Talk:Wonderfalls

message: The article says : possibly to avoid competition with the then-unproven, similar series Joan of Arcadia and Dead Like Me. While I completely agree about the Joan of Arcadia point, I think Tru Calling would fit better than Dead Like Me in that comparison, so I was wondering if someone should change that (I'm obviously new to this and I don't want to do something I shouldn't). Mynock 20:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If, in the future, you see something you think is wrong on an article, be bold, and fix it! That's the purpose of a wiki, after all. :D -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok next time I will ;). Mynock 00:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
On a related note, an anonymous contributor made the accusation that it was "no coincidence" that Joan of Arcadia and Wonderfalls were similar because both were based on Joan of Arc. I felt the statement to be rather POV so I reworded it to say that it was a coincidence, which by all accounts it was. 23skidoo 14:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show similarity 

message: Someone added a statement that the DVD release of the series was directly a result of the savewonderfalls.com campaign. I am aware that a few statements to this effect are made on the commentary tracks, but has it been confirmed officially that the DVD was the result of public demand? We're in an era where the DVD release of a TV series is considered almost as obligatory as the eventual release of theatrical films to DVD. What we need is a citation of a press release, news story, or some other reliable source that confirms Fox's decision was based on the fan campaign and not other factors. 23skidoo 02:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD comment re: savewonderfalls.com

message: The infobox says Wonderfalls was made in HDTV. Unless there's a source to back that up I dispute that as Fox certainly never aired it on HDTV and there's no indication on the DVD set that it was HDTV either. It was widescreen but not all shows produced widescreen are HDTV. Enterprise wasn't produced in HDTV until it's 4th season. 23skidoo 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the picture format to EDTV, since this is what Fox was broadcasting in when Wonderfalls was on.  They didn't start broadcasting in 720p HDTV until the 2004-2005 season.  According to this site, Wonderfalls was broadcasting in 480p Dolby Digital 5.1, but not in HDTV. rvb_strongbad 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HDTV?

message: I may be mistaken, but I remember catching one or two episodes of this series in Australia earlier this year (April or May?) on late night television (perhaps Channel 9). I haven't been able to verify this at the moment. However, I'm quite sure I saw MUCH more than the first four episodes; what I saw seemed to be a conclusion of some sort. Will keep tracking.Ratty86 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in Sydney and on watched the show earlier this year on Ch9. They did air the entire series on a pretty late time slot though. Ran until the final episode. RandomEcho 23:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in Singapore and my sis told me she watched the entire series broadcast on free-to-air some time back after she saw me watching the DVDs the other day. The version shown on TV was of course censored. Roy 09:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Censored? Seriously, what could they censor in this? :o 82.161.89.103 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm late, but seriously what could be censored? As close as they get to even swearing is "fu--" with a cut half way through the word... EAi 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other air zones

message: Would it be appropriate to include an overview of the series, as well as the behind-the-scenes trivia that this article is mainly composed of?Davind 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone really should do this ... Bryan Fuller deverse better! --Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: I have edited this section because it became a rant against reality TV; remember WP:NPOV. Also, the article cited the Friday night death slot as a factor in Wonderfalls' cancellation, however if you look at the original airdates for the 4 Fox episodes and actually compare them to the calendar for March and April 2004 you see that no episode actually aired on Friday; three episodes aired on Saturday and one on Thursday. If in fact the show did air on Friday, then the episode dates given in this article, as well as at tv.com and the IMDb are incorrect. 23skidoo 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the comment should be removed, but regarding the air dates, they are correct. The first three episodes aired on March 12th, 19th, and 26th, all Fridays (I checked the computers calendar and they all correspond to Fridays).  The fourth episode aired on April 1st, a Thursday, so the dates do not need to be changed. Remember that the fourth episode aired is the second episode on the DVD.  The dates are also confirmed by the dates listed on the DVD box for disc one. The Wikipedia article for March 2004 is wrong, other websites confirm that those dates are correct and that they were all Fridays, the last being a Thursday. rvb_strongbad 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Never throw away an old calendar. The calendar people change the days of the dates every year ;) Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence. It is supported by a reference, and there are plenty of other sources for it, and more generally about reality tv having an effect on scripted shows. - Chip Zero 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm willing to stand corrected, but can anyone explain this to me? -- Check the calendar at March 2004. It shows these dates as being Saturdays; if this calendar is wrong then that means a big problem. 23skidoo 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a better source for this than the existing source?  The title of the review is "Wonder Falls was Wonderful!  FOX MUST PAAAAAAAAAAY!" and it reads more like a rant than a proper review or discussion about cancellation.  Since the site is self-published, I don't think it passes the criteria in WP:RS, so it cannot be used as a source for that material.  I think removal of that passage is justified per the above.  If there is a reliable source that talks about the reason for cancellation, that a similar passage can be added to the article.  --GargoyleMT 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to the above, I have to state that I am only standing corrected on the date issue -- which would mean Wikipedia's calendar for March 2004 is wrong -- I still do not feel the POV statements that were removed have any place in the article. 23skidoo 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cal (Unix) agrees that the Wikipedia March 2004 is wrong.  According to cal, in 2004 the 1st was a Monday.  The Wikipedia article says that the 1st was Tuesday.  April 2004 agrees with cal, and February 2004 has no month box.  I'm going to correct the Wikipedia article now... --GargoyleMT 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm scared to look and see if the error didn't create some sort of domino effect with other months. Well, if nothing else comes from this episode at least we caught a major error in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not scared, it just makes more to clean up.  As I said, April was good, it started on the day after cal said March ended.  And there was no calendar present in February, so there was nothing to fix there either.  The style on the monthly pages is inconsistent, but nothing seems broken as a result of my change.  The calendar in March wasn't added until January 11, 2005.  It's been wrong for a while, but not from the beginning.  --GargoyleMT 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems there is no good (automatic) month template yet, so the march calendar was actually coded by hand, which explains the mistake. About the cancellation — I changed the wording and added new references. I really think these statements should be there, as they are the main reasons for the cancellation. Leaving them out makes the article read like Joan of Arcadia was the sole reason of its cancellation, with the superficial similarity and all. And it probably was a factor, but not as major as the other reasons (i.e., they "foxored" it up). - Chip Zero 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the goof was made by hand, that's a relief. I had visions of dozens of calendar articles having to be fixed. 23skidoo 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a better source for the "reality TV" angle?  The Iron Warrior article mentions Wonderfalls only in passing, and the "world's greatest critic" link is still there... I don't think either really back up the claim.  (The first one is good.  I guess Tim Minear has his own blog?  This might be useful in talking about Friday being the reason for cancellation... but there's nothing in the cancellation announcement or afterwards on his site that makes the connection (and would be a better source.))--GargoyleMT 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys feel the passage about reality tv should be removed, so be it. It is mostly mentioned on ("self-published") blogs and some site-news articles. I couldn't really find a better source for it, perhaps due to time constraints. (But remember that WP:RS is just a guideline.) If you think the source is too weak, you could also add a  tag — and perhaps one on the statement about "[viewers] dismissing the series as a ripoff of the now-popular Joan of Arcadia" would be appropriate too. - Chip Zero 08:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production history section

message: The article currently mentions that Wonderfalls "was delayed until early 2004, possibly to avoid competition with the similarly-themed series Joan of Arcadia". Is there any source that this was or could have been the reason for the delay? It seems to me that they should've aired it sooner rather than later in face of the competition/confusion with Joan. - Chip Zero 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this for now. If anyone wants to see it back, please source it and/or discuss here. - Chip Zero 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine without it.. :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the strategy was to avoid competition with "Joan", it certainly backfired.  Delaying "Wonderfalls" until "Joan" had tested the waters and been on the air for three months made "Wonderfalls" look like a copycat series (which it was not) and probably contributed to its early cancellation.CharlesTheBold (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airing delayed 

message: The whole point of Wonderfalls was the symbolism of view-masters used within each episode.  The view-master page links to this one so it'd be good to give some detail about this, don't you think?  86.133.163.84 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What about [[View-master]]s in Wonderfalls?

message: It is listed as a Teen Drama, but, come on, it is not a "teen drama"... It has nothing to do with teen drama, the show is totally not about teenagers, it is more likely to be listed as a Black Comedy. Someone should change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.200.170 (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've removed the "teen dramas" category. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Teen Drama?!

message: How is this show Canadian? - unsigned comment by 85.220.117.244 (talk)  
* It was filmed in Canada, using Canadian crew, and featured a Canadian actor in the lead role. There were other factors that made it a Canadian co-production. (Similarly, Minnear's other series, Dead Like Me was also a Canadian co-production.) 23skidoo (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However it was NOT filmed for Canadian broadcast, It was filmed for American broadcast. It was financed by Amercian production companies to be aired on American tv. Swampfire (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MAPL guidelines, that qualifies it to be considered a Canadian show.  68.149.186.57 (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: The article says that the title of the theme song is two words, but everywhere I check, it lists the "Wonderfalls" in the theme song as one word "I wonder why the Wonderfalls" thats how they have it on iTunes, and when I googled it as two words, it didn't come up with anything, but as one word it worked 24.148.26.74 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Words theme song? 

message: I'm going to restore the previous infobox image, which I believe conveys much more information about the series and so is a lot more helpful and informative to readers, while still falling under fair use guidelines as a promotional image.  If there is some reason to use another image, please explain in this talk page section. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Never in any of the episodes does the show refer to the talking animals as muses, so I'm curious why that word has been chosen for them in this article (if perhaps it was used in DVD commentary or something). A muse is a very specific thing in terms of mythology and religion, and since the show leaves the question of spirituality open I don't think it's right to just use that term. Even if you are just using "muse" in a general way, it doesn't fit. The animals don't exactly provide inspiration.71.190.182.22 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The creators/writers refer to them as muses in the commentary tracks and in interviews for special features on the DVD. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muses?