Talk:Timeless (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger?

There is a page titled Timeless (2016 TV series). I propose that this article and the referenced article be merged as it is not logical to have two article on the the same subject matter.--TGC55 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We should. This one is more up-to-date, the title is appropriate and everything links here, so we should merge the other article into this one. --Drmargi (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I put in a redirect, and moved the contents into my sandbox to make some initial revisions. There are some issues with grammar, to say the least. --Drmargi (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Stacking Rights

The article that stacking rights points to either doesn't apply to TV shows or needs to be updated to explain how it does. The article talks about how ships used to be required to keep their goods on display for a certain amount of time before moving on. I can see the analogy, but it should be explained somewhere. Morfusmax (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd just unlink it. Stacking rights refers to networks' ability to stream whole series On Demand after individual episodes have run. --Drmargi (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Working on it in my sandbox

Hello, I'm working on increasing more content on this TV series article with a deeper description and expanding on the fundamental premise of the show such as adding information about the creators and news articles and talk shows that offer their feedback on the premise. Anushkabg (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any feedback or guidance as I help edit this article. Thank you! Anushkabg (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Producers of the show are introducing the protagonists before the time-traveling criminal, I just wish to rearrange the sentence in the introduction that introduces the criminal first. Anushkabg (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

This is a very well organized and written Wikipedia page. I only wonder if this TV series have received particular award. Xinchi M (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the page and believe it looks good! I don't see any outstanding issues, but I'm not familiar with the show or this genre of article. -Reagle (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Music

Drmargi (talk) Although I respect that Timeless doesn't do music, I feel this section would be noteworthy in the long-run. Let me know what you think of One Tree Hill music section. Many thanks for your previous edits! Anushkabg (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

'ripoff'

Obviously not a neutral point of view to call it a "ripoff", but also, the relationship to "Ministry of Time", if any, should involve some citations. 100.36.70.166 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Like the citation in the section of the article that deals with it? Joeyconnick (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be some strong feelings about the show being a knock-off, although Timeless is far more different from than like Ministry of Time. I've just found a new piece with the producers' response to the lawsuit, which I'll add. --Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Online tie-in/version of Space Race

Any ideas how this ([1]]) could be integrated into the article? Somehow I don't like it being a note in the story summary, but wonder about whether it deserves a small section too. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent

Rufus Carlin is named for comedian George Carlin who played the time traveler Rufus in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Source is a quoute from actor Malcolm Barret which should be more than reliable enough if anyone cares to add it to the article. -- 109.77.112.20 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And Lucy Preston and Wyatt Logan are named after Bill S. Preston, ESQ. and Ted "Theodore" Logan, respectively. Sorry, but we don't post trivia here. - Areaseven (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that would be considered trivia, if there are also sources confirming the rest (at present we've only got the actor saying this). But if it is confirmed, then those names were chosen as a nod to a source of inspiration by the writer - granted with zero impact on the story - it could still warrant a brief note under production, as it would confirm an influence, which would be a decided improvement as that area currently has no sources at all. The deliberate nods that Spielberg and Lucas make to each other in their films are not trivia, are they? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's valid information. Posted on the characters article. - Areaseven (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Agent Christopher orientation

Is Agent Christopher gay? Jdavi333 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well she has a wife, so I'm going to assume yes? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mothership and lifeboat

I notice we are now referring to these as though they are formal names (capital and italics) in the episode descriptions. Is this necessary or even properly sourced? There are only two of them, it's not like Star Trek, these may just be generic names for these craft? We were not calling the prototype 'the Prototype' before. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mothership seems to be fan/media-based, but there is a line of dialogue in the pilot about the prototype, which one of the characters (Rufus, if memory serves) refers to as "the lifeboat." Whether that should be a proper noun is open to interpretation. --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If the terms aren't even used in the episodes, then they need to be removed. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire you can sign your comments by entering "~~~~" at the end of whatever you're typing (without the quotes) Joeyconnick (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

JoeyconnickHuh? Did I miss a sig somewhere? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lifeboat" is definitely used, both in scripts and in Comments by Kripke. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I think misread the edit history somehow. Joeyconnick (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson Fair enough but Mothership hasn't been, the summaries were over-using both, neither term means much, and even if we do start using 'lifeboat' we should not have it in italics without a source saying that's an official vessel name or similar rather than nickname (that's why the TARDIS is not the TARDIS). If we do include it we end up having to explain it in the summary and these summaries are long enough; one or two are very long at present and generally they're supposed to be kept to a reasonable length in line with other TV episode page standards (200 words or less I think). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I paid careful attention last night, and they definitely use "lifeboat" in dialogue, so using the term (arguably capitalized) in summaries is appropriate. Mothership seems to have its origins in secondary and fan media, so removing it is reasonable. --Drmargi (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You could certainly argue for its capitalization, but in the absence of something like the word written on its hull somewhere, or a document appearing showing that's what its name is, it would be OR on our part. Yes, 'lifeboat' can be used in some form or other (I've kept it in quotation marks elsewhere in the article), but since we don't know whether it's an official designation or a nickname or what, and whether it should be capitalized much less italicized, I suggest it's better, for now, that we mostly use the word we do know for sure how to spell, etc., namely prototype, because that's what it is and there's only the one. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as of episode 9, Agent Christopher refers to the stolen time machine as the "mothership". - Areaseven (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it! (I just heard it in the preview ad). Well, we can use both terms, still as lowercase and non-italicized for now, to avoid making the assumption (OR) that they are proper names rather than shorthand generic terms effectively describing the vessels' relationship to each other. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly reviews have both terms in uppercase, so perhaps we should stick to that. - Areaseven (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As of "Stranded" the show's website finally spells it out: "The team must battle the French, Indians and Mother Nature after Flynn sabotages the Lifeboat and traps them back in Western Pennsylvania circa 1754." [2] The Lifeboat it is. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"Mothership" is definitely used in the show. See episode 10, near the 13:50 mark. Flynn offers to "hand over the keys to the Mothership" if the heroes help him on one last mission. Efalk (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actor links

I added links to actors in the Jesse James episode, and they were removed. Are actor links not wanted on this page? Morfusmax (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As per MOS:TVPLOT, episode summaries just contain a summary of the plot, and not listings of who played what character. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, we're trying to keep the episode summaries to a maximum of 200 words, and adding actor links does not help at all. - Areaseven (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Censorship about plagiarim lawsuit?

I had write more information abou the lawsuit but somebody had erase it two times. This is the text erased:

The Ministry of Time first season was premiered february 2015 on Spanish public channel RTVE-1. The three main characters are: a soldier, a female historian, who acts as the group leader, and a paramedic, expert to act in emergency or disaster. The main antagonist is a powerful company that tries to manipulate History for its own economic benefit. One of the three protagonists (the paramedic) had lost his wife and had become obsessed with using Time travel to recover her. Onza Entertainment accuses NBC of receiving scripts, the first episode of the series subtitled in English and Spanish the "bible" of the series. According to the indictment, NBC and Onza Entertainment exchanged messages for months, until NBC abruptly broke off any contact, just before announcing that they would produce "Timeless."

This is the text erased. Is something wrong about it? Have made I some mistake? or is a case of censorship?

Two issues, well three. First, you remove the text about the response by NBC and the producers. Our discussion has to be neutral, not take one side. Second, you add far too much detail; moreover, you don't comment on the glaring DIFFERENCES between the two shows. The discussion is adequate as is. And frankly, there are far more differences in the shows than similarities. Your edit and sources don't address that. Third, most of what you add is unsourced. --Drmargi (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Canceled or Renewed?

Will there be a second season? I've been unable to find any information one way or the other about Timeless. Bizzybody (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

NBC hasn't said yet. The upfronts are next month, and may cancelation/renewal announcements are made in the days just prior to them. --Drmargi (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not surprised that show was renewed, the "dean" of NBC-Universal research, Alan Wurtzel, had several positive comments before the pilot became available in the first season. As faculty, Alan and I served University of Georgia in reviewing Peabody Award nominations for Peabody Board. Later, as NBC department head, he asked me for copyright waiver on my book "Chotankers". Avon Edward Foote, Ph.D. Ohio State University, former editor, "Educational Broadcasting Review" for old NAEB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:8103:5CBF:F5D0:32E5:5D3F:7E3B (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Season 2 Episode 1 Summary

My changes to this summary were reverted, with an edit comment of "rv plot bloat." I recreated my edit, with a slight additional change. I don't believe that it's "plot bloat" to, with the addition of 15 words (and still 1 under the 200 word guideline max), add information about Mason's character arc, Jiya's illness, Lucy being forced to commit murder, Lucy working against her mother's mission, Lucy and Carol having a definitive break, Emma interfering in Amy's existence, how the Curies were expected to help save a medical patient's life, the romantic subplot between Lucy and Wyatt, and Flynn's reaction to Christopher. These events are the plot of the episode, which is what the section is for. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Good summary. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs a little editing for grammar, but the content is fine. I don't see a problem. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Too many semicolons. Please refine and keep it under 200 words. - Areaseven (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I like semicolons. I generally use them to maintain close linkage between what would otherwise be separate sentences describing events in a single scene. Since linking words like "and" and "but" cut into the 200-word guideline, the other alternative is to just write a bunch of separate sentences, which I think is choppy. If you don't like the use of semicolons, you are free to try your hand at improving it, but use of semicolons isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a violation of a guideline or policy such that it's incumbent on anyone to change the article content to conform to your preference. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But they are excessive, and are grammatically incorrect. I've removed most of them, and a few less important details, to keep the summary under guideline length. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The semicolons were used, grammatically correctly, to form sentences containing multiple independent clauses. That you, apparently, stylistically dislike my use of semicolons does not make them ungrammatical. One of your edits, on the other hand, was actually grammatically incorrect; in my edit, I initially corrected your "allowing the Curies flee" to "allowing the Curies to flee," but ultimately made it "The Curies flee" as a separate sentence to free up more words. I added back in several plot points that you removed: that Lucy commits murder, that Carol and Emma interfered in Amy's existence, and that a romantic subplot was developed between Lucy and Wyatt. --DavidK93 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Darlington 500" Edits Reverted

Areaseven, you reverted my contributions to the summary of the newest episode. Your edit summary was, "Again with all the unnecessary subplots and romantic angles!" By what determination are they "unnecessary"? These subplots are the plot of the episode. You deleted information about Wyatt's background (to which most of Wyatt's dialogue in the episode was dedicated), how Millerson was affected by living in the past, the continuing romantic subplot between Wyatt and Lucy (who spend a scene hidden together in a storage space), the source of the conflict between Mason and Christopher, and Jiya's premonitions. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

David, you seem like a really conscientious editor, and I for one don't want to see that stifled by other editors. For most of them (and I include myself in this number) prefer brevity in a plot summary. I can clearly see that you wan tto go into more detail about these subplots. I would suggest that you start making episode articles. That way, you can go into deeper explanation about the plot, writing, production, etc. about an episode. You don't have to start with the first episode; follow your bliss. Good luck and happy editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and your suggestion. But I don't particularly think that individual episodes of this series are sufficiently notable to justify having their own articles; that would feel like unnecessary bloat to me. I believe that the guideline length for episode summaries within episode tables is long enough to be able to include the episode's subplots, and I believe I've proven that by actually writing such summaries. I will continue to do my best to write such summaries, and if individual contributions are by consensus rejected, I'll still work to improve the existing content regarding plotlines that are agreed upon as core to the episodes. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Guiding Principles for Episode Summaries?

I understand that everyone here is trying to improve this article. I would like other editors actively working on this article to explain why they have a preference for wordier sentences at the cost of entire plotlines. The summary of "The War to End All Wars" has recently been edited multiple times to remove plot elements including main character Lucy committing murder, Lucy appealing to her mother for a reconciliation, Carol and Emma interfering in Amy's existence, and the romantic subplot between Lucy and Wyatt. In all of these edits, despite significant removal of content, the word count did not decrease, which speaks to less efficiently written content. Areaseven, your edit summary stated, "Whoever wrote this plot summary needs to go back to grammar school." I am that person, and your comment is an explicit insult against me; please see WP:CIVIL. Please identify the errors present in the previous version of the summary, that speaks to my lack of proper schooling. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked...

• "Wyatt and Rufus take Keynes hostage, allowing the Curies flee."
• "Mason, who feels as though he has nothing to contribute, develops and algorithm to track the Mothership's movements as Jiya continues to have spells."

Apologies if these were not part of your edit, but someone had to do something about them. - Areaseven (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fair. Both errors were restored by prior "grammar" complainant Drmargi after I corrected both of them in previous edits. Thank you for re-correcting them. Nevertheless, it's still unproductive to suggest that Drmargi "needs to go back to grammar school." --DavidK93 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree; insults do nothing but make people want to beat the shit out of one another. Something I have seen in other articles - and it might serve us here as well - is a season summary. The individual plot summaries are like describing trees in a forest, whereas a season summary (or overview, if you prefer) shows us the shape of the forest.

I am of the opinion that plot summaries are to be skeletally brief in content. People will follow their bliss if they want to see the episodes, make episode articles. It is the only real way to truly dumpster-dive an episode and explore things like romantic sub-plots and background interpersonal conflicts. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree on two counts. "Skeletally brief" summaries are not what MOS:TVPLOT calls for. Per that guideline, "Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it. Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." Subplots are not mentioned, other than the implication that each individual plotline should be evaluated as "core" or non-core. I would argue that any storyline that continues between episodes is a story arc and thus a core storyline. I don't believe the content I contributed contained "minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes," even though others have described my summarized content about subplots as "minutiae." Secondly, an episode article is not the only way to explore subplots and character development; I have been writing such summaries within the guideline limit, which have been well received on series/season pages for other shows, but such content has been opposed by other editors on this page. All that said, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a season summary, but I think I would need to see it in order to judge. I have not written or contributed significantly to a season summary here, thus far. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Give it a try; you might find writing a season (or, in the case of a show from the UK, a serial) somewhat satisfying. I am not sure where you can find Timeless season 1 episodes, but if you do, you might find that a binge-watch might be in order.

I am glad that you have been well-received in other articles; bout you need to keep in mind that different articles approach things differently. For example, the Doctor Who articles contain (imo) a fanboyish gushiness of trivia that approaches that of explosive diarrhea. On science and math pages, the presumption is that the layman comes to the article with a Ph.D-level understanding of the topic. Finding a middle ground for the reader is good, but we are still an encyclopedia, not a fan-wiki or a professional journal. Most people aren't going to care about the romantic relationship in a scifi series unless it is of major import to the series.

Let me take a crack at an episode, so you can see what I mean. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to the "grammar" errors, you both may want to try differentiating between a grammar error and a typographical error, particularly before slinging insults directly or by implication. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 09:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"They almost kiss"

I cannot believe I even have to talk about this. It is utterly childish to even say something like that. Until they kiss, we don't talk about it. If there is a romantic relationship percolating between the two, then find a source that explicitly talks about it. We are not in the business of fan-gushery; its hard on the drapes and its hard on the article. I think the 'will they or won't they' stuff should die in a dumpster fire until then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You said it. That summary is loaded with minutia. What seems to escape one editor is that just because we have 200 words doesn't mean we have to USE 200 words. The summary should cover the major plot points. The kissing bit is the silliest of several excess details. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I've been avoiding whenever I post a plot summary here. Aside from a few proofreading errors, I've kept the plot summaries as tight as a drum to keep to the point without deviating to all the tiny subplots; yet someone insists that everything should be covered here. - Areaseven (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm "someone." This episode contains a romantic subplot concerning Lucy and Wyatt. Rufus and Wyatt discuss Wyatt's possible feeling for Lucy in two separate scenes. Then Jiya interrupts a romantic moment between Lucy and Wyatt, in which they almost kiss. Thus, I summarized this subplot by cutting to the point: the two characters almost kiss. This is an ongoing subplot continued through multiple episodes; in last night's episode, Lucy and Wyatt again have an interrupted moment of intimacy, and the preview for next week's episode was built completely around the romance between Lucy and Wyatt. Literally, the only scene from the episode shown in the preview is Lucy and Wyatt kissing. I appreciate the desire to keep the summaries "tight." I work hard at that myself. My philosophy on episode recaps is that every plotline present in the episode should be addressed in the recap, with detail proportional to both the screen time dedicated to the plotline and the importance of the plotline. 5 words, 2.5% of the recap, seems appropriate to this particular plotline. Jack Sebastian, if there's concern that the summary lacked a source explicitly talking about the romantic subplot between Lucy and Wyatt in the episode "The War to End All Wars," I'm happy to oblige:

• From Vulture:
  • "[Lucy is] interrupted by Wyatt in the most misty-eyed, meet-cute-again moment. With the Wyatt-Lucy romantic rapport reignited, our story is now fully set in motion."
  • "Wyatt is now the clear-eyed one, at least when it comes to his love for Lucy. Don’t worry, though; we know from this season’s previews that zzzexxxy time is coming for these two."
• From Den of Geek:
  • "The near kiss between Wyatt and Lucy could easily have been a distraction or something held until later in the season, but it was well placed here in the season opener, nicely framed by Rufus goading Wyatt to admit that he loves Lucy."
• From Smithsonian Magazine:
  • "Seems like everyone in this show besides Wyatt has figured out that Wyatt has feelings for Lucy, which is real cute. Wyatt, you’ll get there eventually."
• From AV Club:
  • "...something relatively minor, like Wyatt's refusal to acknowledge that he loves Lucy, can set [Rufus] off."
• From Entertainment Weekly:
  • "Timeless also stuck closely to well-worn TV tropes, from the time-period-of-the-week format to the will-they-won’t-they chemistry between two of its leads."
  • "After weeks of thinking the others were dead, Lucy, Wyatt, and Rufus are finally reunited — and no one is happier about this than Lucy and Wyatt. Everyone’s favorite will-they-won’t-they couple are so relieved to be back together that they come this close to sharing a kiss — only to be interrupted by Jiya, doing her best impression of C-3PO interrupting Han and Leia in Empire Strikes Back. From a story perspective, the Lucy-Wyatt relationship has always felt like a bit of an afterthought, like the writers decided that the show should probably have some sort of romance because, well, every other show on television does. But thanks to the chemistry between Lanter and Spencer, the relationship between Lucy and Wyatt has actually become one of the most captivating and charming parts of the entire series, and hopefully season 2 will see it develop in new ways."

In the article, I'd be happy to cite the Den of Geek and Entertainment Weekly sources, which not only address the subplot, but explicitly address the relevance and importance of that moment to the episode and the season.--DavidK93 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries are one of those unicorns of Wikipedia; they don't have to be cited in article space, and are put together by an agreement of what was important to note in the episode by all of the editors working together. References only come into play on the discussion page, which you have thoughtfully done here (good job, btw).

Clearly, we aren't arguing about the existence of a romantic subplot; we are of differing opinions as to the importance of it. it's mundane and been done to death, in my view - your mileage may vary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That strikes me as critical analysis of the subplot, rather than an assessment of its presence and importance. I agree that a romantic subplot between series leads has been done to death, and could only be more mundane if it were a love triangle. Nevertheless, the show included it, dedicated not only screen time to it but also conversations between other characters, and built promotional materials around it. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I take a day off on editing this article and find this. "Lucy and Wyatt have sex"? At this point, I'm not sure if DavidK93 is serious about his edits. - Areaseven (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose in fairness, it is what happens, if a bit inelegantly worded, and we don't generally use rhetorical language. I'm more concerned with the removal of Flynn's rejoining the team, which is a major development. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to reinstate that in my edit. - Areaseven (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I made a few minor tweaks to get rid of some clunky phrasing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Areaseven, in the summary for the recently aired episode "Hollywoodland" of the television show Timeless, you found a statement that Lucy and Wyatt had sex. This is because, in the recently aired episode "Hollywoodland" of the television show Timeless, which airs at 10 pm for a presumably adult audience, the adult characters Lucy and Wyatt had sex. The statement that Lucy and Wyatt had sex replaced the statement, previously in the summary but with different placement, that "Lucy and Wyatt's romance blooms." I felt that this content was clearly at odds with the Manual of Style, which recommends against the use of euphemisms, and explicitly recommends the use of the phrase "have sex." For that reason, I changed it. Assuming good faith, you are unsure that I am serious about my edits. So I wish to reassure you that my edit was made in good faith and in accordance with the MOS for the intention of improving the article. Side note to Drmargi, my reading of WP:EUPH is that accurate and specific wording is preferred over "elegant wording," as much as I strive for elegance in prose that I author. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semicolons

On multiple occasions on the talk page and in edit summaries, I've been criticized for my use of semicolons in this article. Drmargi called them "excessive" and "grammatically incorrect," while Areaseven noted, "again with the semicolons." Would either of you, or anyone else, care to comment as to what is grammatically incorrect about my use of semicolons, or why they should be avoided? As I have noted, I believe my use of semicolons was grammatically correct usage to form sentences containing multiple independent clauses. MOS:SEMICOLON offers guidance in the use of semicolons, and I believe my usage is consistent with that guideline. The guideline notes, "A sentence may contain several semicolons, especially when the clauses are parallel in construction and meaning; multiple unrelated semicolons are often signs that the sentence should be divided into shorter sentences, or otherwise refashioned." In the example given, a sentence with multiple parallel clauses is refashioned to replace semicolons with commas, retaining one semicolon. In most of the cases where I use multiple semicolons in a sentence, the clauses are not parallel, and my intent is to, as described in the guideline, "enable related material to be kept in the same sentence" by "marking a more decisive division in a sentence than a comma." --DavidK93 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Two-hundred word paragraphs intended to summarize a 40 minute TV episode are not going to be well served by a presumption that everything is a couple of sentences with multiple embedded clauses. Chances are it's going to be: The team go to X, one of the team doing Y while the other two do Z. Meanhile, in the present, A does this. In the past, the opposition does B. And so on. Most of the plots could minimally do their job with that template give or take 3-5 short sentences, so highly doubtful you'd expect to see a lot of semicolons. It's a 21st century TV show, not a pre-20th century chapter of a novel describing a gentleman in a suit. I can't speak for any of your particular edits (several episodes back seems to be what you are bringing up for the ... how many times is this now?), but if someone corrected your sentence and it has stood corrected by the community at large i.e., by conensus, then it's you who needs to step back and reconsider what you think is not only grammatically correct but also economical English, and no, it's not up to the editors to do that for you. There are plenty of existing sources for that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's disingenuous improper to call it "consensus." When I used semicolons in edits, the edits were reverted; reversion does not help an article converge on a consensus. In the process of (or in conjunction with) reverting, other editors complained about the semicolons. I asked to know what the substance of the complaint was. Other editors complained that I wanted to talk about semicolons. When editors disagree, they can reach consensus only if they are able to edit collaboratively or if they directly discuss the content at issue. You are the first editor to actually talk to me substantively about semicolons, for which I thank you. However, I disagree that it's somehow bad form to ask another editor to justify a reversion or to elaborate on a criticism they voluntarily put forward. In any event, I believe that "The team go to X, one of the team doing Y while the other two do Z," is exactly as grammatical and economical as "The team go to X; one of the team does Y while the other two do Z." --DavidK93 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you've had a BRD in which you fail to convince other editors of your POV, then, yes, that's consensus, which does not imply unanimity. That being said, it doesn't have to end there, you could always go to various appopriate bodies within Wikipedia to argue your case if you think it's worth doing; local consensus does not always hold. But I think you need to provide a more substantive example if you're going to convince anyone, as, by saying as you have, just now, that one sentence reads just as well as the other in this instance, then there's no reason to prefer one or the other and you're essentially spending pages and pages of talk page arguing about minutiae. In other words, if what you wrote was not grammatically better or worse than what was there sytllistically or substantively, there's no reason it should not have been reverted--or not reverted, either. But if that's really true, you should move on and not get hung up over it. Moreover, if that is true, then a solid argument can be made that the simpler, more conventional prose should be preferred over that which is more demanding on the casual reader of the article--and in general that'll be without semicolons. I should stress that I don't have a dog in this particular fight beyond being more interested in grammar and good prose than most, but like you said no one was addressing what you were asking so I thought I'd do my best. I can't say I'll stick around beyond this sentence though, as I've got other things to do.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, though, there was just BR. I tried to initiate D, but it's only happening now, between us, weeks after the edits in question. ZarhanFastfire, I think you acknowledged that you didn't examine the specific edits in question. So, just to clarify, I predominantly didn't edit sentences into similar sentences that used semicolons; I authored new article content (here and here), making substantive changes to the plot summary, and in the course of that, I wrote wholly new sentences that contained semicolons. Drmargi did reconfigure content to remove semicolons, and I don't believe I ever edited or proposed the editing of those passages back to the semicolon-using versions; she did also in some cases entirely delete content that had been set apart with semicolons, and I think I did restore some of that content later. Areaseven, on the other hand, partially reverted my edits and cited semicolons as part of the reason, but he reverted the affected content rather than refactoring it to reduce semicolon usage. I'm actually not trying to convince anyone of anything about semicolons; I'm asking the editors who complained about semicolons to make their case. You provided a hypothetical example, but what I was really looking for (and I think is reasonable to expect) was for Drmargi or Areaseven to write about why specific article content is better without semicolons than with them, in part to guide me in avoiding semicolon use that other active editors here find objectionable, but also hopefully to dissuade those editors from reverting on the basis of semicolons. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Hollywoodland" Summary

I edited the summary for "Hollywoodland" here, and Areaseven changed certain passages to closely resemble the previous version here. Two of those passages are, in the summary as it currently exists, closer to the older version than to mine, so I wish to raise them specifically. First, I deleted the clause, "Just as Lucy and Wyatt's romance blooms," (in the present article, "As Lucy and Wyatt's romance develops,"), and elsewhere in the article added the sentence, "Lucy and Wyatt have sex." I believe that this conforms to the MOS as described in WP:EUPH, which specifically recommends use of the phrase "have sex." I would argue that Lucy and Wyatt's "romance developing" is something that happened in the previous two episodes, and my efforts to add content about that ongoing storyline to the summaries for those episodes was rejected here. In this episode, what happened is that Lucy and Wyatt had sex. To state that their "romance developed" is vague, while to state that the characters "had sex" is clear and should be preferred and I believe is preferred by the MOS. Second, I replaced the sentence, "Meanwhile, after witnessing Jiya's latest seizure episode, Agent Christopher discovers the truth about the side effects of time travel," (in the present article, "Meanwhile, after witnessing one of Jiya's seizures, Mason tells Agent Christopher about the side effects of time travel experienced by earlier pilots.") with the two sentences, "Jiya is medically examined; her brain is fine and her existing heart murmur has ceased. Mason tells Christopher a previous afflicted pilot became schizophrenic and another died." I believe my change was an improvement because it tells us the health of the character Jiya, whose medical symptoms have been the focus of an ongoing storyline that started last season. Additionally, instead of only stating that the side effects are discussed, it actually states what the side effects are--information revealed for the first time in this episode. It does not look like the intervening editors wished to preserve these aspects of my change. Would a compromise version of this passage perhaps be acceptable? I suggest: "A medical exam finds Jiya in peak health, but Mason tells Agent Christopher previous afflicted pilots suffered schizophrenia or death." --DavidK93 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We're now three episodes in, and you're moaning about being edited every time. In total, you've started five threads complaining about being edited, and made major contributions to a sixth. I'm not sure this is the best place for you to be editing. These kinds of changes are made all the time, but you seem to be taking them very personally. No one has the time or inclination to discuss your complaints about what are principally the same two issues (minutia and semi-colons) in multiple threads; that's just self-indulgent. I'd suggest you reconcile yourself to the fact that other editors don't share your love of semi-colons and will edit your writing, or find an article where your brand of writing is better received. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Drmargi. I have started and contributed to threads in order to work on improving the article. Do you have comments on the article content? Many editors on this article have chosen to address me and my changes, in statements on both this talk page and in edit summaries. Thus, I have responded. I would not normally start lots of Talk page threads. However, on this page in particular, my contributions have been frequently reverted and complained about. Thus, I'm enthusiastically participating in the "Discuss" part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. (Edited to merge separate comments into one post.) --DavidK93 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I made both changes (but I made it "...Mason tells Agent Christopher that previous afflicted pilots..."). Since, despite a lack of engagement on the above, it seems likely to me that the change in the passage about Jiya is noncontroversial while there may still be objection to the inclusion of the statement that Lucy and Wyatt had sex in the episode, I made the changes in two separate edits for ease of future edits, and of discussion if needed. --DavidK93 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Barring the whole euphenism argument, I find it ridiculous that you are hellbent on insisting that "Lucy and Wyatt have sex" should be a thing on the episode plot summary. Especially with the fact that Timeless is rated TV-PG! - Areaseven (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a major plot element. Especially with his wife back, it makes for a good ironical turn of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 11:15, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the suggestion to "bar" the euphemism argument; MOS:EUPHEMISM is a Wikipedia guideline I invoked here because I believe it provides clear guidance on this article content. And I disagree that mentioning "sex" in Wikipedia article content about this episode is differently appropriate from the episode's depiction of sex between its characters. Nevertheless, it's clear that there is a consensus here to avoid mentioning "sex" in the article content. I am still concerned that "As Lucy and Wyatt's romance further develops" is not specific enough. The initial development of the romance occurred in the first two episodes of the season, but isn't mentioned in those summaries. Saying only that the romance "further develops" leaves it unclear as to what state the romance develops into, when in my opinion a plotline's endpoint is the most important aspect of it to mention. I have edited that passage to read, "After Lucy and Wyatt begin a romantic relationship," to make it clear that they are together as a couple. It just now occurred to me that it might be even better as, "After Lucy and Wyatt become a couple," but I don't want to spam the edit history. If another editor agrees that this proposed language would be an improvement, please make the edit with my endorsement. Otherwise, I will probably leave that passage as-is if it's not objectionable to anyone. --DavidK93 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Or, another alternative that just occurred to me, instead of "Lucy and Wyatt have sex," we could write "Lucy and Wyatt sleep together," and put it at the earlier location in the summary (as it happened during the time travel portion of the episode). I think this would actually be my most preferred option for the text at this point. It's a milder statement than "they have sex," but stronger than a different recent edit, "spend the evening together." And, although in my opinion still a euphemism, it's nevertheless accurate and faithful to what was shown onscreen; they kiss, and later wake up together, unclothed, in bed. --DavidK93 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Drmargi reverted my edit, but it should be noted that this doesn't resolve the discussion. I invite editors to provide reasoning as to why "As Lucy and Wyatt's romance further develops" is better article content than "After Lucy and Wyatt begin a romantic relationship" or "become a couple." --DavidK93 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I did find the line "Lucy and Wyatt have sex" a bit... abrupt? But it's certainly not something we shouldn't be saying based on the purported audience or real censor rating of the show. We're an encyclopedia—we deal in facts. What some TV network or national industry group decides is "proper" language at certain times of day and night is beyond completely irrelevant to how we describe things here. I would go with "Lucy and Wyatt end up in bed together" myself but even that is somewhat euphemistic. But I'm 100% behind DavidK93 on the issue of whether the initial line, however curt, was appropriate: it was. If it was objectionable, it was because it didn't make the summary flow, not because it included the words "have sex". —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about the flow. The sentence there can come off as abrupt mainly, I think, because the summary omits mention of surrounding scenes, such as Lucy focusing on Wyatt while performing a musical number, and the trio going to stay at Hedy Lamarr's house. If you like "Lucy and Wyatt end up in bed together," I'd suggest "Lucy and Wyatt sleep together" as a more concise and marginally less euphemistic option. Perhaps, for flow, we could move it to the end of the summary, making the final sentence, "After Lucy and Wyatt sleep together, Wyatt discovers that his presumed-dead wife Jessica is alive." Or "end up in bed together" at that location is not objectionable to me, despite my preference for a different version. My main concern at this point is that, regardless of its precise location in the summary paragraph, the current text that "Lucy and Wyatt's romance further develops" is needlessly vague. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well and the other big problem with "Lucy and Wyatt's romance further develops" (other than the awkward word order) is that it presumes they have a romance already extant, which I don't think is true. They have an attraction/fondness/interest, sure, but to call what's gone before a "romance" is overstating it considerably. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: So, they had sex. What is the big, prudish dealio?

was unaaware that another section about this had already been initated
Are we pretending that this is a children's show? People are murdered with alarming frequency, salty language¹ and all sorts of eviltry takes place. What is the bias against pointing out that two people are physically expressing physical attraction for one another? They slept together. They fucked all night. They were even marveling at how "great" it was, so why are we pretending it didn't happen? I am not suggesting that we go into detail into the sex act (as it takes off-screen), but we are editors, not religious prudes. We note that two people sleep together when they wake up nekkid next to one another. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is so out of hand it's ridiculous, as is your blanket assumption that the change in language is due solely to prudery. First of all, a lot more went on than just the two of them knocking boots. David's blunt language has no context and reads as though they just decided to do the deed. The important element of the episode was that they went from to-ing and fro-ing to actually committing to a romantic relationship, and there was more to it than just two people, as David inelegantly phrases it, having sex. The material point is that they moved from a working relationship to a romantic one, and the language used should reflect that. The second issue, of course, is that David simply will not tolerate having anything he wrote edited. Look at the stream of threads that have ensued following perfectly routine edits to his summaries. He needs to accept that he is subject to and will be edited. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree that there is a lot more to Lucy and Wyatt's relationship than the fact that they had sex in this episode. However, when I added text to the summaries of the two preceding episodes describing developments in the relationship between Lucy and Wyatt, that content was reverted by Areaseven both times, so I didn't bother to attempt anything similar in this episode summary. If you think more information about Lucy and Wyatt's romantic subplot belongs in this or other episode summaries, I encourage you to add it. But I would suggest that you choose concrete language that describes specific scenes between the two characters or where their relationship is discussed. There is even language in your comment just now that I would have accepted for the article had you proposed or implemented it, rather than reverting my most recent edit; "Lucy and Wyatt commit to a romantic relationship" and "Lucy and Wyatt's working relationship becomes romantic" both sound good to me, and I see now that it's the emphasis on the definitive change in the nature of their relationship that I found lacking in the versions of the passage that I edited. Drmargi, the rest of your comment is really not pertinent to the topic at hand, which is the content of the article. But, for the record, I am very tolerant of content I write being edited. It happens all the time, on pages throughout this project, and rarely occasions this level of contention. What I do take issue with is being reverted. Reversion of an edit carries an implication that the reverter found nothing of value in the reverted edit. And, as I mentioned, multiple editors on this page found it necessary to not only revert my edits, but to explicitly criticize the edits and me personally both on the Talk page and in edit summaries, comments to which I responded in as constructive a way as possible, seeking to understand the reasons for the reversions, despite an apparent preference from the editors in question to continue to criticize me and my Talk page comments rather than discuss the edits and the article content. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the discussion of the specific language "have sex" is obviated by the fact that it neither appears in the article nor is proposed by any editor at this time. Drmargi, your last reversion of my edits was to change "After Lucy and Wyatt begin a romantic relationship" to "As Lucy and Wyatt's romance further develops," which doesn't touch on the "Lucy and Wyatt have sex" of previous versions. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I get both of your points, though I take a bit of exception to the personal attacks aimed at DavidK93 by Drmargi. Simply put, that shit has to stop; it doesn't inspire a spirit of collaboration that is required in all editing. So knock it off, Drmargi, please.

I think the romantic relationship between the two leads, while probablya foregone conclusion, feels shoehorned to me. Seriously, there was practically none of this in season one - there was a betting pool at a Lucy/Flynn relationship more than a Lucy/Wyatt sexity-sex-sex party. That said, I think we're trying to shoehorn it nto the ep summaries just as inelegantly. I think the current version or David's suggestion:

"Lucy and Wyatt's working relationship becomes romantic"

work equally well. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the current version (which I authored), but in the spirit of collaboration (and as I indicated earlier) I would not complain about "Lucy and Wyatt's working relationship becomes romantic," if that were to become the article's content. --DavidK93 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking some time off, I have throught there must be a middle ground we can find; it doesn't have to necessarily be my way or your way.

"Lucy and Wyatt's working relationship takes a romantic turn"

I think this encompasses both of our views, and reflects recent events (Wyatt's wife is back in the timeline, etc), so you just know the showrunners are going to milk that love triangle like the proverbial Royal Cow. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I like that language less than either of the previous options we were considering; a mention of a "turn" strikes me as unnecessarily vague, and I don't think we need our episode summary to lean into any speculation about what is planned for the future of the storyline. If you prefer "Lucy and Wyatt's working relationship becomes romantic" over the current "Lucy and Wyatt begin a romantic relationship," then please make that edit with my endorsement. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Good working with you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping talk it out. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)