Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) Suggests that the airtimes should be in 24hr format.  Australia should be fixed.  But I wonder if the use of a timezone isn't indicated, here.  In which case, which timezone should be used?  For the USA, most national TV programs are tape-delayed.  So, when show is reported as being played at "9pm Eastern and Pacific", when does it play in Moutain and Central times?
With all this ambiguity, is listing the time really of any use? --Mdwyer 20:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Format 

message: Under the heading of "Be Bold" I have removed the speculations section. As much as it is interesting stuff to think about, there is just no place for speculation in the encyclopedia, it is specifically against the guidelines, and the few items discussed which had a reference (not just original research) were obscure and unnoteworthy. Again, if someone wants to add a link to speculations about Firefly, they are widely available, but the actual content doesn't belong here. BarkingDoc 05:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume someone has a counter argument? BarkingDoc
the speculatipns are bassed on scientific thoeries and interviews with good ol  joss.  i think they are worth keeping ( sorry forhte delay)Gavin the Chosen 05:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The section is great work. It would be a perfect jumping off point for a Wikicity. It's just not right for an encyclopedia. I've removed it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The wikicity where this stuff should go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations 

message: Probably because Serenity just opened, lots of folks are editing the "Cast" section to include the full names of Wash, Zoë and Book (which were never revealed in the series).  A previous discussion had concluded with the apparent consensus that this page should have the characters' names as revealed in the TV series only, which is why there's a note in hidden text in the "Cast" section saying:
     
Obviously, we can revisit this if a number of users disagree with the previous consensus.  What do people think? —Josiah Rowe 02:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the film Serenity is canonical in the Firefly universe, and is now released, I think we can probably go with the character names now. We might want to mention in this article which names were not mentioned during the series . It's less awkward for an article title, and one might expect these names to become gradually better known. But that just my 2¢. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough: I've removed the invisible text.  (I wouldn't want to argue with Q and X!) —Josiah Rowe 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this assessment. Ben W Bell 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That it should, especially since that name (spelled, I believe, exactly the same as you listed) was revealed during the series, in the episode "Shindig" (it's disc 2 of the Firefly box set, I believe that if you count "Serenity, pts 1 & 2" as two seperate episodes, "Shindig" is number 5, and the first episode on the second disc). 169.139.190.6 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character names, again 

message: I think the section on the role-playing game should be removed from this page and added to the Serenity page. The RPG is based on the movie, not the TV series and hence should be attached to the movies pages and not the TV series. They couldn't get permission to use the TV series as source material for the RPG unless it directly referenced from the movie. Ben W Bell 10:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role-Playing Game 

message: I didn't see the theme song mentioned in the article (maybe I'm just blind). Could someone make an entry about the singer and perhaps the name of the song (if it's available on disc somewhere)? Thanks. Gflores 06:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  theme song 

message: I have a feeling the last discussion page was purposefully archived when it was, as it cut off this discussion. I'm happy to keep the content on my user page, but I really feel like it deserves a sub-article. Staxringold 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody had participated in that discussion for nearly two months.  It's hard to see that as "cutting off discussion".  And if you think the Firefly/Outlaw Star comparisons deserve an article, then why not make one?  I think that the mention in the "Notes" section of this page is sufficient, myself, but nobody's stopping you from creating Firefly and Outlaw Star.  Of course, if you do create it, it'll be subject to the same criteria of notability as any other Wikipedia article, but that's another discussion. —Josiah Rowe 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was created and deleted in September. - EurekaLott 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the discussion is over, isn't it?  A consensus said that it didn't have merit as an article on its own, and a consensus of editors on this page said that it was worth a sentence in the Notes section.  Maybe the rest can go on the Firefly wiki. —Josiah Rowe 17:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked my newer solution, but it was immediately removed. I'm leaving the content on my user page, so why not insert it in the Notes section as: "Some fans[1] believe blah blah blah"? Staxringold 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived Conversation 

message: I just reverted back a change that described the Serenity as a 'Starship'.  The movie and comics establish that the entire series takes place in a single, odd solar system with lottsa terraformed moons. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  OK.  However, how about the events in the movie?  I don't think this is clearly stated.  As well, if the Serenity's drive is faster-than-light, references to starship would be more appropriate.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 06:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy!  Even the movie takes place within that same star system.  There is no evidence that the drive is faster than light in either the show, movie, or comics.  It's just...  a drive.  Pretty confusing setup, no argument. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Back at ya!  Agreed.  It seems like the (fabulous) movie takes place throughout multiple systems (though am willing to admit it does not), since its  beginning notes human emigration from Earth using slower modes of propulsion.  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 06:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought that the series and movie took place in more than one system (it certainly feels that way), but several pieces of info suggest that there's only one system, probably the most substantial of which are the references to "core planets" instead of "core systems", as well as the young-River intro segment in the movie. --Pentasyllabic 07:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been stated by Whedon himself and is mentioned in the movie, that the Firefly setting is one solar system with several stars and many planets. Ben W Bell 12:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there; no argument here!  Perhaps if this was referenced or cited in Wp (and perhaps I missed this?), there wouldn't be uncertainty to the contrary about the setting ... particularly in the movie (without that brief glimpse at the very beginning of ships departing Earth, this would probably be a moot discussion)? :)  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey; thanks for this!  That covers off both questions: setting and mode of propulsion.  Let's incorporate it somehow into the relevant articles (e.g., through a footnote or the like); I wouldn't want to clutter the article with an elucidation of setting for a fabulous movie/genre.  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added notes to both pages.  I hope they're sufficiently succinct. :) —Josiah Rowe 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks great, and should definitely help clear things up for newcomers.  Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Thanks so much for 'indulging' me. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spacecraft vs Starship

message: Could we maybe start a section discussing technology in Firefly? Medicine, Weapons, Ship Tech, that kind of stuff. There is an interesting blend between contemporary and futuristic. For example, the use of old shotguns in the midst of a space-faring storyline.
:I'm not sure if it is part of the article yet, but it would be good to establish the extreme difference between the level of technology in the Alliance and the outer worlds. For instance, Mal & co. use all old-style weapons, while there are laser weapons in existence. But, these are all in the Alliance and almost exclusively used by the Alliance military. Other than that, I don't know if it would be in keeping with the spirit of the show to go into details about technology (a la Star Trek). --Keno 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I read, Joss Whedon never wanted to get super-technical with the Firefly series. They have advanced technology but he left it to obscurity and wanted the characters to tell the story - not the technology. We just know, to live in the core worlds you have the technological wonders of the era. Out on the neglected border planets you have to live off the land and lead a much simpler life. Cyberia23 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of supraluminal (faster than light) travel in the series for example. And how everyone is confined to one solar system. The sonic rifles? The laser technology (lasseter?) would be particularly interesting; the lase weapons seem to be ballistic in nature, but are touted as laser weaponry. Or how the men in blue killed the guards in Ariel (one postulate is that Blue Sun consummables have nanites in them that will kill the host when exposed to the instrument used by the men in blue), etc. There's still a lot of stuff that would be enough for a seperate section, and would make the firefly entry more comprehensive. Karmon 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could have a section describing the technology depicted in the show, but you'd have to be very careful to avoid original research.  For example, since it was never explained how the Hands-of-Blue guys killed the guards, and nanites were never mentioned in the show (nor, to my knowledge has this theory been mentioned in any published source), the theory that you mention would be original research, and thus shouldn't be on the page.  (Unless one of the show's creators has mentioned this somewhere and I've missed it, or something.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it's consensus among Firefly fans? I remember reading through some posts on fansites and it's a very popular theory, though I am not sure if it was explicitly mentioned or suggested at by any of the show's creators. But yeah, thanks for the heads up. Karmon 06:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that if it's really widespread it might merit a mention, but if it's at all controversial I'd avoid it unless you can cite either production personnel (maybe a mention on the DVD commentary or something?) or publication in something like that Finding Serenity book.  But that's just my take: others may have different interpretations of the original research policy with regard to Firefly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello ... I agree with JR: if citable, verifiable works can be provided (particularly from the producers of the series/movie or Whedon himself), these could form the basis of a relevant section or article.  You'll get similar arguments from other genres – Star Trek being my pet – about what is canon, somewhat, or fanon.  E Pluribus Anthony 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology in Firefly 

message: Is there any reason why they aren't consolidated to Firefly/, or at least kept consistent by putting (Firefly) at the end of their names?  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to all have "(Firefly episode)" appended to the end, until someone decided that this wasn't necessary except in disambig cases such as Serenity or Shindig. --Pentasyllabic 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is the preferred Wikipedia style, to use parenthetical disambiguation only when it's necessary.  See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming.  As for putting the articles under "Firefly/", that sort of organization is deprecated on Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Subpages and links from that policy page for a history of why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The episode summaries are just sort of out there 

message: Has it been officially confirmed that the "two by two, hands of blue" guys were agents of the Blue Sun Corporation/organization?  I know that on one of the DVD commentaries Joss and/or Tim Minear says that they had plans for Blue Sun, that it was going to be a megacorporation that effectively owned and operated large branches of the government, etc., but I don't remember the connection to the "hands of blue" being made explicit.  It certainly wasn't made explicit in the episodes that were completed.  If one of the show's creators has confirmed this connection, we should state the source in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall this, either. If it isn't backed up by a canonical citation, we should remove the assertion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not explicitly stated. A (admittedly weak) case can be made for implied relation - River attacks pieces of Blue Sun merchandise on several occasions: Jayne's shirt in "Ariel", and supposedly ripping off the labels of cans while the crew is playing poker in "Shindig"  (can anyone confirm this?), and she obviously fears the Hands of Blue, who presumably want her back and want to conceal any trace of her existence (i.e. killing off anyone who has had contact with her.) The Academy that River attended was also "government-sponsored". --Pentasyllabic 06:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it's original research, which is a Wikipedia no-no. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hands of Blue =? Blue Sun? 

message: I see that we're still having problems with the essay on Firefly comparisons with Outlaw Star and other shows. I've just reverted Staxringold's attempt to have an article that was AfD'd as a cited reference for this article. The concept of no original research means that we Wikipedia editors are supposed to assemble published theories, ideas, and conclusions, not manufacture our own. As has been pointed out many times on this topic, it doesn't matter if something appears to be true, it's what we can cite. I reviewed the 8 citations that Staxringold provided in the AfD, and found:
# 6 are message boards. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." [emphasis in the original] Message boards are modern equivalent of BBSes and Usenet postings, in that anyone can post to them without revealing their true identity.
# 1 is an Answer.com copy of a version of the Wikipedia's Firefly article that included the controversial text. An article can hardly cite itself as a source.
# 1 is a user commentary from Jump the Shark, probably the only one of the cited websites that even rates mention in Wikipedia itself. However, this section is also nothing more than anonymous user postings.
The correct way to establish a theory that one desires strongly to include in a Wikipedia article is to locate reliable published sources for the information, then cite them. If one cannot find something through Google, there are always newspapers, genre magazines, and (heaven forbid!) books, perhaps at the local public library, that might be examined for such information. If none of these sources provide the desired information, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia for now. And if someone can't provide a better fact-based opener than "some fans have compared", we should delete the entire note on Outlaw Star, per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. As my own edits on the topic have shown, I have nothing against making this comparison, but I believe there are damn good reasons why these policies have been established. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To solve the problem; go buy a domain name, make a bogus website compairing Fire Fly to Outlaw Star, then come here to Wikipedia and link back to it. Instant reference. I'm sure it's been down already with other subjects. This looks like the biggest argument since the "One star or many" debate. However, all the parallels to Outlaw Star may be damaging. It makes Joss Whedon look "unoriginal" now, and stole a bulk of his ideas from an anime series. I never saw "Outlaw Star" myself so I can't make a decision, which came out first? I have to say, I hate anime these days - however "Cowboy Bebop" is pretty cool. Anyway, maybe it's all just a big coincidence. Cyberia23 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to protect Joss Whedon's reputation, so that shouldn't be a concern.  On the other hand, the fact that this comparison is non-notable and/or original research, and has been discussed at length before is.  Wikipedia should be part of the "reality-based community", not in the political sense but in the sense that the encyclopedia responds to and reflects what's out there in the world, rather than changing the world for its own purposes.  That's the core of the "no original research" policy.  Staxringold is, of course, free to make his Outlaw Star comparisons on his own page, or in his own webspace.  But the community has decided that it doesn't belong here, and that should be the end of it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources Jacoplane 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to point out that Cyberia23's suggestion of citing one's own recently created website implies a failure to read the "Using online sources" of the "WP:Reliable sources" article cited above. This demonstrates not only the wisdom of actually reading policy before suggesting ways to get around it, but also why reliable sources are so important — they can be verified and their provenance investigated for agendas and conflicts of interest that harm the Wikipedia goals of verifiability and neutrality. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give me a break... I been around Wikipedia long enough to know it wasn't acceptable. My suggestion was as stupid as the debate and I meant it as a sarcasm! I was joking people. (And I provided a links in case you don't know what a joke or sarcasm is you can look it up. Cyberia23 08:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Cyberia23; I missed the sarcastic joke. In my defense, I find myself almost daily disabusing suprised and angry Generation-Web editors on WP and Wikiquote of the earnest notion that they ought to be able to cite anything on the Internet as references, including their own blogs. Normally I might have quickly scanned your edit history for a hint of your true attitude, but I was in a hurry. I regret my haste. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No big deal. Sorry I was misinterpreted. Given the format of Wikipedia and the serious sensitivity of most users, I'm not so much a smartass here than I can be on other discussion boards. I guess sarcastic looking emotes like "rolling eyes" or something, would haved helped. Cyberia23 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I missed the joke too.  It is, of course, notoriously difficult to catch sarcasm or other emotional tones online, which is part of why emoticons evolved in the first place.  (Yeah, they're stupid-looking and often overused, but they do serve a useful function.)  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Could be, but check out the archived discussion page for more on this.Wynler 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be NPOV, but information on Outlaw Star (or any other non-Firefly program) in an article on Firefly is irrelevant to the article (and would be summarily deleted as such) unless it's making a point about Firefly. Since the point would obviously be a comparison between the shows, it's still an attempt to establish a connection without published references; i.e., original research. One can get often away with one or two such statements, but creating several paragraphs of such material fools no one. Again, the solution is to get reliable primary sources for this thesis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlaw Star redux 

message: Would someone be able to add a Music section to the article? I picked up the soundtracks (Firefly and Serenity) over the holidays, and I'm jonesin' for.. I don't know what! I'm not even sure what the "old west" sound would be categorised as. Frontier Americana? The violin/fiddle and guitar mix you hear repeated in the show (and also the "landing sequence" track in Serenity). The music was a huge part of the show; a mention about Edmunson(sp?) and the styles used would be really great to read. --Nunix 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the music, especially the theme song, has elements of bluegrass music in it, which is today considered a subgenre of Country/Western music. -R 169.139.190.6 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: music in the style?

message: Is it appropriate to put this template on all Firefly articles, such as those dedicated to episodes? -b 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so.Shsilver 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement

message: The article Science fiction Western, which was created in part as a response to repeated additions of other works in this sub-genre to the Firefly page, has been listed on Articles for deletion.  Editors of this page may be interested in the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Science fiction Western]] on AfD 

message: What do you think this article needs to achieve featured status? --UVnet 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't know.  But it would be cool.  And on that note, I've been doing a lot of cleaning up (I hope it's all for the best) of the Firefly category, merging articles, etc.  Feature article is nice, by why don't we make the whole Firefly genre a shining epic of Wikipedia's awesomeness? (I know that is horrible grammer and stuff.  It adds to my effect.) -b 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: I just started watching Firefly as part of COMCAST Digital Cable's "Sci Fi Month" offerings. There are 15 episodes available for viewing.
I've been over the episodes listed here on Wikipedia, and the episode that's missing seems to be the one where the bounty hunter infiltrates Serenity in an attempt to kidnap River and cash in on her reward.
I also notice that the DVD box set only has 14 episodes. Is this episode missing from the DVDs as well? -- 63.118.9.161 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the fifteen episodes include the original pilot split into two episodes since it was double length.Shsilver 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are only 14 Firefly episodes, period. The bounty hunter episode is number 14, "Objects in Space". There are 15 hours of Firefly in 14 episodes, with the first one, "Serenity", taking 2 hours, as Shsilver said. The only other explanation might be that Comcast is showing the film Serenity as a kind of "15th episode" of the series. (But Fox Television better not catch them saying it's a Firefly episode!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is refuring to "Serenity", as most stations refur to as two episodes (usually part a and part b, or something simular). JQF 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: When Sci-Fi channel aired the series to promote the movie, they split the pilot into two episodes running part I one week and part 2 the next. This is probably where the confusion lies. Cyberia23 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 15th Episode? 

message: I think the work of http://www.fireflyseason2.com/ should be mentioned somewhere on this page. -- 143.195.159.28 15:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, exactly? 209.51.77.64 00:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this should be mentioned, it's basically a fan production that wishes to charge and has gone nowhere as yet and may well not. Wikipedia's policy on fan films is generally that they do not appear on the site until the films themselves actually appear as so many disappear without a trace. Ben W Bell 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I had heard a rumor that there is a possibility of an actual second series being produced (possibly for release on another network, scifi perhaps?). I don't have anything to back this up other than word of mouth.
This is not a fan production. This is something like a petition only a bit more alive. I think it could be added to external links. --UVnet 04:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's already linked to in the "Notes" section. The Wookieepedian 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 2? 

message: The Wookieepedian recently started putting the episode list into a table, if there'e support for this we can get info from the original table. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-28t11:39z
: Well, I'm already on record as thinking there's no point to having a "honkin' big matrix" of details in the main article when most of that information is more appropriate for individual episode articles. I have no problem with a pretty table instead of a plain list, as long as it only contains a very few useful tidbits, avoiding clutter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the table since it seems to better organize the episodes. And since there are so few episodes, I don't think it hurts anything. The Wookieepedian 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The table looks awful the way it is. There simply is not enough information to fit the width. It looked much better when it was just a list of the episodes. 209.51.77.64 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode table.

message: In order to stop the ongoing (albeit slow-motion) revert war over the theme song, we need a reliable source for the lyrics, particularly the line:
: {There's | Have} no place I can be
: Since I found Serenity.
I haven't reviewed the DVDs lately (shame on me), but given the ability for people to hear what they want to in some dialog, I highly recommened finding a reliable print source if possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the DVD subtitles, it is "There's." -Shsilver 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right about "there's", but just watch any 5 minutes of any Firefly episode to prove to yourself just how unreliable the subtitling is. (Most of the errors are simple omissions, sometimes of entire sentences. But some of the errors are egregiously foolish, suggesting transcribers who had neither access to the scripts nor any real understanding of the show, or perhaps just were too hurried to be accurate.) It'd be better to have a more accurate source. When I mentioned the DVDs, I was thinking of a possible text listing, but now that I think of it, I don't recall any static info on them, even in the bonus materials of disc 4. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found what I believe to be a reliable print source for The Ballad of Serenity Lyrics.  Serenity - The Official Visual Companion published by Titan Books lists them on page 5, and clearly shows the line in the final verse to be Have no place....  Since the content of this book was written and provided by Joss Whedon, with the possible exception of the photograph sidebars, I am happy to accept this and have updated the article accordingly.  I too thought the line was There's no place..., but having recently purchased the soundtrack and listened to the song frequently, I am sure the lyrics given in the book are correct. BoydyB 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme song lyrics 

message: This guideline suggests using "(TV series)" instead of "(television series)", and the majority of TV shows are already named this way.  Are there any objections to renaming this article? Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User Reflex_Reaction changed the title just a bit ago (as well as a lot of others ), but since this is still a guideline and not a policy I thought it would polite to gain a consensus from the regular authors first. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think there should be a Wikipedia rule that no one can move an article without committing to fixing the redirects. (It's recommended, but most people seem to ignore this advice.) There are currently 412 Wikipedia pages, including 225 articles and 102 user pages, that should point to Firefly (TV series) but don't, including 16 that won't properly redirect because they're double redirects. (In other words, they're left over from the last time someone moved the article and didn't follow up with fixes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the redirects now point to Firefly (TV series).  'Cause I'm such an upright fella. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your fixing the double redirects so they at least redirect correctly. We should still fix the basic redirects, at least for the 228 (3 more now?) articles. I guess I'll be working on these for a while. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the work. I started on Flan (disambiguation) and got sidetracked into adding sources, a Wiktionary entry, and a Wikiquote transcription of the original Fillion quote for this term that I was previously unaware of. Not much of a Browncoat, eh? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, Jeff. As of now, I've updated the Firefly links on all Episode, Terminology, Spin-off, and Main Character pages. I'd do more right now, but I'm at work. :) EVula 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa, there.  Before you get carried away, you might want to take a look at WP:R#Don't fix redirects that aren't broken.  (I was only recently corrected on this score myself.)  Seems like the rule for redirects is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  'Though I suppose there's no harm if you've already gone to the trouble and all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Dammit, and I was so excited at the prospect of altering a single link on several hundred pages!
Thanks for the heads up on that, Josiah. I guess I'll refrain from hitting every single page... at least the main ones that are in the table are "right." EVula 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've wasted a fair amount of time on that sort of thing myself in the past.  I suppose there's still the aesthetic argument that it makes for a prettier user experience if people don't get that little "redirected from" notice at the top of the page, but it's pretty insignificant, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm. I'd swear that the "move complete" page says something that urges the editor to fix redirects, but I don't know the MediaWiki page and am not silly enough to move an article just to find out. I surely hadn't seen Wikipedia:Redirect. I must admit that'll save a heck of lot of time. But editors should still be sure to fix double redirects, as you did for us, Josiah. Thanks for the tip! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confusion actually stems from the "move complete" page — I can't remember its exact wording, but I think it says something like "please check 'what links here' and fix any redirects that may have been broken by the page move".  I think that what it means by that is to fix any double redirects, so that anybody clicking on a link that's supposed to go to the page will actually reach it; but I think it's often read to mean "change all the links that redirect to the page so that they go to the page directly".  That's what WP:R is saying isn't necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Um, can you move the soundtrack details to a separate article like all the other albums and just link to it, it's very out of place in the middle of this article and really spoils it. Ben W Bell 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it at least needs mentioning on here. The Wookieepedian 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we move the information on the theme song to the soundtrack page?  It strikes me it makes more sense there, and it does appear on the soundtrack album. Shsilver 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it looks much tidier now. Ben W Bell 08:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: Is there a specific reason why the DVD easter egg shouldn't be in the article? Specifically, the instructions on how to get to it. I understand the relatively good-natured spirit of allowing people to discover it on their own, but at the same time, the Wikipedia is supposed to be a compilation of information on everything (within reason, of course). Giving the instructions on how to access an easter egg doesn't ruin anything. EVula 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we should have this kind of detail, but if we mention the Easter egg, we should say how to get to it, but surround it with spoiler tags, for the same reason we have spoiler tags around storylines. Some people want to know, and some people want to be surprised/challenged. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Egg 

message: The setting section contains this sentence: An interesting intrusion of Japanese is noted in the form of katakana script throughout the television series and the film. Can anyone confirm that the script that appears is actually katakana rather than Chinese characters? Ashmoo 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also be careful to avoid presuming that all katakana is Japanese. In today's world many Cantonese writers especially in Hong Kong, use katakana within Chinese and not for Japanese. Ben W Bell 07:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting

message: I was given a link to an extended gag reel for Firefly. I absolutely love it; it contains some of the stuff that is on the DVD, but most of it I'd never seen before. I added it to the External links section (under Miscellaneous). Enjoy! EVula 15:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, but not very helpful as an external link, IMO. The Wookieepedian 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *shrug* I can certainly understand an argument for removing it; I was a bit torn about whether I should or not, but I figured it'd be better to be bold and add it than do nothing at all. :) EVula 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a gag reel? Njál 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative name for a blooper reel. EVula 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended gag reel 

message: The line "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes." in the second paragraph has come under some discussion, so here is a discussion. Should this say eleven episodes or fourteen episodes. Now the series was cancelled after 14 episodes were made, but only 11 episodes were ever broadcast in the US in the initial run. All 14 episodes were broadcast elsewhere in the world on the original run. The issue I have is that the show wasn't cancelled after 11 episodes were broadcast, the show was cancelled before 11 episodes were broadcast but after 14 episodes were made. Also the following line that states "However, strong sales of the DVD collection of all fourteen episodes" which seemingly contradicts the initial line of the paragraph. The line that states it was cancelled after only 11 episodes is incorrect on so many levels, it was cancelled before the initial US run of 11 episodes was complete and after 14 episodes were made. Ben W Bell talk 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have a problem if it was changed to "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes were aired but fourteen made." or some version of that, although it is a bit unwieldy.  Since the first half of the sentence is specifically talking about broadcasting and FOX, I don't think the airing in other countries is applicable to this sentence and since it is talking about broadcasting, to say fourteen implies all fourteen were broadcast.  If we change the sentence to "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after only eleven episodes were aired." does that address your concern about the later seeming contradiction? Shsilver 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what I just edited: "The series was broadcast on the FOX network and was cancelled after airing only eleven episodes. Strong sales of the DVD collection of all fourteen produced episodes allowed Whedon to convince..." I think that draws a better distinction. That work for everyone? EVula 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Shsilver 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. One thing, I think (personally) it implies that the decision to cancel was taken after eleven episodes were aired whereas it was before. Other than that it's fine (and I could live with it :)  ). Ben W Bell talk 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid argument, but I think that sort of information is better served elsewhere in the article. This is just the part for "Oh yeah, and FOX was being a dipshit and cancelled it well before its time" (POV? moi? Never!) without being bogged down by too many details. EVula 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 episode cancel or 14 episode cancel 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed    
:(For a full list of issues and suggestions, please refer to the "to do" list at the top of this page.)
 Davodd 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to put this on my watch list and volunteer to help with some of the cleanup as I have time. I should be able to polish the writing, at least, and go from there. Tony Fox (speak) 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made some edits based on the list today. Hope they helped. Barnas 13:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Made some more too, but does anyone know what items still need to be sourced, so we can get that "failing" removed? I can track down sources - plange 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think it's ready to renominate? -plange 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you all have done an outstanding job. - Davodd 20:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K, guys we just have a few more things to do-- does anyone know when the ad ran, and where? (see to-do list on Images) -plange 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: i think we should put the character names instead of the actors names: a la here, here, or here... -Xornok 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the improvements needed above that the picture should be captioned with the actors' names. Barnas 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can both be included, though with nine it would make for a long caption. BarkingDoc 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cast picture 

message: In the Official Visual Guide to Serenity there's a section called A Brief History of the Universe, circa 2507 AD. What is the source for the 2517 AD date? Is it from director's commentary? Deleted scenes? RPG?
:The original episodes (with Book and Mal's opening narration) originally gave that year. The Wookieepedian 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The televised versions weren't Joss' original vision, so the intros were removed on the DVDs. The Wookieepedian 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is Firefly set? 

message: Calling all Browncoats! I just started a WikiProject for us so that it's easier to collaborate, etc... come join us!
-plange 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. Count me in! The Wookieepedian 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject! 

message: From WP:Television they suggest these sections too, so I thought I'd take a stab here and we can edit here first before putting it full-blown on the article:
=== Impact of show on society ===
Per WP:Television: If the show created a craze, popularized a word (Seinfeld with "yada, yada, yada", etc.), revolutionized the medium (Sesame Street in children's television, or the mini-series Roots), or something else (many stores and businesses closed early on Mondays for allowing employees to get home on time to watch I Love Lucy). When this resulted in merchandise, movies, books or computer games be sure to name those.
Now we need to avoid talking to just the fans, so keep that in mind... How about this:
::While Firefly had no impact in general pop culture, it did garner a cult following and was one of few "failed" TV shows to actually produce a major motion picture.
=== Critical reviews ===
Per WP:Television: Preferably from major syndicates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press) and major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME), these quotes can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the shows, and preferably should not exceed three or so sentences.
Anyone want to take a stab at this?
:I've got a few links that might be useful for this, though unfortunately it seems any reviews from the original release are pretty thin. Something from the New York Times. From MSN.com. And from Hollywood Reporter. Much of the discussions here are about the DVD release, but they do get into the fan response to the show and the revival on DVD. Tony Fox (speak) 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion Idea

message: Per WP:Television: Preferably from major syndicates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press) and major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME), these quotes can either critique the show, or comment on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the shows, and preferably should not exceed three or so sentences.
Anyone want to take a stab at this?
:I've got a few links that might be useful for this, though unfortunately it seems any reviews from the original release are pretty thin. Something from the New York Times. From MSN.com. And from Hollywood Reporter. Much of the discussions here are about the DVD release, but they do get into the fan response to the show and the revival on DVD. Tony Fox (speak) 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reviews