Talk:Day Break

message: This show isn't nearly popular enough to merit linking to nonexistent character pages. I move that we take those links out. SnappingTurtle 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so I did it. Darquis 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but the guideline is that fictional characters are generally covered in the article on the fictional work, not in their own article. It's a better structure for the encyclopedia, regardless of space issues.--Srleffler 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to characters?

message: Not to be mean or anything, but i really think that this is a tv remake of the ever-popular movie Groundhog Day.
Just because it has the same premise does not mean that it is a remake, not by a long shot. So don't try to say anything of the sort please. TostitosAreGross 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Groundhog day

message: The page says its a 13 hour miniseries but only 12 episodes are listed.
:The first episode was two hours, making both 13 hours and 12 episodes correct. Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42)
The first episode was one hour long, not two. There was two episodes shown on the night.
Thirteen episodes seems long to be considered a miniseries.  Many regular series are canceled before they reach 13 episodes. BuffaloChip97 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the difference here is that this is a short story arc that is designed to end after 13 episodes... unlike series that are canceled after three shows, which are designed to continue onward but don't get the chance.  --Psiphiorg 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The show was ridiculously delayed until mid-November, 2 months after audiences had already set their viewing choices of "new shows". It never had any chance. --OBloodyHell (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that if the show is renewed for a second season it will feature a different looping day than this one (i.e. one day a season) - SPKx 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 Hours

message: I changed the capitalization to a lower case "the" - that's the way it's officially listed on the ABC website.    If you have reason to believe it should be different, please discuss it here.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What If He Can Change the Day 

message: Please keep the separate articles for each episode.  This show is all about details.  It is a puzzle, like a video game.  If the articles are merged the details will be lost. (And in the grand wikipedia tradition, there are no useful links to other places where the episodes are summarized/analyzed in detail.  This has nothing to do with any theoretical access to the total shows themselves.  If you have any good links, maybe you'll be allowed to share them on this Talk page?) 69.87.200.159 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Don't Merge 

message: Official word is that the show is canceled. Has there been any official mention on how the remaining episodes might be distributed? Theirishpianist 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A New York Times arts brief indicated that ABC will stream it on ABC.com.  --  Wikipedical 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you do that?  --theDemonHog 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if i'd tell you, i'd probably be blocked for disruption. google is your friend.
I just checked the ABC website and now the schedule says the show will be on at 10/9c on December 27th. Maybe they un-cancelled it?--Bouncy 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well what do you know, it sure does.  It seems unlikely that this is just a "glitch" in their schedule script, since it's listed in a different timeslot than usual, so I'm thinking (hoping!) that maybe they've changed their minds.  --ΨΦorg 12:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is the case, their PR people haven't gotten the word yet since ABC MediaNet still has the schedule for the 27th showing reruns of George Lopez. It's just like ABC to muck around like this, though, so who knows. Theirishpianist 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Should the page include news that the show is appearing on ABC's schedule yet? The cons are that the show isn't officially confirmed as being back, the schedule could be an error. The pros for putting it back on are that if we don't put the news back on, people looking here for information on the show might wrongfully think that it's not airing and wouldn't watch. Personally, I'm not going to beleive it until I see it in the schedule on Wednesday. But even so I'm in favour of putting the news that it's on the schedule back up. --Stabbey 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I couldn't say. I just checked the on-screen program lineup on my cable system and it has no mention of the show on  Wednesday. Maybe is ABC could pull their collective heads out of their asses... but that's another story for another time. Theirishpianist 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've heard that the front page schedule on abc.com that shows Day Break on Wednesday is in fact an error.  Oh well. --Stabbey 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on cancellation 

message: The mission of this short fill-in show was to prove to the audience that they could trust the network to complete the story arc.  They have now proved the opposite.  Now they will get fewer viewers for any future shows of this genre (Lost etc).  It is odd that the article contains no mention of these framing issues. 69.87.203.214 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While probably true, it's original research unless there's an actual link which documents this.  Hence, it's not able to be mentioned in the article without a source. -- Slordak 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One example is sufficient, but it needs to be a "published" source (online or off), rather than chat room discussion or other public "chatter". Of course, if there is a lot of chat room discussion of something, that can also be worth mentioning or discussing in an article.--Srleffler 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost Trust

message: The article says that the complete series, including 7 unshown episodes have been "filmed".  Assuming this is true, have they been "finish edited" -- has all the work been completed to make them a finished product, ready for viewing? 69.87.203.214 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing finished?

message: Please add the viewers for each episode if you can.  These data are important to the fate of the show -- why it went off the air. 69.87.203.69 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewer numbers

message: Psiphiorg removed the "Category: Day Break episodes" tag from the bottom of the main article.  This may be technically correct, but also unfortunate from a practical perspective.  I have put a better link to the category into the article itself (even though they are hard to construct); so not having it appear at the foot of the page is no big deal.  But not having the main article appear on the "Category:Day Break episodes" page itself is not a Good Thing.  It seems to me that this should really function as a "Everthing particularly about the Day Break TV show" category page.  Do we have to change the name of the category to be able to agree about such functioning? 69.87.203.189 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: They seem incredibly confused/incompetent.  Episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6 are offered online.  No sign of any new episode, even though Wednesday has come and gone and Thursday is half done. 192.80.65.235 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Online

message: Well, various people are "fine-tuning" the article, refs, links, formats etc, making it more "standard", more complex, and less useful/functional.  The main article has now been forcibly stripped of any notations to let readers now that there actually are a set of other articles detailing each episode.  That took me a long time to discover.  So let's all work together to make it as hard as possible for any other readers to discover...  It appears to be forbidden to mention in an article that there is a whole category of related articles, let alone actually provide a link to the category page. 192.80.65.235 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? There are links to each episode right in the "Episodes" section of the article. --Maelwys 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, they are hidden right there in plain sight, and it seems to be verboten to point out that they are there! (And of course we certainly would not allow any mention of anywhere else on the internet that individual episodes were actually discussed.) 69.87.203.190 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not Web tutorials (though there may hypothetically be an article about web tutorials).  Pages should not have to spell out "You can move your mouse so that the pointer on the screen points at a colored word or phrase, press then let go of the mouse button (no, not that one, the other one), and you'll be shown a completely new page."  People who use the web are generally expected to know what a hyperlink is and what it does; if they don't, it's not Wikipedia's job to be the one who teaches them.  The episode titles are links, which is all the information a user needs to know in order to realize they can follow the link to find another article.  --ΨΦorg 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  The links are obviously links, I don't know how much more clear it could be.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The rules of this game are that I am supposed to try to believe that you are trying to do the right thing... So I suppose I should try to ignore your attempts to be snide, and make one last attempt to explain the situation.  What is on the other side of a link?  Anything.  That is the nature of the internet. Each time you click on a link, you experience the unknown.  Clicking on links is exploratory behavior.  It is an investment.  It is a risk.  People have just so much time in one lifetime, so they only explore the unknown a certain amount.  So there is a difference between offering links to ?something? and telling people that there is a set of detailed episode articles available.  But if you are attached to the main article keeping that hidden, by all means, just keep right on, smugly convinced that any fool should of course see what it so obvious to you... But this discussion has passed the realm of the functional/practical, into the esoteric religous/philosophical; the only way to cope is to go try to find something useful to do, elsewhere.  69.87.204.41 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardization

message: The article lists the series as a "miniseries". I don't see a basis for calling it this. It may be a cancelled series, but I don't believe "24" is billed a 5-season miniseries. Unless someone shows that the series was never intended to have a second season if successful, it's simply the format of the show's season. I'm going to rebill the article 12:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ANY successful show will be considered for renewal, regardless of original intentions (Thief, with a mere 6-episode run, was briefly considered for renewal).  But I guess that depends on how you define "success"; clearly Day Break was not successful in ABC's eyes.  Going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniseries and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_program I would be more inclined to refer to Day Break as a "series".  In reality I don't really care which term is used, but I know Wikipedia tends to be pedantic in these matters.  Of much greater concern to me is the fate of the remaining episodes. - Luke727 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "24" is different than "Day Break." The events in "24" don't happen because of some weird thing that happens to Jack Bauer, and he doesn't just want to quit what he's doing after a single 24-hour period is over, so you can't call that a miniseries. However, in "Day Break" Hopper has a problem, that he can't reach tomorrow. Once he figures out how to (when the season ends), there is no way that the show creators could link any new season to this one. Therefore, "24" is not a miniseries because it can be repeated, but "Day Break" is a miniseries because it can't really be repeated.--Bouncy 20:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, you miss the point entirely. I don't even understand what you're saying to be honest. 24 can't be repeated? huh? The fact that the day in daybreak repeats has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a miniseries or a series or a chicken. Groundhog Day had the same premise and it's neither. It was a feature film. 24 has 24-episode seasons. Every season is a completely new day with a completely new set of events, just like if Day Break had gone to season 2, it would have been a completely new day with a completely new set of events. Each one is not a collection of miniseries, but simply seasons of a TV show. Nor is each season of survivor a mini-series. They are just series whose seasons are more disconnected from each other than, say, Seinfeld. Alternatively, Band of Brothers is a miniseries, and Roots is a miniseries because if they were successful, they were NOT going to be picked up as series. They are pretty much always BILLED as miniseries, and they are not intended to be picked up as series. They may sometimes spawn sequels, but they are usually named differently, such as "Roots: The Next Generations", also billed as a miniseries. This would just have been a regular series with independant seasons, like 24. I should also add that most miniseries' have more of a single storyline that is 'to be continued'ed through every episode, rather than Day Break, or 24's overreaching plot with each episode having an independant storyline (such as one episode's hostage situation, and another episode's plot surrounding Andrea, etc.) TheHYPO 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miniseries

message: If Day Break was ment to fill the Lost 12 week break, why is Day Break a 13 episode series?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.165.215 (talk • contribs) 11:54, December 27, 2006
:Because the first two episodes were aired the first week.  (2 episodes * 1 week) + (1 episode * 11 weeks) = 13 episodes in 12 weeks.  --ΨΦorg 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: episode count

message: Does anyone know when in 2007 the international airings shown on the page will happen?  Hopefully someone overseas will post them online when they air. --Fezir 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International airings. 

message: Someone reverted the change I made to "Main characters - - Jennifer was not abused by her husband. Corrected info as to where arm bruises came from".  If this is decided to be spoilers, then also every other sentence for each character after what they are i.e. "She is also a detective and is being investigated by Internal Affairs because of some shady dealings with her informer "Slim". She is romantically involved with Eddie Reyes." after Andrea Battle should also be removed and considered a spoiler too, as a lot of the information on these characters is not given in the first episode, and even if it is, you would have to watch to the show to figure out that information, which would make it a spoiler. So I say either allow my edit to stand, or remove all descriptions after the character as below:
Brett Hopper, played by Taye Diggs, is the main character of the show.
Rita Shelten, played by Moon Bloodgood, is Brett's girlfriend. 
Jennifer Mathis, played by Meta Golding, is Brett's sister.
Andrea Battle, played by Victoria Pratt, is Brett's current partner.
Damien Ortiz, played by Ramon Rodriguez, is Brett's informer.
Chad Shelten, played by Adam Baldwin, is Brett's former partner. 
208.137.139.5 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Description

message: At the end of the synopsis it says "Only when Hopper figures out why his life is broken and how to fix it will he awaken to a brand new day."  Do we know this for sure?  The show itself does not reveal this.  The creators have said that he will get to tomorrow, but have not revealed how or why, to my knowledge.  Unless there is a source for this sentence, it should be removed. Tulane97 03:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will get him to the next day? 

message: The last paragraph appears to be speculation. Neither ABC nor Touchstone Media has indicated they will 'recall' the show. There is no citation for this. The statements appear to contradict itself by ending it with "it didn't live up to the hype." So either the show is so good that there is talk by "the powers that be" of bringing it back or it simply isn't because it didn't live up to the hype. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onw1k1 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Day Break Top Section

message: "petition to save Day Break [1].ABC.com currently has the first 12 episodes available to watch and will release one more every Monday thereafter until the finale on February 19th."
This is in the first part of the article. I don't get this, does it make sense to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.106.106 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it makes perfect sense, but that's just me. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't make sense  

message: Hello, I added a link to the fansite called "What If There's a Fansite" @ http://www.daybreak.tk.  It was removed and said should be discussed on the talk page.  It is seemingly the only Day Break fansite on the Internet and offers information that no other sites do which is why I think that there is no harm in listing it.  Agree or disagree?  --thedemonhog 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if you put one fan-site, you MUST then list all.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's reasonable to include fansites as external links, as long as there are only a few of them (less than 5), and the fansite has interesting content.  But if it's just a page that says, "I love the show," then no, I don't think it's worth linking to. As for quantity of fansites, if it gets to the point of there being many sites, then we should only link to the major ones. --Elonka 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fansites can certianly be included if they meet WP:EL.  And there's no reason that it has to be all or none, WP has to judge each potential link on its merits.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've changed my mind, I'd be fine with at least two :) ... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to one fansite  

message: iMy best geuss is that Jared (the crazy guy) was causing the loops, he only stoped the loops when he felt that Hopper gathered enough Information to uncover the conspiracy. BYMAstudent 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were thinking of adding this to the main article, I would advise against it, unless you could find a reliable source, Wikipedia is not for speculation.. Have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The time loops cause  

message: I notice someone has posted a link to a Polish site related to this series. Are they allowed to do that? Surely the Polish Wikipedia is the place for a Polish language link. Brett Leaford (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Polish site 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Day Break. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102092837/http://www.tvseriesfinale.com:80/2006/12/day_break_abcs_taye_diggs_drama_is_gone.html to http://www.tvseriesfinale.com/2006/12/day_break_abcs_taye_diggs_drama_is_gone.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930163752/http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=55bf4304-17ff-441a-bcea-48cb722e1062&entry=index to http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=55bf4304-17ff-441a-bcea-48cb722e1062&entry=index
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified