Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Narration

Just to clear up the topic of narration. When initially broadcast in the US and UK there was a narration over the credits by Mal on some episodes, and Book on others saying how the earth that was got all used up and they found a new system. The narrations were each slightly different but only appeared on about 4 episodes. They were only on the initial run of broadcast versions and haven't been heard since, they don't appear on any DVD releases. However this isn't the point of the narration section on the infobox, that's for actual narration during the episode. 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not really narration - it's part of the introduction to the show. For example, sometimes Majel Barrett-Roddenberry says "previously on Star Trek: The Next Generation..." at the beginning of 2-parters, but she's not the narrator and does not provide significant narration. They aren't either, and aren't credited as such. It's not really up to us to trump that up to "narrated by ___ and ___." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Best solution: On the Narration line put none* and note the voiceover during the one epiode somewhere in text? Just a thought. I see the intent of listing it, but agree that the line in question is designed for a full-time narrator. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see what value is added to the article to note that two of the characters say a few words in voiceover during a few episodes. This is not an article about episodes, it's about the series. Articles are not supposed to be grab bags filled with trivial info, but well-constructed summaries of the significant elements of the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see this as being significant enough that it warrants a mention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

killer angels and the other unnamed book

The article currently has this sentence After reading The Killer Angels, Whedon read a book about Jewish partisan fighters in World War II that also influenced him.[6] citing to Serenity: The Official Visual Companion. Can we actually get the name of the book? Even if it's only in the footnote it would be better than the current mysteriously unnamed book. --Lquilter 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (In the course of dealing with the thrilling "to-merge-or-not-to-merge" discussion, this point got archived without being addressed.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible that he did not name the book in question in the interview (I can't imagine any other reason for the title of the book to not already be here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can specify that in the footnote itself, then, if someone can verify! --Lquilter (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Added "Parodies" section with one item: Mosquito

I restored the "Parodies" section for parodies of Firefly and related items. This particular parody is notable within the Firefly fan community. Please feel free to add other noted parodies related to Firefly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to point people to the talk page like you're the one restoring order, let's not forget that you're doing the exact opposite of what the consensus building process demands. There is no demonstration that this parody is notable or relevant in any way, shape, or form. A little fistful of Google hits (at most, approx 45 independent hits, the vast majority of which are forums, fansites, and things like directories of all Firefly-related fanfilms) is no such proof, because here at Wikipedia, we depend on reliable sources to verify whether something is relevant, notable, or in this case, neither. There is no reason to "call for more parodies" - this is not an article about parodies, nor should it be, nor should any part of it contain a list of irrelevant, non-notable parodies. Multiple editors have reverted the addition of this link - this skit might be humorous, or interesting, or maybe even "notable within the Firefly fan community" (whatever that means), but it's not relevant to this article. There have probably been a thousand parodies, jokes, rip offs, and satires of something more popular (e.g. The Simpsons), but there isn't an extensive list of parodies there, nor a call to generate one, because they simply aren't relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing a thing about this particular parody, parodies of a work, if they are by notable people or groups, are an important element of reception, which is a well established part of the real-world aspect of fiction. That's the sort of content which is encouraged by all previous guidelines about fiction, and all current proposals. People keep saying they want more real-world content. But it should be more than a listing--if its notable, say something about it. DGG (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but this doesn't apply to a parody made by an amateur/nameless filmmaker who, like his parody, is of little to no note (getting only a mediocre at best number of Google hits from highly specialized fan oriented sites, e.g. lists of Firefly parodies). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, David, but "notable among us Browncoats" is not the same as notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's funny enough; but fails the notability test, big time (as would, say, an article about Jayne's cunning hat). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (done the impossible)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

userbox?

I was surprised to find no userbox for us brown coats to display with pride. perhaps someone could create one? please notify me on my talk page if you do! xenocidic (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem:

{{User:EVula/Userboxes/Firefly fan}} and {{User:EVula/Userboxes/Firefly browncoat}} - Steve ^{T • C} 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was not able to find it in either Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Television and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Science_Fiction xenocidic (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

...probably because I should have been looking in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Television_(shows)#Firefly *sheepish grin* Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction steve, and orangemike. xenocidic (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Firefly (soundtrack)

An Articles for Deletion discussion has recently concluded on the article Firefly (soundtrack). The result of the discussion was to merge the information to the Music section of the main article, although the closing admin declined to perform the merger themselves, requesting that other editors do so to avoid cluttering this article. A mergetag has been placed on the Soundtrack article, but not here yet.

Previously, I merged in the soundtrack infobox (which I have just updated with the most recent version from the soundtrack article, and added a line about the slightly different digital EP release before the physical CD release (see this 2-edit diff). I've just updated the infobox. The only other things in that article but not in the main article are the CD tracklist (which has been suggested be converted to the {{tracklist}} template when/if included), an unsourced whinge about the lack of "The Ballad of Jane Cobb" on the CD, and some external links that may/may not be of use.

So I'm making it known that Firefly (soundtrack) needs to be merged and redirected to the Music section of the main article. Does anything else need to be merged over before it is redirected? -- saberwyn 07:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The tracklist template and information is posted below this comment. All other information has either been merged to this article, or in my opinion is not appropriate to merge. The tracklist is the only thing I'm uncertain about, so I'm putting the code here, and leaving the problem to the real Browncoats. -- saberwyn 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All music is composed by Greg Edmonson

Tracklist (track titles in bold appear in both the digital and CD releases)

No.	Title	Length
1.	"Firefly - Main Title"	0:52
2.	"Big Bar Fight" (From "The Train Job")	1:56
3.	"Heart of Gold Montage" (From "Heart of Gold")	2:10
4.	"Whitefall/Book" (From "Serenity"/"The Message")	2:20
5.	"Early Takes Serenity" (From "Objects in Space")	2:36
6.	"The Funeral" (From "The Message")	2:36
7.	"River's Perception/Saffron" (From "Objects in Space"/"Our Mrs. Reynolds")	2:14
8.	"Mal Fights Niska/Back Home" (From "War Stories"/"Shindig")	1:54
9.	"River Tricks Early" (From "Objects in Space")	3:30
10.	"River Understands Simon" (From "Safe")	2:04
11.	"Leaving/Caper/Spaceball" (From "Trash"/"Objects in Space"/"Bushwhacked")	2:39
12.	"River's Afraid/Niska/Torture" (From "Ariel"/"The Train Job"/"War Stories")	3:21
13.	"In My Bunk/Jayne's Statue/Boom" (From "War Stories"/"Jaynestown"/"Bushwhacked")	2:28
14.	"Inara's Suite" (From "The Train Job"/"Serenity"/"War Stories")	3:29
15.	"Out of Gas/Empty Derelict" (From "Out of Gas"/"Bushwhacked")	1:50
16.	"Book's Hair/Ready for Battle" (From "Jaunestown"/"Heart of Gold")	1:59
17.	"Tears/River's Eyes" (From "Serenity"/"Objects in Space")	1:59
18.	"Cows/New Dress/My Crew" (From "Safe"/"Shindig"/"Safe")	2:11
19.	"Boarding the Serenity/Derelict" (From "War Stories"/"Bushwhacked")	2:02
20.	"Burgess Kills/Captain & Ship" (From "Heart of Gold"/"Out of Gas")	3:26
21.	"Saved/Isn't Home?/Reavers" (From "Out of Gas"/"Train Job"/"Serenity")	2:55
22.	"Reavers Chase Serenity" (From "Serenity")	3:22
23.	"River's Dance" (From "Safe")	1:50
24.	"Inside the Tam House" (From "Safe")	2:22
25.	"Dying Ship/Naked Mal" (From "Out of Gas"/"Trash")	2:10

Break at end of template

Any comments on the template/merge below this heading

• Since there seem to be no objections, I went ahead and added the track listing (after simplifying/cleaning up the code a little). I also changed the paragraph order of the music section, to have the text progress more naturally from concept and creation to the retail releases of the music, so that the track listing does not just pop out of nowhere at the end of the section. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shiny. Looks good. -- saberwyn 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Um well I don't think that article would survive on Wikipedia anyway. It seems to be entirely based on original research, supposition and conjecture. Sorry to say. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See wp:v and wp:nor - if you can reference reliable third party sources making the connections it'll be okay with those core requirements, tho it'll take more references to show that Tommy's universe is notable enough for an encyclopia. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-16t21:54z

Assuming that it's all accurate, I would expect that many of the connexions are homages or in-jokes rather than serious attempts to tie series together. —Tamfang (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is based on (to put it gently) a fringe theory which holds that any recurrence of a character, brand name, etc., means that the series are all in the same shared universe. (It starts with I Love Lucy and goes on through the Firefly universe). As Tamfang speculates, most of these are in-jokes and homages, rather than actual spin-offs or even crossovers; but Lady Aleena a.k.a. LA is taking it all seriously. When I tried to challenge her, she was not happy with me. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BSG cameo of Firefly-class ship

I see that my edit is the second one to mention the brief appearance of a Firefly-class ship in the Battlestar Galactica miniseries, and the second one to have it deleted because it wasn't a "real" cameo. Can the editors who reverted this please give some more details for those of us who are more casual fans? This may also help forestall future edits & reverts; I checked the Talk pages (including the Archives) before finalizing this addition. Country Wife (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless the ship was explicitly identified in BG (in the script) as a Firefly-class ship, all you can say is, "That sure looked like a Firefly-class ship there!" In other words, unsourced original research and not verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an actual appearance; the same people did the special effects for both. If I wasn't watching BSG via Netflix, I'd watch the miniseries again with the director commentary; it's possible that they mention it there.
No argument that without a source it shouldn't be placed, just mentioning that it's more than a "they happen to look similar" sort of thing; WP:OR still applies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of a Firefly-looking ship in BSG is really minor, and was (in my opinion) only inserted because ZOIC did the digital animation for both Firefly and BSG. Its probably worth mentioning in the article on the ship, but its not that important in the context of the series. As another example, one of the other cameos is of the original USS Enterprise from Star Trek... how important is this specific appearance in the context of the Star Trek franchise? -- saberwyn 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for clarifying this; Saberwyn, your example is very helpful in putting the whole thing into perspective. Country Wife (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Brust novel

Please discuss the inclusion of the Brust novel here, which seemingly has consensus to remain, at least in terms of the edit summaries. i.e. 16:55, February 6, 2008 Orangemike (Talk | contribs) (80,495 bytes) (restore mention of release of original novel by notable professional author in this genre) Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the justification provided for the removal of the section ([2] [3]) is not valid: per Wikipedia:NN#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. xenocidic (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This entry does not state the connection to Firefly or why it is important. All it says is a book by author Burst was released a license and is available on his web site.  Done -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In the original form, I was unhappy with the inclusion (although not unhappy enough to remove it myself), but after the restructuring, the paragraph now shows, describes, and sources why this piece of seemingly gussied-up fanfiction is important to the series. -- saberwyn 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget how active articles like this can be, and I removed it without discussing it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is unpublished fan fiction. Adding it might not violate any policy guidelines, it does not add anything to the article. I know that Brust is of semi fame, but the fact remains that it is web posted fan fiction. It is not published, not academic, and importantly, not official - it adds nothing to an encyclopedic entry on a television series. Disco (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it from the other perspective (and maybe the article should be reworded to reflect this). (1) There were plans for a series of books set in the 'Verse in 2005. (2) The planned first book was cancelled in 2005, after it was written or at least well in progress, because of "various economic realities" (i.e. the publisher got cold feet) (3) The author of the aforementioned half-finished work is a professional, award winning sci-fi/fantasy author. (4) The author self-published the story on his website 3 years after he was told to can it.

From the point of view of the history of the TV series, I think that 1 and 2 are important. 4 is a somewhat happy footnote to the cancellation in 2. 3 is not that important to the series, but it provides context for the sequence of events. I'd be happier to have more and more detailed sources than the single article from a New York Times reporter's publisher-sanctioned blog, but its better than some of the other stuff in the spin-off section. -- saberwyn 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider it a fair comprimise if the wording is rewritten to put focus on (1) and (2), and (4) is also mentioned but without the emphasis of the other points. After all, (1) and (2) in their own right deserve a mention, so as long as proper emphasis is mantained, I don't see any harm in mentioning (4) Disco (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it a bit better now? -- saberwyn 07:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It gets my seal of approval ;) Disco (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Can anyone reference 100% which comic series takes place before the other? All that seems to be mentioned on the three wikis is that both comics take place between the show and the movie. I would assume that the newer comic takes place after the first one, but I have to admit that I have read neither of them. Then again there is plenty of reason to to include both in the listing. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--I've Read both, Better Days takes place before Those Left Behind because Inara and Book leave in Those Left Behind, but are both still on-ship for Better Days. Maybe we should add a Chronology sidebar to the two comic entires and the movie. But, yeah, definitely Better Days is before Those Left Behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.154.49 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct - Better Days is definitely before Those Left Behind.

"Better Days" is set before the events of "Serenity." "'Those Left Behind' preceded the film very directly because that's exactly what it was designed to do," Matthews said. "'Better Days' is earlier, more in the heart and status quo -- in as much as there even is one -- of the [television] series."

from [4] -One thing that is not clear with the comics is where Better Days fits into everything. At the end of Heart of Gold, Inara announces that she will leave. Then, in Those Left Behind, Mal tells Inara, "I'm getting you where you want to go as fast as I can. Now, maybe it's not as fast as you'd like, but it's not exactly next door ...", which makes it seem that these two events are fairly close together time-wise. Adding to that, in Better Days, they all go on a vacation, with Inara, and while it's possible for it to take place between the TV series and Those Left Behind, it doesn't seem that likely to me, although the third part may help place it. Zybthranger (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• To add my two decimal units of fanspec, the comic has the HoverMule, which means its at least set after War Stories (when the ATVMule was destroyed) or after The Message (which shows the very charred ATVMule still in the hangar). Pegging down a specific point will be next to impossible unless someone screams it from the rooftops in issue 3 of Better Days or in a later comic, mainly because the filming order /= the broadcast order /= the DVD order. But does it really matter where exactly it fits? Better to appreciate it for what it is. -- saberwyn 08:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, what it IS is something that doesn't have a plausible fit anywhere in the timeline. There's just not enough space. Maratanos (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shepherd's Tale

I altered the section a bit since someone has added the comic (sans article) to the template. Rather than reverting it until publication, I've redirected the page and a few variants to the Shepherd's Tale section of this page, and added a future comic tag. Once there's enough information to move the information into a standalone article, I expect to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm currently working on an overview article for the various comics...when I get it into mainspace it might be an idea to point everything there instead, to avoid cluttering this article. -- saberwyn 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree. Let me know if you need any help, and/or feel free to fix the redirects yourself. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast History??

Why does the article list broadcast dates for "Trash","The Message" and "Heart of Gold" when both the article itself and the DVD indicates that these episodes were never aired? BlueKnight (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The broadcast dates relate to the episodes' first appearances. In the case of those you mention, they aired on the Sci Fi Channel during a repeat run of the entire series. The section has been reworded to make this clearer. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Steve. That does make it a lot clearer. BlueKnight (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Could someone please add a disambiguation link to the top? --Freiddie 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need - a search for Firefly will take you to the insect. The only way you will get here is by searching for the series Sammayel (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also no harm in doing so. -- saberwyn 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace "harm" with "reason" and it's still a true statement. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone prove to me that the only way people come to articles in by clicking on them, knowing exactly what article thay are going into? So if a reader enters this article by accident for whatever reason, they now have to do a search of "Firely" to go to the main article, then click on the disambiuation link in order to find what they want? Typical! I'm adding the link, as most readers are not experts on using WP. I think that is reason enough to break a guideline! - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an argument to abolish the guideline, not to break it, unless people interested in fireflies are less adept than other WP users. Can you suggest how a user would come here by accident while looking for the beetle? The reverse seems much more likely. —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I type "wikipedia firefly" in the address bar in Firefox, it takes me directly to this article. Since that was what I was aiming for, I don't mind, though. :) I'm not sure what this Firefox function is based on. Most clicked google hits for the same search terms? Tales (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a Fireflies (TV series) page, which could easily be confused with this one if a reader confuses the plurals. We coulnd link directly to that page if the infallible DAB-gods decree it is more useful. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A link to Fireflies (and vice versa) is a good idea ("This article is about the American series; for the Australian series see Fireflies (TV series)"). I'd add it but I don't know the relevant template. —Tamfang (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Will there ever be a: Season 2 ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:NOTAFORUM, but kept so the question (hopefully) won't need to be asked again. - BillCJ (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

So this column is for Firefly Season 2 questions, will it ever come etc. As it looks now it wont tho but you never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.2 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a fan site or a crystal ball. Fireflyfans.net or Whedonesque.com both discuss that issue every time someone starts a new rumor. Fact is, Serenity (which did happen) and the comics (which are happening) are likely to be the only continuations of the series. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14 episodes and a movie aren't enough for a series which was inteded to be run for seven years. Its such a shame FOX messed this series up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.71.25 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotation?

Under the heading, "Cast and Crew", the narrative switches from past tense to present tense in the 2nd paragraph. It appears to me the present part is supposed to be part of a quote and indeed, there's a final quote. Here's the part:

>Espenson wrote an essay on the writing process with Mutant Enemy. A meeting is held and an idea is floated …

It's possible multiple editors might have munged it up, so can someone who worked on the original fix it up?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I made a change as I think it should read.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke Ski's song

Ove the course of two edits User:Cpt ricard altered the content relating to Luke Ski's parody song by removing half the content relating to the song (relating to the whole 'being captured by FOX'), and altering the other half. Cpt ricard appears to have assumed that this was vandalism, but according to the lyrics, the content was correct.

I've removed the entry in its entirety, as the original paragraph has been around and unsourced for a fair while, the edited version of the paragraph incorrectly described the song, and because I personally believe that a single parody song isn't all that important in The Grand Scheme Of Things^tm. However, because it may be more important that I think, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Does Luke Ski's "A Man Named Jayne" belong in this article? -- saberwyn 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Luke well enough (he has a nice orange suit his mom made for him); but he's just another filker. I think it's a WP:UNDUE violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Followed by

The "followed by" in the infobox listed the Serenity (comics) as the following. To me, the comics seem more of side story and the Serenity (film) should be listed there. At the very least, the link should be changed to Serenity: Those Left Behind.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If its the case, it should link to Serenity: Better Days, which happens before Serenity: Those Left Behind, although there is no indication when The Other Half is set. This article should also mention that it is preceded by A Shepherd's Tale. jlam (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the great migration

What's the canonical support for generation ships? —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's stuff to be found elsewhere. We don't give a crap about canon, only citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on the Serenity Blu-Ray disk there is a large database section that contains information on the generation ships, the fact it's only one system, and a lot of info on the history. Since it's on the disk its citationable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it must also be notable, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It does however say there that it was one generation who grew up on the ships and never saw the other end. Is that really a multi generational ship? Canterbury Tail talk 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why the term is "generation ship": to avoid that kind of distinction-gnawing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for those of us who give a crap about citation if we can't get canon, let's have a citation. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

True 1080i or just upscaled?

Is it known whether the HD version actually stems from an adequate source or is merely an "improved" version of the ordinary 480i? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.164.66 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavy use of quotes

The article makes heavy use of quotes in the reception section. Instead of paraphrasing the critic's opinions (which is the preferred way), it just regurgitates whole sections of critiques. I also noticed various peacock terms (for quick example, since we're talking about the reception section, the use of the term "scathing"). I think that maybe some general c/eing is in order for the article, but I figured that those who primarily edit the page are probably better equipped to take care of this particular subject in that manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at fixing the sectionup a bit. More work should be done, of course. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good now. Now vs. before. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly does. I haven't go through the whole article, the reception section just caught my eye (was re-watching the series and wondered if there was any talk about the cancellation of the show). Anyway, a thorough sweep should be made for peacock and weasel terms, and we should probably recheck all the sources and make sure everything is well cited. Basically, we should probably do an unofficial FA review. It isn't that I think the page shouldn't be FA, it's just that it was promoted back in 2006 and a lot has changed in 2 years. Buffy was promoted around the same time, and it unfortunately was demoted June 08. I'd like to get this one preemptively tidied up so that we don't have to worry about anyone coming along and officially running an FAR (that puts us on a time-stamp for clean up, and it's better to be able to take your time than have to rush). Any concerns about maybe all of us (anyone who is active on the page, including myself) sweeping through the article and maybe making a list of all possible issues that we can tackle one-by-one?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Comprise" vs. "Make Up"

The very definition of comprise is "to make up". The Alliance is "comprised of" the two core planets. This is not personal preference. "Make up" is informal diction, "comprise" is formal, and we should always strive for formal diction. If you want informal diction, go to the Simple English Wikipedia. kingdom2 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the wording. Commentary for what episode? I don't remember anything like that, and it doesn't seem to go along with the series itself. My understanding was that the Alliance controlled a great deal of planets. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many planets. The sentence in the article says 2 primary core planets in the Alliance. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... reading the whole paragraph helps. :P I'm still curious which episode. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think its mentioned in dialogue in any episodes, but I'm pretty certain its in some of the published background material (primarily one of the two series Companion books). If you want, I'll try to dig out a specific cite for you when I get home tonight. -- saberwyn 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Comprise" and "make up" are not synonymous - in fact they're inverse. A whole comprises its parts, not the other way around. Lay usage notwithstanding, even the reference provided by the person who reverted my edit admits that usage is controversial. If you want formal diction (which I agree is appropriate) the word would be "constitute". --Aseld ^talk 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... read the dictionary a little more carefully, and I think it works this way: "The Alliance comprises two primary 'core' planets, one predominantly Western in culture..." Yes? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's how I understood it, yes (though of course I may be wrong). --Aseld ^talk 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted twice. I do not care whether we go with "comprise" or "constitute". My beef was that changing it to "make up" was nothing more than dumbing down the language.

And to Jomasecu: I do not know which commentary it is on, but it is considered general knowledge among most Browncoats and flans that the core of the core of the Alliance (I meant the repetition) are the planets Londinium and Sihnon, predominantly Western and Eastern in culture respectively. Londinium is the center of government and Sihnon is the center of culture, spirituality, etc. According to this [5] Joss once stated this fact in an interview clip on a long gone Fox Firefly website. Obviously not reliable now. But Inara does mention in the pilot that Sihnon - her home planet - is greatly populated and very beautiful. Mal also mentions in the pilot that he "would like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat." kingdom2 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), if one word or the other doesn't work, find a third choice. Its a big language, and there is no need to bicker about it. I have edited the option is composed of back in. Please find a compromise here first, and then implement it there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everyone here had agreed on "comprises" (not "comprised of"), then you came and changed it. I'm happy with "comprises" or "composed of". Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "composed of". That usage of "comprise" sounds weird to me. Besides, seeing as "comprise" proved to be such a contentious, difficult to understand word, it might be best if we do not use it at all. kingdom2 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With that being a valid use of comprise, either comprise or compose is fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That link lists the usage of "comprised of" as being technically incorrect (the third definition). At this point, I'm not caring a whole lot. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the article reads now with "composed of". I think that we should take Arcayne's advice and drop the discussion, unless we want this listed as one of the lamest edit wars ever. kingdom2 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• More like an edit skirmish. And yes, fine as is with "composed of". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

is composed of (or comprises) should introduce a complete list, and we know jolly well that the Alliance comprises more than two planets! Even the "core" also includes Ariel at the very least. (Is Tam's home planet named?) How about "The Alliance grew from ..."? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the way it is presented is that the seat of the Alliance is the two central planets I named above, and all other plants - from Ariel to Jiangyin - are simply "under Alliance control". kingdom2 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I trouble both editors to add references to reinforce their claims. While I am sure both of your are so big that you go to raves and push folk around by your sheer brainpower, but here, you need citations to make your argument. No cite-y, no include-y. Capisce? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I would be more than happy to, but I lent out my Firefly DVDs and I have had trouble getting them back. And yes, I can push people around with nothing but my enormous mental energies, but I would never be caught dead at a rave. kingdom2 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, three problems remain:

• a) you need a refresher on citations, since your perception of information doesn't amount to citable info;
• b) from a merely observational aspect, your enormous mental energies are not all that impressive. Go discover a cure for ebola or hate or something: then we can talk about your intellectual might. Until then, operate under the perception that you aren't the smartest person in the room; and
• c) you need to find a better class of rave to attend. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to plot details, citations aren't generally given, and it's assumed that the source is the work in question. I think that standard can be easily applied here, as it's clear from the series that the Alliance controls far more than two worlds, and I agree that "composed of" (or any of the variations we've been toying with) implies a complete list. A quote from the commentary that the two-planet thing came from would be nice. I'm guessing that, depending on said quote, either "the seat of the Alliance government is composed of..." or "the Alliance grew from..." would better reflect both the quote and the plot of the series. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was speaking about citations here, Jomasecu, I meant as support for one's argument - in order to prevent this from degenerating into a crufty debate a step above slash fic and whatnot. As for your suggestion that instead noting that the "seat of the alliance" is etc. - that is a good middle ground, and we can walk away from the nitpickyness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I like "seat of" too. It works good as a middle ground in that both it fits for both interpretations, as opposed to explicitly excluding either one. kingdom2 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is indeed an improvement. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"presents an atypical backdrop for the science fiction narrative."

How is this necessary to include in the introduction? This is pretty clearly a POV, so the person expressing it must be stated or it must be discussed in the reception section. It may be included in the lead, but not the way it currently is. This is pretty clearly stating an opinion, albeit a common one among Firefly fans. If it is to be included in the lead it should have an appropriate qualifying phrase such as, "considered by many fans/critics to be x". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Word. If you want it there at all, get a reference. Weasel words aren't appropriate either. --Aseld ^talk 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I used the weasel words as a compromise, my edits were reverted twice so I decided to try and avoid a revert war. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course - I understand why you made the edits, and agree, but I don't think they should be the permanent solution. --Aseld ^talk 07:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding a revert war is always to be commended. Talking is always preferable to reverting. And while I pretty much disagree that they were weasel words - especially when the reception section pretty much says what what is covered as overview in the Lede. Maybe there is some confusion as to what the Lede is supposed to do. Its an overview of the article, not just an introduction to such. But, no fatal mistakes were made, so I took a specific quote from the commentary and ported it all the way back up to the Lede. I think its largely unimaginative to insisit on this sort of practice when paraphrasing works so very much better, but three folks tend to think its necessary, so there you go. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that. It wasn't the statement itself that was the problem for me, it was a) the lack of qualification (*who* said it?) and b) the lack of an inline citation (I had in fact thought that the statement had not been cited at all, having missed the reference way down in "Reception"). Now that those things have been provided it seems fine to me. --Aseld ^talk 08:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Add a {{Who}}, {{weasel-inline}} or {{Fact}} tag to the end of the sentence in the future to give others a chance fix or reference it. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really, really help matters. As for myself, sorry for being a bit snarky. I shouldn't edit late at night. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid the snark, but I agree that that would not be helpful in the least. Knowingly adding unencyclopedic content to WP is a bad idea, regardless of how it's tagged. --Aseld ^talk 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that I was paraphrasing the sources (which happens in an overview of a subject), not adding unencyclopedic content. As such, my support of the edit was the right thing to do, I'm bending in the wind of consensus to add a specific quote that says pretty much the same thing, even though I think that using hte same quote is redundant. Unless this is a 'getting the last word in' thing, I'll presume the matter closed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the matter is not closed, and no, this is not a case having to get the last word in. The sentence is still very clearly an example of weasel words. It is still a pretty strong opinion statement, albet one expressed by a considerable amount of people, but nonetheless a POV. This is why that quote does have a place in the article under Reception, but not in the lede. Why not include Tim Goodman's quote that Firefly is a "forced hodgepodge" or a Turkey City Writer's Workshop that criticizes the space western backdrop as incredibly cliched? None of those belong, just as the included text doesn't, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The POV goes in the reception area, and the weasel words go out of the article. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes, yes it is. The word "atypical" is no longer there to fire off your Weasel Word Detector (tm), and instead there is a referenced quote to briefly describe the tone as stated by notable reviewers or commentators. It is not a "soapbox" comment, it is a quote to describe tone/genre; your examples are completely nonsensical because they are not capable of simple description. Like all reviews they below with the reviews. Is "scifi western" now POV?--Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Following your argument, which is true to some degree, one must conclude that the second half of the sentence is entirely redundant since the first half of the sentence already describes how the series is a future setting modeled after traditional Western motifs. Thus the sentence should instead be worded, "It has been praised for its naturalistic future setting, which is modeled after traditional Western movie motifs." In fact, I plan on making this edit since it removes the quotation, which I am not alone in disliking.

Calling it an "oddball genre mix" has a much different meaning than simply categorizing it as a Sci-fi Western, and apparently the difference between the two has been lost on you. (To clarify, oddball mix suggests it is more unusual or unique, which is an opinion/POV, and it is an opinion/POV that some would strongly disagree with. I mentioned the Turkey City Writer's Workshop who have criticized the space western setting as tired and cliche. You also mentioned the genre of sci-fi western. Can it really be described as oddball when sci-fi western is such an established genre?) Also, I dislike using the quote in the lede, something even Arcayne, who made the edit, expressed hesitation about. Your other major mistake is that you described it as a "quote to describe tone/genre." Tone and genre are significantly different, and lumping the two together makes your argument a fallacy. Genre is based more on solid facts about the TV show. It is in space, it is in the future, etc. etc. Tone is trickier, having to do with things like the "emotion" and "mood" and "feeling" of the work. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, apparently I should have used "tone, genere". Perhaps then I would have saved you the time of typing up a silly little personal attack based on misinterpretation. Log on to a registered account and I'd maybe take the time to have to go into more detail of this with you; as it is I really couldn't care if you're going to jump to conclusions and attempt personal attacks.

Beyond that, stop it with the edit warring. You have however many people here with differing views on the matter, and several of them have gone out of the way to mention no edit-warring. The talk page is here so, among other things, people don't have to make five million edits back and forth. For wp:good faith, you can choose to either make personal attacks on me or not follow general Wiki policy; I'm not going to keep it with both.

Finally, if you are so focused on the word "oddball" now, then why not simply remove that lone word? The sentence would function exactly the same, and would still be accurately representing the quote itself. Seems an unnecessary amount in comparison to the viable option of removing a lone word.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, you seemed to have taken things rather personally and resorted to ad hominem attacks. You accuse me of trying to start and edit war, when in fact I started this section in the discussion page to avoid an edit war. I have made sure to avoid any violation of the 3RR policy, so how exactly was this an edit war? Certainly the article has been edited numerous times since the discussion started, but that is the point of the discussion! Discussion is not supposed to prevent editing entirely, but to facilitate healthy editing which ultimately improves the articles, rather than pointless reverts back and forth.

I am also confused about why you think I attacked you, because I never did. I did follow WP:AGF, but assume good faith does not mean I have to assume you are correct. I assumed you were doing your best to contribute to the article, but I also believed you were mistaken and did my best to clarify these mistakes. I even mentioned that your argument was true to some degree, which hardly sounds like an argument containing personal attacks.

Also, I assume you wrote your last paragraph before checking the most recent update to the article, because I had already done exactly what you suggested. It seems like we have come to an agreement, so I don't see why any further accusations that I am some sort of troll are necessary. Hopefully you won't take criticism and constructive contributions to a discussion so personally, I know sometimes with text the tone can come of as sarcastic and/or patronizing when that was not the authors original intent, but that is exactly why we have the Assume Good Faith policy so that tempers don't get out of hand when the tone of a discussion becomes ambiguous like that. --129.116.39.44 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) First of all, calm the hell down, everyone. Second of all, user:129, you are new; it will behoove you to learn and understand our policies more in depth before applying them inefficiently. We are being polite, and you are better off addressing the edits and not the editor. We do not mess with quoted statements. Period. The consensus doesn't want a paraphrasing, so we aren't doing that. If the majority of the cited sources consider it an odd series, then odd it is. We aren't citable, and they are. If we choose to use one of those citations by quote, we should do so. If you think the reviews are unbalanced. go and WP:SOFIXIT; find other reviews and add them to reception. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Node 3

While I think it is blatantly obvious, are there any sources specifically stating that the naming option of "Serenity" is related to Firefly? As far as naming conventions go it is far from unique enough of a name to make the link automatically, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If there is a source (for something like this, even a NASA researcher blog would likely be enough) then I think that even a possible naming (pre-choice or post-choice in the case that another name is used) is a worthy enough nod for the article. If not, it's debatable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the name was proposed by anonymous Net users, we'll never know why. —Tamfang (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't, it was one of the four name provided by NASA to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.193.135 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to find any in my web reasearch for the Serenity (film) reference to node 3. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is not an anonymous suggestion, it is one of the original four official options. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be referenced as being included directly as a result of it being the name used in Firefly, then it can't go in the article. Verifiability. We need a statement from NASA, or some other reputable source, stating why they choose those names and directly linking it. And it's not blatantly obvious, Firefly isn't the first time in sci-fi a spacecraft has ever been called Serenity, and there have been real life sea-faring ships called that as well. Canterbury Tail talk 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase (even though I did mention, as the original poster, that it also falls into historical naming conventions): Barring official statements to the contrary, I personally feel that it is unlikely that it isn't a wink towards the show. That's entirely original research and/or my own point of view though, so my own thoughts on the matter don't much count. I also feel that even if it is not intended as a wink to the show, it would be obvious that researchers/NASA PR would be aware of the links between the two that individuals would make.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Fox News noted the naming similarity, without taking an opinion on whether that "Serenity" is this "Serenity". An NPOV article can do the same--please check out Serenity (film)#In other media. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly, but I think it should be the case here. Even if "Serenity" does end up being the node's name, then there is dubious need to include it unless a source states a link between it and the show/movie. It can be done, true; I just don't think that it needs to be done. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but including it well, with limited claims and accurate sourcing, is the best innoculation against folks feeling the need to include "missing" information. Besides, what can be clearly sourced is that plenty of people think that there's a connection and encouraged others to vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway, Colbert won it with the most votes. story here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Genesis: Jewish partisan book

Could someone write the title of the book? The other one on the American Civil War is mentioned. Was the story of the book the one shown in the movie Defiance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.163.25 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just restored the above question which had been removed in a good faith by an editor who had misidentified it as vandalism. The question deals with Whedon's inspirations -- the civil war book "The Killer Angels" and an unnamed (in the current article) book about Jewish partisan fighters in World War II, as mentioned in the Genesis section. -- Thinking of England (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems from me (I'm the one you reverted). It was my error to remove it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference given is "Whedon, Serenity: The Official Visual Companion, p. 8". Unfortunately previews of this book don't seem to be available online (at least not from Google Books or Amazon). Anyone here have a hard copy? Did Whedon mention a title? -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote "The next book I read after The Killer Angels was about Jewish partisan fighters who had fought in the Warsaw uprising [during WWII] and some of the things they tried to pull off after the war." So... Sorry, got the book, but it doesn't specify which book by author/title. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jolly"

The bit about FOX wanting the character Mal to be more "jolly" appears twice in the article.

I removed the first one (the second was more in-context, as it appears with other material about the character rather than about the episode more broadly). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Scifi?

Resolved

 – The label is well sourced; reclassification would violate WP:NOR.

is this really sci fi? i would rather state it as a western set in space, or a neo-western, but to say sci-fi in the lead is a bit... eh. Sure its set in space and has a spaceship, but it hardly clings to any sci-fi elemets. The following article makes a good argument about star wars classification: [6]

So what you ppl think?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For starters, any discussions on the topic here would be original research. Firefly's classification as a science fiction show are very well grounded in numerous reviews and the like. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't crappy enough to be called "sci fi" (a pejorative); but it was definitely science fiction, by every definition of the word ever encountered. Star Wars is of course irrelevant to this discussion. (For what it's worth, I think Star Wars is SF; bad SF created by a scientific illiterate, but SF.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most SF&F fans consider Star Wars space opera, not SF, since the science/technology angles are only there as a backdrop to the plot, instead of integral to it. By contrast, Asimov's I, Robot is considered hard SF. (YMMV.) --Alan (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If Firefly were set on Earth in the present, the origin of the Reavers would still be sf; "Safe" and "Our Mrs Reynolds" would be hard to classify. —Tamfang (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

POV?

I know we're all geeks and such, but this article almost seems very POV. Specifically about it being cancelled. It almost reads like a website trying to promote it being brought back. I can't really put my finger on anything specific. In the end it was cancelled, and something about the 'why' and the 'events leading to it' and such read very much from the POV that Fox screwed up what was a perfectly good show. Bane1998 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's an interesting observation, Bane1998. Why not take a day or two, try to figure out what is wonky about the article and take a shot at fixing it? If you are new at this, just ask. Ain't no better way to learn, I'd reckon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it isn't POV, but statements by critics and individuals involved. A lot of documentation is out there about changes Fox made (perhaps most notably to episode order and removing the pilot/first episode) and the negative impact this played on the wider viewer-base. I'll take a fresh look at the page later on and see if I can think of anything that might need doing, but I wanted to give you that comment to keep in mind. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

... And a lot of the subsequent RS commentary on Whedon's other projects, like Dollhouse, has repeated the assertion that Fox messing with the order was responsible for Firefly's premature demise. That creates an interesting situation, where WP:UNDUE expects we should repeat assertions in proportion to their frequency, and thus we end up being part of the chorus. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "we" in the chorus; Wikipedia is simply a representation, and not a viewpoint. I get what you mean, but I think that the point (to use a pun) is undue in the sense that even Fox employees have made statements along these lines. The point I was trying to originally make is that while I know there are sections that are going to initially weigh in with the assumption of POV, in some cases (like the example of episode order) it is a broadly-held view by many of the sources used here. AKA - what appears to be POV may not indeed be so (or at least POV of any editors past or present) and the content of references should be kept in mind. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With full disclosure that I'm a known browncoat, the fact is that Fox is widely acknowledged within the industry as having totally messed this series up. That's not bias on our part, that's impartial reporting of actual reality. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The section may look POV since low ratings is the only thing mentioned on Fox's side. Are there other reasons Fox stated for canceling that can be referenced? Like cost or other.. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to belatedly concur with Bane1999 that the article does seem a bit non-neutral (i.e. it is very obvious that it has principally been edited by fans, not by miscellaneous Wikipedia editors); with Arcayne that it's difficult to do anything about this without (difficult to arrive at) specifics to work on; and with Orange Mike that Fox's decisions being related to the failure of the series is very well and broadly sourced and not a POV problem, because even the sources come from radically divergent "camps". Despite FA status, the article has other problems, such as lots of talk about what Firefly isn't and doesn't have (alien invasions, etc.), without any discussion at all of what it did sprout from other than two books: Whedon's own earlier work, and a previous series (see new thread below). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Fandom section

The Fandom section currently has Can't Stop the Serenity information current to 2007. This section needs to be updated for currency. In 2008, the charity had raised over $250,000 for Equality Now. 2009 events have added another $130,000+ to the total raised for charity from this event. 2010 will be the event's 5th Anniversary. Details for verification are at www.cantstoptheserenity.com Jenskijen (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. You just need to reference what you change/add, such as with news articles from that site. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted info on the new fanfilm Browncoats: Redemption in the Fandom area, but have also commented it out pending review. I don't think it'll run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL since it's in post-production with a definite release date (Labor Day weekend 2010), but I want to make sure before it's posted for widespread consumption. I'm also looking at listing the committed charities individually instead of just providing a link to the movie's site to keep the promotional aspect in check. Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the cast, crew or production company of the movie. --Alan (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that a laundry list of charities benefitted is undue emphasis and a bit promotional. Just say "nine charities" or whatever, with a referenced tag to the website documenting the assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (confessed Browncoat)

Done. I'll keep an eye on the movie site and change the number of charities appropriately...as of yesterday it's five. --Alan (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That which came before

There is a gaping omission here, of material that clearly inspired Firefly. The most obvious is Whedon's own story and characters for Alien: Resurrection, with the buccaneerish crew of a small space craft, who take illegal "odd jobs" where they can get them, and who include a second-in-command woman, a big and not very smart tough-guy, an improbable engineer, and a more-than-human girl who has potentials unknown to the other characters and the audience. They're obviously a first draft of the Serenity crew. Slightly less obvious is Starhunter, dating to 2001, and with which Whedon does not appear to be connected. Confined to a single but broadly populated solar system (colonized by extensive independent terraforming), it focuses on a rag-tag crew of odd-jobbers (mostly employed by bounty hunting in this case), including a gruff and past-haunted but honorable captain who has lost everything that mattered to him; a part-African and combat-trained female first officer; and a technologically gifted but naive, nubile redhead engineer whom the captain treats like a daughter. Other similarities include collusive, secret governmental organizations, an arrogant space navy that boards private ships at will, and an organized band of dreaded space pirates (saner here than in Firefly) who are the result of governmental testing of biological agents. Oh, and let's not forget the ship's taking on of doggedly chased refugees, namely a man and his close relative (rescued from a creepy lab by the man at great personal risk), a young person who has been mentally and physically manipulated by government scientists for mysterious reasons and who consequently has psychic powers. I'd keel over and die before I'd believe that Starlog and other sci-fi publications have not already picked these connections apart. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC) PS: A further obvious Starhunter and Serenity parallel: In season 1, ep. 7 of the former, the ship is effectively hijacked by a young woman with unusual powers (and amazingly agile hand-to-hand combat skills) and the vessel put on a new course for a mysterious, quarantined world (called Miranda, even!) just as with River in the movie. Every other episode of Starhunter that I watch turns up something else like this, and I'm only half-way through season 1. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the crew of the Betty from Alien: Resurrection are prototypes for the crew of Serenity, and the moment that someone finds a source that references that parallel, we need to add it to the article. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually seem to recall reading somewhere that Whedon actually denied that the Betty and the crew of the Betty where an earlier verson of the Serenity crew. Canterbury Tail talk 02:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to see that. Curious if he elaborated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's unsourced speculation. Many if not all of these are archetypical SF (and other popular fiction) tropes, familiar from many a tale dating back into the Middle Ages (and before). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I've already clearly indicated that the above is (my) unsourced speculation and that regular editors of this article should check sci-fi publications for articles that can be used to source these really obvious connections. So, I'm not sure why you bothered to bring it up again, especially since someone else did 3 days before you. PS: Yes, some of them are archetypal tropes, but specific confluences of a bunch of particular motifs, old and new, in three sci-fi productions (all with strong Canadian ties) is too much to be coincidence. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those examples of "something almost blatently obvious but has no sources so can't be included." It's both annoying and a pity. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As I keep saying, sources likely exist. I'm just flagging it on the talk page so that regular editors of this article keep it in mind. I'm not sure why everyone keeps telling me it's unsourced so it can't be included [yet], when I was the one who said so in first place. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Widescreen format question

This article mentions the whole fight between Joss & Fox about whether or not the show would air widescreen, but this article makes it appear that it was shown on TV in 4:3 format. This is not true. In my area (Seattle, WA), the show was shown in 16:9 HD, every episode (I'm talking originally, when the show was new; not re-airings later). I realize this isn't a major point, but do we have anyway to wrap up this section by saying "the whole things was moot as it was aired widescreen anyway?" If not on FOX in some regions, I believe it was aired widescreen when it went out on other channels too (like Sci-Fi) or HDNET. 87Fan (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

influences

I don't know if this is the place for this, but I'm surprised that there is no influence from the animated series Cowboy Bebop (1998) in this show. They seem very similar in a lot of ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.202.179 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. Both are proof that mixing uncommon genres can result in an amazing viewing experience. --118.209.212.222 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

One star system?

I haven't seen too many shows of this great series, but there is no way the article should be stating that the entire Alliance -- and the outlying lawless planets, etc. -- are all based in one star system. There is enough talk in the show -- not to mention the logic of the entire series -- which points to the usual Sci-Fi meme of a space empire which spans at least dozens of star systems. One star system simply doesn't cut it.

Pazouzou (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really, there are multiple starts although they all rotate around the central white sun. There are a total of five major stars in the system, as well as I believe seven protostars which rotate around a major stars. And unfortunately there is only 1 show of 14 episodes and a movie in this series. Most info about the verse is thus based on The Complete and Official Map of The Verse by QMx. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been confirmed multiples times that it's one star system. Firefly strongly implies it, Serenity confirms it. And there is nothing impossible about the system, it's simply a multiple star system like the majority of solar systems out there. In fact our solar system is unusual in not being multi-stellar. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A star system with multiple star systems. The terminology is kinda confusing, "star system" can be used for multiple stars which orbit each-other as well as a single star with a planetary system. Maybe we should say it's a "quintuple star system" rather than "one star system", while technically correct it's more ambiguous. The article mentions "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons", but doesn't mention multiple stars. This is covered in more detail at List of Firefly planets and moons. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin

It should be noted that whats shown in the show (and in this article) as "mandarin" has really not much (if anything at all) in common with real mandarin/putonghua. Maybe change the sentence to "what is supposed to be mandarin" or something like that. 85.179.92.116 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is considered Original reserach per Wikipeida policy, and can't be the sole basis for such comments in the article. The documentary on the Blu-Ray set clearly states this is supposed to be a Chinese language that they are speaking. I don't revcall if then say it's Madarin or not, but I can check later today. The Chinese-speaking producer/consultant made a big point of contacting Chinese friends in the US, Tawian, and mainland China for advice on words (mostly swear words) and their pronounciations to use on the show. So to add a claim such as yours to the article which contradicts that, we would need a reliable source quoting a recognized authority on Mandarin Chinese and its dialects that says it's not really Mandarin. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your unsupported opinion that it is indeed Mandarin is simply an assumption on your part, and as such is also original research. What is the basis of your opinion that it is indeed Mandarin?

Someone else told me that the Chinese starts out pretty bad and gets better with practice. —Tamfang (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the *future*, they speak *future* Mandarin. So despite that it isn't exactly the same as Mandarin spoken now, it is still their attempts at Mandarin. And yes, there's several sources that point out that the Mandarin wasn't exactly right and I do believe a few straight from some of the Firefly merchandise. But the simple point is that languages can change, and the actors weren't all prefect Mandarin speakers when the show began. It's still shiny that they do it though. Shardok (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A fanbased initiative for a direct to DVD second season

I feel this is very relevant in the cult status subchapter, as it show that even Nathan Fillon see the show as cult. It also shows how fans are still trying to get more Firefly nearly 9 years after the series aired. I might add that I have nothing to do with the initiative and if people think its promoting it, they are free to change the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the wording, but the fact that the source for the initiative is the initiative's site. We need to have a verifiable source from a reliable publisher for this to remain, provide the source proves the relevance. Revert warring to keep in it is not the way to handle this, and I respectfully suggest you remove it yourself until the issues have been addressed. Nothing is lost by waiting to get it doen right. - BilCat (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unaired episodes on Sci Fi

I'm currently do a clean-up of articles I watch, and there's a citation needed tag regarding the unaired episodes airing on the Sci Fi channel. Does anyone know of a reference that can be used for this? The List of episodes article has the air dates as 2003, but all I can find is that they aired in 2005 (here for example), though I came across websites stating the unaired episodes would air on the UK Sci Fi channel in 2003. Or did the unaired episode air on a different channel first? I believe I remember seeing that they aired on the Fox Latin America channel first, and that's what it said in the episode articles, but now it states the Sci Fi channel. I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on this? Thanks. And also I wanted to remove the IMDb reference for the air date of "Objects in Space", as it's kinda random and IMDb isn't a reliable source, but I didn't want the article to have no references. Which is why I want to track down references for the unaired episodes if possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction...SyFy isn't airing them, they'll be running on Science Channel. The on-air ads say they'll run ALL episodes. Entertainment Weekly: "The Science Channel has acquired the rights to the cult-hit and will air the series in its short-lived entirety, plus some new extras." [7] --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Drovethrughosts is asking about the Sci Fi channel airing episodes over 5 years ago, not current airings. I looked for this stuff a couple years ago without any success. This was well before Sci Fi change to SyFy, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. My brain's stuck in a temporal stasis loop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Space Station

There is no reference to how many dvd's the space station currently houses, nor why the space station of all locations matters. Unless we want for every tv show all the celebrety gossip of what famous locations house dvds to what shows, there should be more to the article. If firefly is one dvd out of 10,000 on the space station, then it really isn't relevant, if it is the only DVD on the space station, then it could pass, but without this kind of information, it is just celebrity gossip along the lines of "the complete series of CSI is currently held at winsor castle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.134.188 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to the Space Station, but it's relevant to Firefly... which is why it's in this article, but not the ISS'es. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it really isn't relevant if it's one of thousands of DVDs. And the refs need to be from reliable secondary sources which attest to the relevance, ibn spite of being one of thousands. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bilcat, the IP removed the sourced material twice, and Jclemens restored it once, yet you chose to suggest that a sysop/checkuser/oversighter might be blocked for restoring material present in the article since at least 2008?!? Per WP:BRD, the material should remain in until consensus is resolved. I am thus restoring it now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP has a point, though. Is bringing a DVD to the ISS a significant event? Is it the only DVD they have, or should we mention the ISS on all articles about the films they have on the space station? --Conti|✉ 07:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Point or not, there's certainly no harm in bringing up the matter. However, once it was restored, the IP should have let it be until the discussion resolved. (My bad for not making a note on the talk page, but I'd thought I'd left a suitable explanation in the edit summary. Apparently it did not take, however.) I'd like to know, though, why Jc was cautioned instead of the IP. That makes no sense. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we focus on the issue at hand, and not about who was cautioned why. Mistakes are made every day. :) --Conti|✉ 08:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to JC - I misread the edits. (But I'm not sure why CK is now enganging in multiple reverts!) However, the sources provided are not secondary reliable sources, so I'm going to add {{vc}} tags to the content. That does need to be adressed by a source that proves this is something worth noting, or it should be removed after suffiecent time with the tags. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, but here's one of my own: I just saw the one IP removal on my watchlist, as I've been traveling and hadn't spotted it the previous day, so I assumed *I* was the first reverter, and noted my thoughts here in this thread. I missed this whole brouhaha while I was offline, so no offense was taken on my part. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Conti removed the following:

"NASA played the Firefly theme song "Ballad of Serenity" as the wake-up song for Space Shuttle astronaut Robert L. Behnken and the other crewmembers of STS-130 on February 12, 2010."

from the fandom section. No big deal,I suppose, although one would think that it helps to support the idea that there is a Firefly fan base within NASA. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was silly... followed my own wikilink to the "Music" section as that seemed an appropriate place to relocate the above, not realizing I had been linking within the same article all along. Still, seems to work better there. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I still don't quite see the point, though. It's nice that there are Firefly fans at NASA, but, well.. so? I mean, we all know that Firefly was destined to be one of the greatest shows of all time, but that doesn't mean we have to list every single notable person that agrees with us. --Conti|✉ 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well i did revert the topic after an revision was listed without reason. However I gave a reason for both my changes, where as none was given in the intermediary changelog (the second one i should have clarified "still no reason given, thus potential improper use of undo). because of this, it was unclear why the revision happened and unclear if it was even about the article or about other issues the intermediary author had (dislike of ip users/revision spam bot). Since his revision was unclear if it was about the article or not, i felt it did not violate wiki's no revision war being done the first time as it was potentially not about the changes at all (due to lack of reason cited, no discussion brough up as per potential war answers). So i removed potential spam change (which i wouldn't have if either discussion or reason was posted) and then added a discussion in case the change was content related. --Added by 69.180.134.188 00:45, 14 april 2011 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.134.188 (talk)

Question / Proposal for the Template

I was seeing the template the other day and wondered whether the Xbox 360 video game article Halo 3 ODST should be linked in the "See also" lower section of the mentioned template. The game has several references to the series and features voice work from the actors. IMDb Trivia link.

I just had this idea for a while and wondered whether this (minor?) change could be done or not. I'm not really familiar with this series (although I do plan on watching it) but I thought this link could be added. --Exrain (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Error on the Page

There is an error on the page in the music section, and It should be fixed immediately- Ebmonkey2 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be a broken {{Album ratings}} template. I don't know enough about writing templates to be able to identify or correct the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like some ne'er-do-well major-contributer tried to do a good faith edit, but took out a curly bracket for some unknown reason. accidentally. ;-) AstroCog (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely accidental. :( This was the first time I've seen a clean-up tag used to mark a template/code error... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

On Location

The Location for the eppisode "Heart Of gold" Is north of Montazuma Sleeping an aera south of phoenix AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.145.239 (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by Starhunter?

As a fan of Firefly, I'm always hunting around for good science fiction. Recently I ran into "Starhunter" (AKA "Starhunter 2300") streaming on Hulu+ and it bears an intriguing resemblance to the Firefly series that aired a year later. It has the same reluctantly violent pilot, a piece of junk ship, a black woman sidekick with military experience, and a pixie-ish cousin who also happens to be great at putting the ship back together. Surely by now you see the parallels. However, I didn't want to edit the page as it is merely conjecture. But I couldn't help but be struck by the resemblance. Check out some episodes and see what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matkatamiba (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the first such comparison I've ever heard. Is there a reliable source that makes that comparison somewhere? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's why I put this on a talk page and not on the page itself. However, I'm not the only one this has occurred to, a simple Google search on "starhunter firefly" turns up a pile of talk about it. But has anyone gotten inside of Joss Whedon's head? Not that I'm aware of. Matkatamiba (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried a good search on this as well but could not find anything, it seems pretty likely though. If i find anything i will post it here.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess partly what I'm wondering is if it would be OK to simply note that the show Starhunter bears some resemblance to Firefly. Frankly, when I came to the Wikipedia page for Firefly I fully expected to see something about the obvious similarities. When I didn't find it, I thought I was the only one to see it. Clearly I'm not. Matkatamiba (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Purely speculative, and completely without reliable sources. It has no place in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, definitely not ok; the beliefs and opinions of editors are irrelevant. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Info box addition

I added The Shepherd's Tale to the info box under "Preceded by:" assuming that it is referring to storyline chronology, not date of release. If anyone feels this is in error, feel free to revert. Ænea ♫ ^♪ 15:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

October 2006 Variety "Thank You" ad

I'd like to add a short paragraph (and a jpg, which I have permission to post) about the October 2006 fan-sponsored Variety Thank You ad under the "Fandom" section.Denischu (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It probably belongs in the Browncoats article rather than here. Also: from whom do you have "permission to post"? We're fiercely cautious about copyright here. (Just sayin'!) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC) (done the impossible)

Ep list merger and FA status?

I didn't participate in the discussion which led to merging the episode list into this article, but if the resultant merger results in any way in de-FA'ing the article, due to length or quality, I object to the merger. There's no reason the episode list cannot stay standalone. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article increased in size from 90.5 kB to 96.6 kB (still below 100 kB). Not sure how much of that is "readable prose" per WP:SIZERULE. Text can probably be summarized or trimmed if the article needs to be shortened. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't it be simpler to de-merge it now if that will pose a problem? Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On the snap zoom and influence

I don't know if anyone would like to add this or if it is fits well enough, but Vulture has an article (here) Firefly's snap zoom and how it has influenced filmmaking. Has some comments from Boyd. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Second series?

Hey,someone recently told me that a second series has been commisioned. I found things such as this on-line

http://www.geekscoop.net/2013/04/01/firefly-season-2-announced/

but they link to april fools refernce http://www.geekscoop.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/omgaprilfools.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.53.14 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that was posted on April 1 and it links to the April Fool's reference, I'd say it's not true. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: Do not publish anything, in any field, in any media, on April 1st. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Where best to add influences?

This article from the designers of Borderlands 2 note how they used Firefly as their reference point for how to inject the right amount of humor into their story. I thought this would be a good note to add to the Firefly article, but there doesn't appear to be any great section to add this information, and given that this is an FA article I'd rather not just go and add a bunch of stuff without consensus. Thoughts? 87Fan (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles from Creative Planet Network

There are two articles from Creative Planet Network about the series. One, The Case for Film, has a bit on the decision to shoot the series in 35mm, and the other, Inside Firefly, is about the visual effects, such as rendering Serenity. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Solar system

Article: The TV series does not reveal whether these celestial bodies are within one star system, only saying that Serenity's mode of propulsion is a "gravity-drive".

Several of the episode intros makes it clear it's a single system. Are they not considered? --Steven Fisher (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The voice over intros from the original broadcast of the TV series are actually contradictory on that point. Mal's two intros state that they moved out of the solar system and terraformed a whole galaxy of earths. Book's however states that they found a new solar system and hundreds of new earths were terraformed. Serenity (the movie) is explicit about it being one solar system with multiple suns however. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I was thinking of Book's voiceover; I missed Mal's. Current revision makes sense, then. --Steven Fisher (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Companion Page

The Companion page should be restored.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_(Firefly)

174.22.11.242 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Predecessors

The Japanese 1996 Manga Series 'Outlaw Star' (and the respective 1998 Anime TV show) have quite a lot of similarities. It's hard to believe they are just random. Just by date, Outlaw Star should be earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_Star — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.169.215 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

With TV show starting 2 years earlier, Gene Roddenberry's 'Andromeda' have some similarities (and again, to Outlaw Star, like a female spaceship avatar). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_%28TV_series%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.169.215 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@78.48.169.215: Andromeda did have some passing similarities to Outlaw Star and a number of other series. However, there are a great deal of similarities that are near actual copies between the Firefly and Outlaw Star. The way Melphina and River are presented are uncanny. The number of support actors in both series are the same as are their roles. The plots have a great deal of crossover that can't necessarily be explained as happenstance. According to Wiki guidelines, a section discussing this is well within bounds. Brainplay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Serenity (film) improvement to FA

I was looking around at the articles and I noticed that Serenity's tenth anniversary is coming up September 30 (for the theater release), and I thought if it was possible to raise it to FA (it's currently standing at B class and is a delisted GA) it could be possibly nominated to appear on the front page then. I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping improve the article before then. Thought I'd ask here as the edit history is a little more active on this article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)