Talk:Journeyman (TV series)

Not even a stub

The first thing anybody wants to know about a new TV series (or movie, or book, or sonnet...) is "What is it about?"--Isaac R 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just something interesting, i saw some filming done in chinatown66.81.18.18 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement song

What is that rock song playing in the background on one of the commercials? icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the video game series?

There is a series of video games called The Journeyman Project, which is also about time travel. Is there any relation between the two? Everything I've heard about the plot of the TV show suggests it isn't closely related to the game, but with the similar titles and core plot mechanic of time travel, it seems like either there must have been some agreement and licensing of the name, or somebody is about to start a lawsuit. 65.100.143.120 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a 1975 documentary called "The Journeyman", a 2001 film by the same name, a 2005 film called simple "Journeyman", and Eric Clapton's 1989 album also called "Journeyman" and TWO production/distribution companies with the word "Journeyman" in their name. Film and album titles are not copywritable (as far as I understand these things) and neither are plots. Should the Journeyman Project have had to license the idea of time travel from Jules Verne's estate (assuming there is one)? There are several television shows which concern time travel. Doctor Who, for one, which can easily be said to have the greatest claim on time travel as a plot device, but it's been used countless times.

As I understand it, none of the Journeyman Project games was especially successful, and certainly none of them ever achieved much notoriety outside the gaming community to achieve cultural awareness as games like World of Warcraft and The Sims have done. It's highly unlikely that many people, when hearing about this show, will make the connection with the games or the assumption that one has something to do with another.

Actually that old game was the first thing I thought about when hearing about this show. But I do not think there is any connection, it's just a suitable name for a man that travels in time. /Cygnus78 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of was Quantum Leap. The concept certainly sounds similar.

BTW amazon now has this available for free download. Is that worth adding to the article? - Theaveng 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its a coincidence that the show has a similar name to an old computer game that is also about time traveling, the plot might be different, but I don't think the creators of this show just picked the name randomly, the game should be mentioned in the article, it's the first thing that I thought of when I saw the preview for this show.Wraith12 08:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC) wraith12

Maybe it is a coincidence but it certainly was the first thing I thought of. The above anonymous commenter is wrong about plots not being subject to copyrights. I can't say that it warrants anything in the article. It is an interesting question though. If the plot is significantly different perhaps the creators though no one would notice. I don't think TJP were popular much (outside my room, lol).--Gcilley 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this similarity probably isn't noteworthy, unless it's picked up by some reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Time Traveller's Wife

The show is a direct lift of the novel The Time Traveller's Wife That should be linked in there somewhere, but i'm not sure where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.33.106 (talk • contribs) 02:17, October 16, 2007

Sorry but no. The only similarity is that he travels in time and has a wife that has trouble with it. End of similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.41.13 (talk • contribs) 00:29, October 17, 2007

Actually, I think that the comparisons between Journeyman and The Time Traveler's Wife are noteworthy. More to the point, the show's creator has spoken about the comparison (and the comparison with Quantum Leap). I think that this suggests that the similarities are worth mention. I also found a column from the Philadelphia Inquirer which makes the comparison with TTW. I think that's enough for the beginning of a "connections" section, don't you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. If you want something put in there, you have to have proof. You can't just say "That sounds familiar" and put it in here. You need to have the creator say that he got inspiration or something in an interview.--Durmgrid (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

As per a request for re-assessment I have looked at this article. It is still a stub. The plot summary needs to be rewritten in original prose instead of cut and paste from the official site. Start a critical response section and cite some reviews of the upcoming pilot.--Opark 77 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, clarified this Cipriano 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirection of Characters

Otto4711 recently blanked Katie Vasser and Dan Vasser, and redirected them to this page. I looked for some sort of discussion about this, as he cites notability being the reason. If there was a discussion about this, please let me know, otherwise I will undo the blanking and start a discussion. Acidskater 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

considering that the pages for Katie Vasser and Dan Vasser are currently just copies of the main Journeyman page, i would agree with Otto4711's decision to blank and redirect them. at least until the season progresses to the point where the characters are complicated enough to warrant their own pages. —damnreds (☠|☠) 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Source? Not sure on this

"On at least one ocassion, his cell phone was "transfomed" into one which would connect with service in the past." - Can someone source this? I don't recall this happening. I know in one episode he found an old cell-phone of his and started carrying it (and stole a matching charger from his past-self for it, since his wife had sold the charger in a box of junk some time prior to the series starting). And I recall that the "no service" flashing on the cellphone screen was used in at least one ep to indicate that he'd jumped back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.176.142 (talk • contribs) 20:03, October 16, 2007

You're correct: whoever put that bit in seems to have missed the episode in which Dan stole the cell phone charger from himself. He's got an iPhone (which works in the present) and a clunky old "brick" cell phone (which works in some time periods in the past, but presumably not all). The iPhone doesn't "transform". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan's father?

I posted something like this on the main page, it was removed so I'll put it here:

Was Dad's father also a Journeyman? The Scientist jokes about Dan making a time machine, talks about Dan's father, and then calls Dan when he is in the past. All leading me to suspect both Dan's father and the scientist are involved in the time travel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.133.72 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New section

I think there should be a section about the historical references (clothes, music, etc) to whatever period of time Dan visits. It's pretty obvious if you watch the show, and the concept would suggest such a thing, but a section about it would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.147.173 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It would also be a magnet for original research. I understand the temptation, but that sort of thing is really better left to fan wikis, unless you can find a reliable source which talks about it. The same goes for anachronisms, etc. — it would be interesting to include that information, but unfortunately WP:NOR really doesn't allow it here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What does Dan's brother know?

I missed the first episode, and every time I watch the opening sequence I get very confused. In at least two different scenes, Dan's brother seems to be aware that Dan believes himself to be travelling back in time. In one scene he explicitly mentions going back into the past; in another he tells Dan's wife that "whatever Dan is doing" is taking him back to Livia, whom everyone assumes is dead. Am I taking these too out of context or is there some discrepancy here? Kutulu 00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I came here to find the same information, and I saw the 1st ep. It might have come up or not, I don't remember, but I have been wondering about it. Maybe something from an unaird pilot? Or perhaps he's speaking metaphorically, like whatever Dan's doing is making him go back into his past habits of compulsive gambling. Fitfatfighter 09:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, Dan tells his brother what happened in the pilot, and his brother dismisses it as an excuse or dream or lie. Since then, his brother has shown no sign that he believes or recalls Dan telling him that. As for the Livia thing, I think that was a non-literal reference to suggest that Dan was thinking about Livia, or feeling his love for her again - not literally going to her. TheHYPO (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan's brother is beyond annoying. Wait, I take that back. Dan's wife is beyond annoying. The brother is a close second. Probably the only show I've seen lately with horrible women actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.178.178 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible cancellation?

It might would be appropriate to put a note in the article that this show is on the chopping block (regrettably). But I'm not sure where it should be put. Perhaps it is best to wait until there is definitive news. -Nodekeeper (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Until there's an official announcement, this is a rumour, nothing more. It's probably best to wait for official word. TheHYPO (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With the writer's strike and the low ratings, it is safe to assume the show is dead. Pity. However, if there is something to get out of the strike, it's that we probably got a few more episodes broadcast than normal as NBC had to fill time and had bought the episodes. As far as the mysteries of the show, there where plenty more. While we learned his wife and brother believed in his "journeys" at the end, and that Livia was a person who journeyed forward, there are many unanswered questions. The scientist told Dan he was the last, and he refuted it, probably citing Livia, though it is probable he can't bring himself to research her fate. Indeed, the scientist didn't seem to have a good grasp on things; the journeyers for the most part (according to his theory) went FORWARD in time and brought back artifacts to explain scientific developments. Livia may have been the LAST of the forward Journeypersons, but Dan might have been the first of the past Journeymen.

The show would have also have had the crazy love situations. Dan loved Livia in the past, and moved on, and loved Katie. Livia lost her "future life" and moved on and was only a few hours away from marrying Henry in her present, then got hit with Dan's journey's. The new plot situations were endless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Perhaps we can put show trivia requests here?

Can anyone update the page to indicate if the show is actually shot in San Francisco or just set there? FTM, probably not worth being on the main page, but can anyone identify the neighborhood where the Vassar's house is supposed to be? Nate (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be no trivia in wikipedia articles. No requests should be made for it. TheHYPO (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the guideline discourages trivia in favour of sourced, relevant information. While we certainly don't want user theories, "this is just like that other show"-isms, and the like, there are relevant details (such as the question about where it is shot) that may not have a "best-fit" section as of yet. We don't want to discourage stuff like that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Journeyman Project

Should there be any mention about the old computer game The Journeyman Project? The title and content (time travel) seem too close to be coincidence. -=Worloq=- 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already discussed above at #Relation to the video game series?. If you have any SOURCE that shows that the creators derrived anything from that series, please cite it. Otherwise, it's just speculation TheHYPO 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratings?

The ratings I get on the http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/display/display_main.aspx?searchparams=journeyman&typecode=DNR[source listed] (abc media net) don't jive with what's listed.

Eg: release on Nov 27: "The Bachelor" scored season-best numbers of its own, outperforming NBC's "Journeyman" in the hour by 5.6 million viewers (11.2 million vs. 5.6 million) and by 91% in Adults 18-49 (4.2/11 vs. 2.2/6). But 5.6 isn't shown on the ratings charge for viewers, and the rating for adults shown here is 2.3/6. (for the episode Emily)

The previous week does jive, but other weeks are off a bit from ABC's releases.

Where in the first source shows "Last week’s numbers" for journeyman (while giving ratings for Life on Monday slot: Households - 3.7/6 Viewers - 6.05M Adults 18-49 - 2.4/6

Whereas this article, for Blowback, lists 3.8/6, 6.21m viewers, and 2.5/6 in 18-49. What source are

Looking further, I also find that on the 26th itself, the same site listed ratings as (3.8/6 HH rating/share, 6.18M viewers, 2.5/6 A18-49 rating/share).

I don't know if ratings are constantly reevaluated or whatnot, but if there's no final number set, we shouldn't be listing ratings at all. TheHYPO (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From what i could understand of it there was a mix of ratings. Now it is all finals. When you get the data from Your Entertainment Now the previous episode's data is finals while the then-current episode's data is overnight. They are not the same and really ought to not be compared but they are, which gives a source for the info. If you want overnight you get it from the post titled for that day; if you want final you get it from the next week's comparison. Getting 20some references should fill in much of the gap and clear up the confusion. There is a post from Bill over at TVByTheNumbers that has demographic viewers and demographic time slot ranking data.[1] but that might be getting too picky for the average reader. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan and Jack's Ages

In the latest aired episode, episode #11, Home By Another Way, Dan travels from December 24, 2007 back to December 24, 1979, which is 1 day before Dan's Dad, Frank Vasser, left his family. Katie later says that Frank left Jack, Dan, and their mother when Jack was 9 and Dan was 7. This would mean that, on December 25, 2007, Jack is 37 years old, and Dan is 35 years old.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to add this properly to the article, so I'm hoping somebody else would be able to. -- MultiKoopa (I didn't log in before adding this comment the first time)

Draft?

Livia said Henry was drafted into the army. She's in 1948, according to the article. WWII had no draft. Vietnam did but it started 1959. The Korean War started 1950. And WWII ended 1945, even if there was a draft. So... what war and what draft?-Babylon pride (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Conscription in the United States#World War I and World War II, there was conscription (draft) in WWII. Either way, it is explicitly stated she is from 1948. If there is a plot oversight as to the existance of a draft in that year, it's just that. A plot oversight. It's not a basis for assuming she is not in 1948 or anything like that (if one wants to be technical, the whole show takes place in a fictional version of our universe. Maybe in the Journeyman universe, there is a different history re: drafts). TheHYPO (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well. It tries to be so perfect with history and then it goes and makes up an imaginary draft for a wedding. If a trivia section does arise, it could certainly go in that. I mean, it had the 1989 earthquake so in my opinion, it's just a goof they're doing for a wedding that they hope no one notices. -Babylon pride (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I clearly pointed out that allegedly (unless the article is false), the US has had drafts since the civil war, and that includes WWII, right through 1948. I was just positing a second explaination that can always be used in explaining inconsistancies between TV shows and the real world - it's a TV show universe... Our universe doens't have time travellers or san francisco registers, etc. It is not needed for this issue, however, because drafts existed.

Additionally, I will point out now that wikipedia police is NOT to have trivia sections in articles. It is also policy to generally not to point out possible production oversights, since they themselves are original research and trivia. TheHYPO (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I hate to say this. But go read Conscription_in_the_United_States#Cold_War_and_Korean_War. It says: "In 1948 the draft was re-instated. It was expanded by the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951, in response to the manpower needs caused by the Korean War." So... The writers are spot on, at least I'd assume they've done their research. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is discouraged because normally it ends up as, "In episode whatever, a symbol can be seen from the company whatever." If it's a major goof, or important information that can't be fit in anywhere else, then I don't see why not. And unless otherwise stated, normally television shows try to stick with history. Obviously the whole time traveller thing isn't true but almost everything else (minus people they've made up) is - shows try to keep to history perfectly. They don't make random drafts without explanations.

And thank you. That quiets the little history buff in me. And makes me feel better that the writers are managing to not screw up history. (Really huge annoyance of mine.) Sorry. Should've researched better. Have a nice holiday.(: -Babylon pride (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Livia's age?

In the episode "The Hanged Man" it is revealed at the end that Livia was born on March 3rd, 1923. This would make her 25--10 years younger than Dan. Is this correct or another plot oversight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When was this revealed? (I'm not denying it, I just don't remember seeing it) I don't see why should couldn't be younger than Dan. Actually, now that I think about it, She spent a good number of years in Dan's time. We have no idea if she missed an equal number of years in the past, or went back to the same year she left, but a lot older. No way to know. TheHYPO (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's right at the very end of the episode. I think it's safe to assume that Livia is older than 25. She lets on that she got stuck in her "future" sometime in the late 80s or early 90s (remember Dan runs into her at a rave during "Emily"), at which point she meets Dan only to disappear 9 years before the series begins (1998). Thus when she goes back to 1948, she is indeed older than 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that her age is going to be a unique calculation for this t.v. series. Her age after she started time-travelling should only be a total of the time that she was in the future, and not how long she was gone from her "home time." This also means that she would have two "ages." One for the people that know she's time-travelling, and another, presumably slightly older age for those who don't know that she's time-travelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buslovich (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fan Campaign

If you see other pages, with the exception of Jericho because it was saved, all of the fan campaigns have been deleted because they are un-encyclopedic. If you disagree, please list why below, but do not change until an agreement is reached. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is on you to establish why it should be removed, as it is properly referenced, includes a reaction from the show's creator, and there is currently more support for inclusion. FYI, the Jericho campaign was included before the outcome was known, because it was also properly sourced. The text is encyclopaedic, it does not include the non-encyclopaedic material such as links to petitions, and it also serves to stave off those kind of additions as we can point to the section and say "this is already covered." Again, establish consensus before removing, please. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that a fan campaign to save cancelled shows is not notable unless the campaign itself is notable. Almost every cancelled show will have SOME form of campaign to save the show. The question of notability stems from the campaign being larger than usual, which includes getting noticed. Frankly, I don't know if the show's staff acknowledging it is enough notice (most shows will notice campaigns to save their own shows. Some sort of media acknowledgement in an article would be nice - I don't know what sourcing was there before and I'm just replying to this talk page comment). The fact that it lacks things like links to the petition is good, and so long as the information is written encyclopedically, and not as though it was merely a fan attempt to point out "hey, please come help save the show", I don't see a bar from mentioning it in general - but its notability is what would be debatable. TheHYPO (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Yankee to please stop reverting the section - we are discussing it, and there is no point in disrupting the page needlessly. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't a news site, it is relatively up to date. As noted above it is well written and referenced. If the campaign fails, then you can remove the section and leave a footnote of a failed attempt to save the show - until then leave it be. Speaking of which - you don't HTML comment out a section because its being "discussed" - you leave it be till a consensus is made. By commenting it out you are "pushing" you side w/o actually deleting it. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed. Traveler's campaign had to be removed when the show's campaign was going on. There should be no exceptions. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The comparison to Traveller isn't really valid. I took a look through that article's history; the content about actions to resurrect the series never progressed beyond links to petition sites and mentions of the campaign. There was no sourced information, no reaction from the creator, and nothing to make the information encyclopaedic. We're not providing links to boost the effort, we're just saying one exists, and that the creators have acknowledged it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to include a fan campaign in this article would be to implicitly support that campaign by broadening its exposure through Wikipedia, which from my limited knowledge on the subject is not something that is keeping with neutrality. As much as I personally enjoyed the show, it is not in the same league ratings wise as Jericho, nor is the campaign as affecting in scope. I think that if by some act of God a fan campaign does save the show THEN add it to the article. Zredsox (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually on the side of killing any fan stuff, I assure you, but I have to say - does an article on greenpeace only serve to implicitly support greenpeace and broaden its profile in order to get people to support Greenpeace? I don't think so. Alternatively, what is the point of having a Journeyman article? Does having an article not implicitly serve to try and inform people about the show which might have the effect of intersting some readers enough to watch the show? The section is properly writen. It is neutral, cited and speaks only of fact. If someone wants to join the campaign, they must still actively find the campaign itself. This section at most informs people of the existance of a campaign, which cannot be seen as a-neutral. It is no more biased as the section that mentions these episodes are available online is a biased marketing plot to convince people to buy the episodes. TheHYPO (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The site should not be used to gain popularity for the fan campaign. It should be removed because it is not popular like Jericho. They saved the show, you didn't plus it says that it is far fetched to save this. Thus it should be removed! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the television show, not about an microscopic ancillary campaign based off of a myspace page. Unless there is a discernible critical mass that has a valid bearing on the show's future - it should be left at the gate. At best I would consider this trivia.

On a side note: I started a save Viva Laughlin myspace page and am wondering if there might be any fans here that can help me integrate that campaign into the VL Main Wiki article. Zredsox (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent)The text, as noted earlier, doesn't link to the petition site or the MySpace page. It doesn't use fluffy language, and it doesn't "hype" the campaign. Furthermore, the quotes from Kevin Falls acknowledge the campaign, and then indicates that he doesn't think it will work. This can hardly be construed as an attempt to promote the action. Finally, as I said earlier, it serves a secondary (but no less important) purpose in that it helps to fend off any opportunistic poster who wish to add' links. (I've already had one conversation with an IP who, after reading my explanation of the situation and noting the text we're discussing, promptly stopped adding such links.)

Other notes... if you want more context, there's also this interview with actor Hugh Skillen, in which he says "The cast and producers and everybody are very aware of how much the fans do and keeping the show talked about and alive." There's a newspaper article where the writer mentions the web site and encourages viewers to join the campaign. There's even a note on "Ain't It Cool' from Falls, saying "The decision to air the 12th episode had a lot to do with the passion of our fans through SaveJourneyman.net, the online petition and letters and emails to NBC executives." Right now, the information is relevant and noteworthy. If it succeeds, we can keep it; if it fails, it can be rewritten accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the myspace page that I saw cited when I typed my last response has been removed from the article. That alleviates some concern on my part. Although there really is no chance of it being back on NBC in the fall because of morbid ratings, there is always a chance that the NBC Universal property Sci-Fi will pick it up - Yes, there is hope in my heart!

However, I still think the best course of action would be to remove the fan campaign section header and cleanly integrate this into "Production" being the fan subsection does start off with, "Some Journeyman supporters initiated an attempt to revive production of the series [...]" which would be a natural continuation of the Production topic unit. Zredsox (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I've been thinking about the same change, as this topic is more suited to a sub-section than to being a section on its own. THoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, put it in the production section. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this is actionable and the discussion is complete. Zredsox (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want a good example of a show brought back (before Jericho mind you), Roswell was brought back for two seasons using Tobasco Sauce. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1597993,00.html74.229.215.99 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes, References and External links

Another editor reverted and gave as a reason WP Manual of Style. Here is the information WP:CITE gives:

• At Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnote referencing, it says the the footnoted citations with a number or symbol besides them are called footnotes.

• This is confirmed by Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short footnote citations with full references, which calls them footnotes when it says "a separate alphabetized reference section can also be included along with the footnotes" (emphasis mine)

• At Wikipedia:Mos#External_links, it says that we can "include an external links section at the end to list links to websites outside of Wikipedia for purposes of providing further information as opposed to citing sources." An "External links" section, then, is a "for further reading" section only. The show's official site, which is a primary source to confirm things like title spelling, timeslot, cast-members' names, etc. (The onscreen TV show is primary as well, but we can't link to that, except to online reruns on this official site.)

Given this additional information, could we please discuss before reverting?--24.215.162.198 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please spend some time looking at other articles. External links go in a section called "External links". The "reflist" tag goes in a section called "References", note that there is a bit of a clue there in the name of the tag. Please note that what you are wanting to call "Footnotes" isn't actually a collection of "footnotes" but a collection of citations or references. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:CITE#Footnote referencing, whose example clearly shows the section titled "references". While other pages do use proper format, one should not always goto "other pages" as a source for justifying action. However, the CITE page itself clearly shows the references section as the proper format. TheHYPO (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it say at WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references, quoting from the policy page verbatim. It clearly shows that "References" are not the numbered footnotes. (The term "Citations" is used here, but WP:CITE also allows "Footnotes" and "Notes"):

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

Citations (short footnote citations + full references example)

1. ^ Miller 2005, p. 23.

2. ^ Smith 2006, p. 46.

3. ^ Miller 2005, p. 34.

References

* Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

* Smith, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).

--24.215.162.198 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It says that is one option. It says that if you choose to use Harvard citations, you may prefer to use the numbered footnotes and then have an alphabetical list of references. It does not say that External links to official websites of shows or anything else should be the reference section. You are confusing the term "external links" with the SECTION "external links". wp:cite#Further reading/External links clearly indicates that the External links section (whatever it be called as appropriate) are for links to related websites that may be of interest to the reader. That's what a show's official website falls under and always has. All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". If that is not clear, I don't know what is. Cited sources: References. Other links of interest: External links. If that is not sufficient, you can look at the page itself. Goto the bottom. You will see The "ideal" usage: "Notes" for footnotes which aren't references (when you are explaning something in a footnote), "References" for full ref-tagged inline citations, and "Further Reading" (an alternate name for "External Links" per the section I linked earlier in this comment) for links to other documents not cited but which also have information about the topic of citation. TheHYPO (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One step at a time. As a journalist, I am simply asking how do we know the title is spelled "Journeyman" and what timeslot it is in, and who stars in it? The primary sources are the TV screen of the show itself, and, since we cannot link to the TV screen, the series' official site. Anything else that tells us the show's name, timeslot, stars' names, etc., are secondary sources.

The article lists the show's name, timeslot, stars, etc. Where did this information come from? A secondary source? We are supposed to use primary sources where they exist. Any journalist does that, any serious researcher does that. Let me just ask then: What are your linkable sources for the show's title, timeslot and stars? Are they secondary sources when a primary source is readily available. This is a serious question; I'm not nitpicking or poking fun, but just behaving as a trained professional.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to use primary sources. We are supposed to use third-party sources. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. And let's not waste any more time by discussing who we are going to cite to prove material that is very unlikely to be disputed, like the series title being Journeyman. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the same as what I referred to as "primary source" above: "the piece of work itself" (the TV show) and "the creator of the work" (which would be the production studio) and "the publisher of the work" (the network). Whether you call the official network site for the show primary or third-party, fine, I'll call it third-party, but you can see we're talking about the same thing. The official site is the main, authoritative source to confirm basic facts. A newspaper or magazine article or a website is one step removed from that. A good journalist or encyclopedia researcher goes to the closest step possible. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please try reading the content you've copied and pasted here. That part of WP:CITE is telling you how to format Harvard style references. This article doesn't use Harvard notation for its references. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Even IF (and that's a big if) you want to argue that the official page is a referenced source, it should be listed as a general reference under the same References section as the reflist, per the example at the bottom of WP:CITE. I do not support that change, however. TheHYPO (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you support that? I'm really unable to understand why confirming the most basic facts via the publisher (e.g. NBC) is such anathema. Really — why?

For this kind of objective, factual information, which doesn't involve qualitative claims, the publisher of the work itself is a more accurate, reliable source than, for example, an article about the show. By way of analogy, a book publisher's website, with the title and subtitle of a book and the name of the author correctly spelled, is a higher quality source for that information than an article written about that book.

I'm just not sure why it's so controversial to use the most solid, factual source to confirm these very basic facts. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't support or dis-support the change. The most appropriate action if you believe it should be done, would be to goto the actual page on the official site which information is derrived from (eg: the cast page) and use a footnoted reference for the section which is appropriate, and as such, people won't have to wonder what is sourced from that site and where on the site it came from. The homepage itself should not be blanket referenced, anymore than putting amazon.com as a reference on the "simpsons dvd" page since all the DVD features can be found by looking up the DVDs on amazon and checking. TheHYPO (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. Incidentally, I had simply alluded to your 22:41 statement, "I do not support that change, however." I hope I didn't misinterpret. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand. I was simply saying that I didn't want to be misinterpreted as advocating the change. TheHYPO (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation

Currently there are two opposing sentences in the article. In the heading:

As of April 02, 2008 the show has not officially been canceled by NBC.

and in the Production section:

As of April 02, 2008 the show has officially been canceled by NBC.

One of them is obviously wrong. Please correct whoever know what is correct. And please provide a source. /Cygnus78 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a fan of the show, I've been looking for news of its renewal or cancellation, and have not seen anything saying it has been renewed, but also, nothing "officially" cancelling it. I think until we have definitive information, we should remove both statements, as they are speculative at best. Thoughts? --P shadoh (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've found news of its official cancellation, straight from MSNBC. I've updated the article to add the reference that reflects this. --P shadoh (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, and we get Knight Rider redux in exchange? Some NBC network executive, somewhere, is in dire need of a vicious beating. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Life on Mars

Any sources which compare this series to LoM? CapnZapp (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but there might be a connection or two. I got to check it out. I'll type when I've found something.BTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Journeyman (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0%2C2777%2CDRMN_23962_5711403%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042023/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218051739/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100907_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100907_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042100/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101607_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101607_06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)