Talk:Haven (TV series)

Rebooting discussion

Attempting to restart the conversation (while scrubbing away the incivility and bad faith interpersonal stuff), I think we can summarize the three discussion points as follows:

• Are there too many references to Stephen King material in the 'References to other works' section?
• The removal/addition of Nicholas Campbell (and others) from the Cast section of the infobox - what is the policy/guideline on point that we can use to guide us in resolving this issue?
• Can we find consensus on an infobox color that is representative of the article?

I'll wait to hear back from as many editors as possible before responding myself. Please remember that posting immediately before or after making a WP:BOLD change is very likely to be reverted. A lack of solid, actionable consensus has plagued this article in the past; let's not repeat the problems of before. Let's talk until we have aforementioned consensus. There is room here for all opinions, but the middle ground (based within Wiki policies and guidelines) is what goes into the article. Please remain polite, civil and professional; this is as much an instruction for myself as it is for others.
I look forward to getting some input on the bulleted points. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To your points

• 'References to other works' section seems OK to me. At least it's decently referenced, which is more than can be said of similar sections in other articles.
• Cast should be based on opening credits, as far as I understand policy here. Smallville had lots of back and forth about that.
  • Looking through the prior discussions and the article itself, having Nicholas Campbell listed in the infobox as Season 1 main cast looks fine to me. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Infobox color? Let it be default. It's good enough for Smallville, Supernatural and Charmed.

--‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the cast issues which people just want to fight over... cast members were demoted for season 2 to recurring guest stars rather than irregularly appearing stars. Some of the people listed in the cast article as supporting and recurring characters were/are portrayed by cast members who in the first season were starring in the episode(s) in which they appeared and who if they are in season 2 are credited as guest stars. If you follow so far then you understand how the classification scheme that is trying to be forced on this show doesn't work. Most shows don't credit someone who is in 3 episodes as a star in one season and then when that person is in 4 episodes of the next season credit them as a guest star. It really makes little sense. Until you consider the difference of cents it makes. Guest stars generally get paid less. Despite being guest stars in season 2 the newspaper editors and the reverend function as series regulars. Being demoted for season 2 does not negate their starring roles in season 1.
As for the colour of the navbox, it made me think of peanut butter and honey; not particularly anything at all to do with the show, which generally has a darker tone to it. I personally tolerate it and if i were really hating it would just put it into custom css to fix for my eyes only but that doesn't mean i like the default (puke) blue.
The connexions to other works of or derived from Mr King seems sensible as it presently is. The bit that has appeared at times that feels like it picks apart every frame of the opening titles is a too much. While likely accurate it hold little meaning outside of the show itself. If you can find something that reviews the segment itself then using that as reference something could be said of the hints and clues found there.
The idea to reboot all of the talk page is a bad idea but i am willing to humour you here. Rebooting when the first is not yet cancelled is a fool's journey. Also, reboots of tv shows SUCK. Bye bye Charlie, /s/ the Angels. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

References to other works

I think an obvious reference in the show to in the show to previous Stephen King's work would be the title of the show and the exact place it takes place in. The city of Haven and not Moose-Lookit Island the location "The Colorado Kid" took place in. Haven being from the Tommy Knockers.24.115.19.178 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

Just notice a cross reference to The X-Files.

In the Episode "SOS", Audrey makes a remark about "the guy you trained chaising UFOs" towards her FBI chief. Maybe we can put that into the the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.30.14 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember that info was already in older versions of the article as "Takes place in the same univers as X-Files". Has been deleted for some reasons. Probably because it has no "source" or is no proof or the usual wiki-spoilsport stuff. UltraBlonz (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"No proof" is a pretty darn good reason to not include, considering, you know, there's no actual evidence this takes place in the same universe as the X-Files. Otherwise we're simply making stuff up to fit theories and make fanboys squee. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah - it's a quite obvious hint, so obvious, that its not even a hint anymore. And there are possible phrasing to reflect that - such as "seems to take place in the same..." But deleting is so much easier. I am not even fan of X-files or Haven, but noticed that connection. Then again: I personally don't need that in the article. To fans it's stating the obvious anyhow. But thats then probably also the case for the various connections to Kings work which are still in the article. They seem to fall partly also in the "making stuff up to fit theories and make fanboys squee" category. If you think about it: Whats the proof behind "Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names, characters and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films based upon said works." None. Right? And what's this information worth anyhow? But that was not my point. I am more criticising the "citation needed" craze, the deletion of any information which is not verified by at least the pope in writen and the like. But thats another story. UltraBlonz (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Campbell

Why is he listed as in the main cast when he was only on for one season? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 04:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adam Copeland

Due to his major character change and roll in Haven I believe he should be listed under the main cast as he is now in a much bigger Roll and is more active in the series since season three JMichael22 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Until he's credited as a lead, he doesn't need to go into the main cast section. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. Lots of actors have visibly active roles and still aren't leads. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Vinessa Antoine

Evidence Ryan? On the show it's not mentioned often to be Ryan as her last name she is referred to as Evi Crocker or Simply Evi... Can I please get some thoughts on this JMichael22 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Version Blanked

Hello,

I'm fairly new to the mobile version of Wikipedia, so I really have no way of fixing the problem myself; so I'm posting this here in hopes that someone else can do it.

The mobile version of this page (see the mobile version here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haven_(TV_series) ) has been completely blanked. This may just be some sort of server glitch, but I don't know for certain.

Thank you for any help. 75.171.39.49 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this must be a server issue, as both mobile and desktop sites draw from the same wikitext. Probably just have to wait for the server to sort itself out. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haven (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100920205631/http://www.digitalspy.co.uk:80/tv/tubetalk/plp/ to http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/tubetalk/plp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 04:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)