no.

As a plot point, it underpins the story arc of the remaining two seasons (i.e. Faction bent on overthrowing the AI).

Were there a section heading for "Plot", that information would be better placed within. One does not expect to learn important story details revealed late in series (or film) by reading about the work's premise.

I am writing here because the same notice suggested I do so: "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page"

There are other plot points in the premise section, some of which are also spoilers. I'd suggest the whole section needs a bit of a rewrite, but for now I will make another edit and remove the reference to artificial intelligence altogether. Perhaps ClueBot NG will start to get a clue...? As a nascent AI maybe it will take umbrage and revert that edit even more quickly! :-) 142.113.217.232 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SPOILER. We don't note or hide spoilers at Wikipedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SPOILER actually specifies:
 * "except for ... section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending"), which imply the presence of spoilers."
 * The edits I made were in the section with heading "Premise". Premise != Plot.  That was my point.  SPOILER make no reference to "Premise" at all.
 * The heading should be changed to "Plot", which implies the possibility of spoilers. 174.88.139.116 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is "Wikipedia articles may include spoilers and no spoiler warnings." You are deliberately leaving out the entire sentence you are "quoting", which reads Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending"), which imply the presence of spoilers.
 * So you are cherry-picking a later phrase to make it seem like any section including spoilers must be labelled "Plot" or "Ending"—I assure you this is not the case. All this means is that the only (vague) indication of spoilers made at Wikipedia is in section headings entitled something like "Plot" or "Ending"; spoilers may and can occur throughout an article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)