Talk:The Dresden Files (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Intro

As with most wikipedia entries on tv series, this one lacks an introduction that summarizes in one or two sentences what this series is about. Not all the people who visit this article know the series. I would suggest that someone add this vital information. DrSlony 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • I think it might be useful to add a reception piece near the end of the article, this series is infamous for having a typical general audience but extremely hateful fans. Its not exactly encyclopedic but then, this isn't really encyclopedia anymore, its either a how to manual or a piece of fan fiction ,depending on the article. Not to mention all the lobbying.

—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 69.152.240.136 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Article split out

All the information on this page was previously on the article for the books. I thought it would be a good idea to give it its own page. -GG Crono

Country of origin

The show's country of origin is the USA, but I thought best to have someone second it before a change is enacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.138.57 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you. I have checked IMDb, and it lists both  United States and  Canada as country of origin.

I have made the change. --Kevinkor2 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. If it is shot and all of the production done in Canada, then Canada should be the sole country of origin. IMDB could be wrong. GreenJoe 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has never been the sole metric for Wiki. For example, the new BSG is filmed in Canada, but the country of origin is listed as the UK and the USA because it was financed by American and British companies. Dresden is financed by an American television company and premiered to American audiences. USA should be listed. - Debuskjt 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you should propose a guideline or something. However, if it's filmed in Canada, then it's Canadian. Canada finances it via tax credits. GreenJoe 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tax credits do not finance 100% of filming costs, and stating it as if its does is a straw man argument to support your point. Furthermore, your POV pushing is a distraction, since claiming the show is "Canadian" in origin is misleading at best. Three editors have now supported the addition of the USA as a country of origin. In addition to our voice, your filming-only guideline is inconsistent with just about every other show filmed in Canada (
Battlestar Galactica, House, Dark Angel, The X-Files, The L Word, Stargate SG-1), which provides a defacto guideline of cross-article consensus. I ask that you not change it again. - Debuskjt 05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It's filmed in Canada, for what that's worth. I just watched an episode, and the executive producer was listed as David Simkins, yet netiher this page nor the IMDB lists him as having anything to do with it. I guess I'll add him to the list of Executive Producers-actually he was the only one listed when the credits start so I have to wonder if he's the showrunner, yet not getting any credit? Wolfpup7 18:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It came on in Canada on Space on the same day and time as on Sci-Fi.. how does that not count as having Premiered in Canada? If it's anything like BSG it even finished a few minutes earlier. Yet, the article, and here, it's being taken as truth that the show premiered in the US. Webrunner 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It premiered simultaneously in both countries. No one said it was shown first in the US, and no one is saying Canada should be removed as a country of origin. - Debuskjt 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May have been filmed in Canada, but some shots are recognizably in Chicago. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.251.54.186 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
I'm sorry, it has all been filmed in Canada, although Vancouver can look like a lot of parts of the U.S. which is why its often used. --Simonkoldyk 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Dresden Files wasn't filmed in Vancouver, largely because Vancouver looks nothing like Chicago. It was filmed in Toronto. And the skyline shots are most certainly stock footage of the real Chicago. For instance, the easily identifiable Wrigley and Equitable Buildings are prominently visible in the first episode at 23:26. - Debuskjt 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; but, still it was filmed in Canada. --67.101.8.56 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
t's called a Sci-Fi original series because the Sci-Fi channel, based in New York, is the one creating it. Lord of the Rings was not a New Zealand creation, and South Africa is not credited with creating any of the movies filmed there. I think there should be some definite mention and credit given to Canada for providing most of the filming location and many of the people, but in no way can it be seriously stated that Canada is the sole country of origin. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 76.185.105.217 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Fansite

The link to Dresden Files Fansite has disappeared and reappeared. I invite comment about links to fansites (in general) and the link to this fansite in particular. I believe a relevant guideline is

WP:TV#External links. --Kevinkor2 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Production Codes

I've added known production codes for listed episodes. These are confirmed via a multitude of sources including SFC Press Kit, Robert Wolfe, jim-butcher.com, and the iTunes Store. However, I'm not sure how to add proper citations in this table and, also, avoid duplication. --Jtfolden 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to help. Do you have any sources that are available by URL? --Kevinkor2 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think probably http://www.jim-butcher.com/bb/index.php/topic,1515.0.html is the best choice to cover the early episodes as it contains a lot of info in one place from the SFC Press Kit. --Jtfolden 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look. For the first link, I used <ref name="ep1-5">...</ref>. For subsequent links, I used the same reference name, <ref name="ep1-5" />.--Kevinkor2 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for your help. --Jtfolden 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! As MatthewFenton pointed out in his edit summary, forums are not verifiable. Do you have your hands on the SFC Press Kit itself? --Kevinkor2 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're available on TV.com. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Debuskjt (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
It's actually the same for TV.com and IMDB (user submitted sources), production codes are always a bummer to accurately cite, that's why a lot of articles don't bother with them now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that SFC recently chose to air the episodes out of order and there is a VERY strong interest among the TV show's fan-base to know the originally intended schedule. These numbers are verifiable from a variety of sources. Even the video previews for each episode have been labeled with the production codes on the official SFC site. The downloadable episodes from iTunes are branded with them. It's rather frustrating that these are so quickly and unceremoniously removed considering the ease at which they are verifiable in the 'real world'. What sort of info would be needed from the SFC Press Kit? --Jtfolden 08:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the Production Codes for the already aired episodes and used a reference linked to the series at the iTunes store. Lions Gate Television, Inc labels each episode with this ID as it is made available for download. These are the same codes as used in the official SFC press Kit but that is not something that can be linked to online. --Jtfolden 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the guidelines for
convience link to a reliable copy on line. I suggest the SFC Press Kit could be cited as--Kevinkor2 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

{{cite book | last = (include something here on if an author is mentioned on the title page) | first = (see above) | authorlink = (see above) | coauthors = (see above) | title = SFC Press Kit | publisher = [[Sci-Fi Channel]] | date = (year from copyright) | url = (only if there is a convenience link to a reliable copy that does not violate copyright) | isbn = (often, there is an isbn number on the copyright page) }}

The problem is that the Press Kit is rare, there are no actual copies online and the closest thing we have available is the previous forum link where someone had transcribed the info about the first 5 episodes (which are the only episodes covered in the Press Kit anyway). The current source I used is a professional, reliable, and verifiable link and the production ID information is provided directly from Lions Gate Television rather than user submitted data. It doesn't go against any of the guidelines from what I can understand and is essentially no different than using info from a DVD release, etc... So, we could list the SFC press Kit as a source but there'd be no verifiable link of any sort that I'm aware of. If this is still an issue I guess we'd need to take it to someone higher up the food chain, imo. Many fans consider this important info due to last minute changes in the schedule. --Jtfolden 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but we need an easily verifiable citation, for example if it was on a DVD or the credits of an episode, or online, i.e. The Futon Critic (press releases) or the official website, maybe even TVGuide. The problem with "iTunes" is that to verify it I would have to: a) First download there crapware riddled software, b) pay them money. Finally is there no reason why a paragraph could not be written to state the correct order? This would perhaps be easier to cite then an unneeded "production code" cell thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing a major rule somewhere, the fact you must pay money for something is not a valid reason to discount it as a source. Otherwise, we'd have to remove citations referencing DVD's, CD's, books, magazines, etc... from all entries. In this day and age of online digital stores, I don't think they should be discounted either. Trust me, as soon as I can come up with something easier to access, I'll happily modify the references (and I have just come up with a production order reference from Robert Wolfe on the first few episodes so I'll use that where I can) but I don't believe the current one defies Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, if it's in writing somewhere, please do show me so I'll be aware of it in the future.
Also, I don't consider the ProdCode cell to be uneeded. It is of interest to fans and it makes no sense to seperate it from the existing data as then we'd have to start duplicating info. If you look at episode lists for similar shows such as Doctor Who, The X-Files and Angel you will notice they, also, include the Production Code column in their table. --Jtfolden 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very valid reason when it hinders verifiability to a level, especially as Apple is commercial as well, I'm not even sure if it really is reputably verifiable. I'm not interested in what they do at X-Files, etc, (mind you - I can quote a long list of those that don't use codes). As you said "interesting", thus "trivial", trivia should be made encyclopaedic. I'll leave it a while longer but per Wikipedia:Verifiability I challenge the verifiability and source and will remove it soon (Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please highlight the relevant portion of Wikipedia:Verifiability that applies specifically to this issue relating to hindrance of verifiability. I have provided a verifiable source. Commercial/corporate status of a source is NOT in itself a reason to exclude a reference. --Jtfolden 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An update on this issue, I have just been in contact with volunteers of the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to obtain some further opinions and clarification on this source. The general consensus is that while commercial/subscriptions sources are not ideal, that fact is not a reasonable reason for removing them out of hand. Many sources must be purchased/are not free. I have, however, updated some of the sources to point to a new comment from Robert Wolfe on the original order of episodes and will attempt to use more freely available sources as they become available. If anyone has any further input or suggestions, I'd love to hear them. --Jtfolden 07:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to official Forum?

Is it worth including a link to the official Forum, where both Jim Butcher and Robert Hewitt Wolfe hang out and answer questions? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Channel

Should

Space be considered an original channel for The Dresden Files? Relevant guidelines are given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Categories and discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 3#Categorizing television series by network. --Kevinkor2 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Differences from the book

Does anyone think this section needs some drastic editing? Half the entries are semi-speculative or just make major assumptions, and it's going to verge on listcruft soon. For instance, assuming that Bob isn't bound to his owner. We don't know if the woman in question even knows that Bob is bound to his skull in that way. Or should could have just not thought about it. Or can't get wards placed on the room that the skull is in... - Debuskjt 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section does need some editing. It was established at the end of the second episode, for example, that Justin du Morne is in fact dead. I'll clean it up a bit, but I'm not going to yank it out. Kate 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, Justin Morningway is NOT dead - as established at the end of "Birds Of A Feather". However, Harry and Bob thinks that he is. This fact has been confirmed by Robert Wolfe. HOWEVER, might I suggest that the 'Differences From The Book" section be moved to it's own page? It has been established by the creators of the TV series that although it is BASED on the books, it does not attempt to follow their every detail. Therefore, this list will continue to grow to a rather ungainly size as the series progresses. It may end up being the largest section on the page. --Jtfolden 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then is it even notable to list the differences? Why not just say that there are differences, give two or three major examples (the Blue Beetle, Murphy's name change, Bob's manifestation), and then cite Robert Wolfe as saying that the TV series is simply based on the books? Keep in mind

WP:NOT (an official policy) and Wikipedia:Listcruft
(an essay). In particular, I think this will ultimately fall short in these areas:

- Debuskjt 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that a running tally of differences is NOT needed on this page. There is a fork in the road between the books and the TV Series that grows further apart with each episode, at an alarming rate to some. --Jtfolden 08:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add some items to the list which I feel are VERY relevant to the characters and the story. Magic not affecting technology, Murphy having a child, and Harry having a different link to his mother are very significant, in my opinion. Knowing those differences makes the show easier to follow for the readers of the books. Slavlin 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a How-To Guide or a fan site. - Debuskjt 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia IS a collection of information which is of relevance to the subject at large. In this case, the only items which I listed were ones that have defined the characters of the stories. Bob manifesting as a person is not significant, yet, so I have not listed it. Murphy being childless is one of the key reasons she is estranged from her family and is a defining part of the novel's character. I suppose you could make the arguement that it is original research. On that basis, I would be ok with removing it, but not about it being a How-To Guide or fan cruft.
Also, the topic of his technology hexing comes up multiple times per book. One book centered around it and he will not go into hospitals if at all possible to prevent the life support from shorting out just by him walking down the hall. However, it was the 3rd show before we saw one instance of him shorting out anything. That one did appear to involve his consious knowledge. Also, he has been near computers and other electronics on a regular basis. I would say that this supports at least a lessened effect from magic.Slavlin 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, particularly speculative information. I could run down a whole list of times Harry has been close to technology in the books and managed to keep his magic at bay for some length at time. In the police station, on a television studio set, on a porn movie set, around computers at the coroner's office, etc. When it serves the plot of both the show and the book, Harry manages to approach technology. But in the last episode he was obviously able to short a close circuit camera without obvious use of magic against it, and in at least one episode he gives a nervous look at the mention of needing a "computer" and stands back a little while a man uses it.
A lot of the difference probably are OR. But more importantly, I'd just make the argument that most of the differences aren't important. At least not yet. It's not so much about defining the character, but their motivations. For instance, Murphy is estranged from her husband. Instead of being over having a child, it's because she doesn't spend time with her child. Yet the end result is the same: Murphy is divorced. So why is it important that she has a child that she doesn't see, particularly in this article? I could see it being far more relevant to individual character articles that could run through their novel backgrounds in depth and then have subsections with defining changes made to them for the television series. - Debuskjt 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy having a kid is a huge difference in her personality and reflect a lower level of personal responsibility in her choice and decision making. If the major reason for her divorce is that she didn't want children, then her entire divorce and personal relationship dynamic is also different. It would likely figure a lot in what the show does in the future.

I've added a line about the shield bracelet being inherited as opposed to the silver pentacle in the novels. I feel that his is justified due to the fact that both has a significant place in the novels (i.e. both are mentioned at least once in every novel), as well as the fact that the point is made in the novels to mention that he made the shield bracelet himself. --Darkstar949 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended but I've removed the pentacle and the reference to technology issues. Robert Wolfe has confirmed that the actor wears the pentacle necklace whenever he is in character and that it WILL be featured in future episodes. Also, as you will note in the episodes, Harry makes heavy use of candles rather than electrical lighting and also a gas rather than electric stove. Wolfe has commented on this and, also, in relation to why the Jeep was chosen as a replacement for the Blue Beetle. We should attempt to avoid speculation, imo. Keep in mind that each episode is equivalent to a chapter and the season equal to an entire book. --Jtfolden 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, things will continue to change as the series progresses, and since the pentacle will appear later on that's not a major departure form the books. The fact that the bracelet was inherited might be worth mentioning again at a later date, but at this point in time it's a non-issue outside of trivia. --Darkstar949 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good. I thought Harry had overhead lighting, but I might be mistaken. Then again, maybe it is high enough up to keep from causing problems. :) If the pentacle is there, and they do plan to bring it forward, then I am ok with that being removed. I wish the premire had been a 2 hour episode. I get the feeling that they would have poured more exposition into it then. Slavlin 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The necklace is visible in Episode 5: Bad Blood at 8:08, when Dresden wakes up in Bianca's care. 67.164.74.0 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended that the mention of the Jeep be removed - at this point in time it seems like that difference is not too significant and borders more with trivia. --Darkstar949 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. Harry is very attached to his Blue Bettle. Slavlin 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I could also be very attached to the Green Jeep in the show. --Darkstar949 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelavent information that qualifies as trivia as opposed to something plot relevent.

Rather than citing discrepancies between the TV series and the books, could we list some of the correspondences between the two instead?

Differences should be listed because they are relevent to fans of the books and to the plot (Bob being a ghost, Murphy having a child). Similarities aren't relevent to comprehension. One starts with the presumption that the two are similar and the divergences that are counter to the viewer's or reader's presumption are the shocking parts. I think the important thing to note is the debate over the differences and how it is tearing the fan community apart in many cases. That there is so much debate over what to include should be a testament not always to the importance of what is included but to the emotions the changes have caused in fans. The negative v. positive is visible on all fan sites.

Episode Pages

Would it be okay to make summary subpages for the episodes, like one page and on each a two paragraph summary with a spoiler alert?--[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 00:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable. Other shows have something similar, like Rescue Me and Supernatural. - Debuskjt 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer to keep them all on the main page till we get past the first season. Expanding is much easier than trimming back. Slavlin 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and start creating episode pages if you want. Best to create them with content though, deletionists like to nominate the stubs. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't know how to do the links or create the pages correctly- if someone else could start it once we get past- let's say Fool Moon- than I could help write all of them. If anyone else would like to help there is a person on YouTube who puts them up weekly- if you would like the name you can ask on my talk page. Anyway- so, after Fool Moon, agreed?--[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arsilverangel

For the time being Arsilverangel has posted the episodes on YouTube. I have their permission to post the name and post this information. Those clips are to be used for verification only, not as a refrence. --[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Have A LOT To Do

Here is a list I made offhand of things that we should do to help this and things that we can do:

  • 1. Make a page for every episode already aired- include summary, trivia, and a template
  • 2. Start cross-refrencing this article with those articles
  • 3. Add all of that to lists at the WikiProjects they apply to- and put WikiProject templates in the talk pages
  • 4. Get reviews and general citable opinion and add it to these articles
  • 5. Asess all articles for importance and quality

-Thanks, --[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Look into {{
Talk Contrib 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

iTunes

Should it be added that the episodes can be purchased the day after the airdate on iTunes?--[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fine idea to me. Many TV series related pages list information on retail releases and their tech specs, etc. --Jtfolden 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denarians

I removed the following

  • The Denarians (called Hellions) can be separated from their human host, and no longer seem to employ a coin to hold the essence of the fallen angel.

because I could not see where there is a direct link between the two types of characters. At least not one which could be referenced. I know that this could become prominent later, but right now I can't see that it is verifiable in any way. Slavlin 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Pages

I note that someone has linked the character names on this page to pages concerning the book characters. While this *might* be okay, it seems to me that enough changes are being introduced to the TV story lines that there will forever be irreconcilable differences. It just adds confusing and untrue back stories for people that are coming here for info on the TV show and it's characters (like the changes to Murphy w/ child, changes to Harry's childhood, changes to Bob's past, etc). Thoughts? --Jtfolden 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there are other book/film or book/series situations where this is done, but there is a separate section for each. See Sin City characters for some examples. Slavlin 06:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters

Shouldn't this be recurring characters? There are several here that we have only seen in one episode. Also, ME Waldo Butters has appeared in three episodes to date. Justin Morningway has only appeared in one flashback scene, but he has been mentioned several times. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this: I see Susan listed as a recurring character... but I don't think she appears anywhere other than one episode, does she? --John T. Folden 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Should the TV series have a separate template, or should we shoehorn it into the Jim Butcher template? In my opinion, the series is distinct enough from the Butcher novels that it should be separate. I have created a draft template at User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 for review. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the series should most certainly be separate. While it's based on Jim Butcher's work it's created by an entirely different source and both he and Robert Wolfe have stated they are not the same and the TV show will grow ever more divergent as time goes on. --John T. Folden 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The TV series and the book series should have entirely separate templates. --Kevinkor2 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Done. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format (specifically in the Character section)

The character section has too much plot and not facts about who the characters are. If people want to read plot of characters, they can read the character history pages or the episode guides. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 198.133.139.5 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Summaries

I removed a couple of summaries that were copied from other sites, check this for an example. Anyways, I think this page probably has some more info that's copied, so whoever is running the show here should look into it, and rewrite whatever. - Peregrine Fisher 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the info comes from SFC press releases... which is why you see it everywhere. --John T. Folden 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production Codes

An editor seems to have a problem with the source for these. However, they have been on this page since it was created, and contributed by more than one editor in the past. Several months ago I, also, informally approached members of the WP:Mediation_Cabal for my own peace of mind and they confirmed it was a perfectly acceptable source according to the R&R's of WP. I'd like further comment from additional editors --John T. Folden 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a misconception that the Mediation Cabal are some elitist group — they're not. I will enforce the citation policy aggressively[2]; until such a time that I believe you have provided an adequate source or consensus agrees with yourself. The material is challenged, you should not go against policy and re-add it (until such a time as I said previously).
Matthew 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no misconception of anything. I solicited for further opinion from other editors and received it at the time. However, sources such as iTunes are not 'speculative', nor are they excluded by policy. --John T. Folden 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything stating "production code" at iTunes, until you can provide a source that I can agree with (so that I no longer challenge it) or consensus agrees with, you shouldn't re-add them.
Matthew 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Production codes are listed in the Episode ID of the metadata on each downloadable TV Show. --John T. Folden 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing anything explicitly stating: production code, perhaps you could screencap it and upload it to Wikipedia under fair use temporarily.
Matthew 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You're misunderstanding me, I think. If you right click on an episode and choose Get Info, then click Video, you will see the heading for Episode ID. You can, also, activate this info as a column under normal View Options in iTunes. You can verify this number against previously confirmed IDs on other television shows and episodes, as well. --John T. Folden 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, then it's not a production code without an explicit indication of such a thing, i.e. "Production Code: xyz". Without any explicit source your drawing conclusions. Point in fact it's not verifiable if you're drawing conclusions.
Matthew 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not drawing conclusions, that just happens to be the label as used by the most readily available source. Sci-Fi Channel itself refers to the "production number" number as the "Episode Number" on it's site. "Production Code" happens to be the term WP settled on. Ironically, if you do a Google search "Production Code" commonly refers to an entirely different numerical system involving content ratings. --John T. Folden 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Production Code != Production Number. By your own admittance you've admitted they are indeed not the production codes. If you can find the actual production codes then please say so here. Frankly I'm bemused as to why time needed to be wasted to come to the conclusion they're not actual production codes...
Matthew 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If Episode ID in iTunes matches Episode Number on SFC site matches Production Code in SFC press Kits matches ad infinitum then it's all down to word games. I assume a statement from Robert Wolfe, the producer and writer on the series, concerning these numbers will be more than enough confirmation, even for you? btw, have you ever done a search for "prodcode" here on Wiki? --John T. Folden 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't, but this search indicates a lot of pages need cleanup. On and end note I've still yet to see a verifiable source that actually states "production code".
Matthew 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
As referred to in previous post, I have solicited for the input of Robert Wolfe directly - assuming he is still reachable at the same location as he was prior to end of production. --John T. Folden 19:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfe stating "these are the production codes", "here are the production codes" (etc) would certainly be fine for me.
Matthew 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert Wolfe has confirmed the iTunes Episode ID's are the correct Production Codes as previously indicated. So, I'll be adding this back. http://www.jim-butcher.com/bb/index.php?topic=1589.msg70331#msg70331 --John T. Folden 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He states: "Yeah, that looks right." - which could mean any number of things...
Matthew 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's distinctly clear in response to the question and data provided him. --John T. Folden 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hi. I'm here because of the request at

WP:3O
. Reading over the discussion above, it seems like the contention is over what constitutes a reliable source for episode numbers. Although I think the tone of the disagreement could be improved, I think Matthew has a point: there seems to be room for reasonable people to disagree over whether the numbers in iTunes are the correct ones. I think you've jointly hit upon the right solution: find another source for confirmation.

Another option to consider is whether verifying the iTunes numbers for other series against confirmed episode numbers would ease Matthew's concern. It's also worth discussing whether it's possible to leave the episode numbers in for now with some clear disclaimer on the page that the information isn't confirmed. That would give our readers what appears to be the best available information without misleading them as to its quality.

Hoping that helps, William Pietri 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It is greatly appreciated and you have several valid ideas. I've checked the ID's for other shows on iTunes (Buffy and Firefly to name two, as I have access to the original episodes) and they correspond to the official Production Codes as listed. I feel these numbers as the they were presented do have validity and all, currently, available evidence backs up the data as being the proper production codes. It seems to be down to a matter of word games as, sadly, even SFC and Lionsgate choose to refer to them with different labels as they see fit. I'm, also, open to the idea of keeping them listed under a different heading such as "Episode #" or "Episode ID" as is currently done on the
List of Lost episodes
, etc.
Normally, I would not feel the production codes to be a major point of interest, however, given that the episodes were shown out of original production order by SFC there is a great many viewers that find this information to be relevant and important. --John T. Folden 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the

quotes
. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you

like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

External links

I've removed all the "fansites" from the external links, only official sites,

IMDB and stuff that like that should be there still. GreenJoe 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The ONLY 'offical' website for the Dresden Files is the Sci-Fi Channel site, yet it is NOT the only link you have ALLOWED to stay.

If you are "just enforcing the existing policy" then you must remove ALL non-offical links - including Jim Butcher's website as it is NOT the official website of the Dresden Files TV SHOW - as well as all OTHER non-official sites throughout Wikipedia. That includes IMDB as it is known to be full of errors & personal opinion. It is not official it is just well-known.

By deleting ONLY OUR websites, you are unilaterally making a decision concerning what goes & what stays based on your own personal opinion & NOT on whether or not a website is 'official'. Zarinas1 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the link to his website. Now get off your high horse and start acting civilly. GreenJoe 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your "crusade" against various links, I suggest you take a chill pill. There's a general consensus that allows the link to IMDB. As for the other links on Wikipedia, I don't have the desire to hunt them all down. There are too many. I really suggest you calm down before you get blocked. GreenJoe 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am being civil. I did not attack you personally, only your actions. You are the one who suggested I take a "chill pill".

2. I do not have a "crusade" against ANY link. I was only pointing out the double-standard you are practicing.

3. As for "general consensus that allows the link to IMDB" where is the link to this consensus & how was it reached?

4. "As for the other links on Wikipedia, I don't have the desire to hunt them all down." - Then why do you have a "crusade" against MY links?

5. I requested a Third-Party Mediator. I received insults & threats instead: "I really suggest you calm down before you get blocked." It appears I am not the one who needs to 'calm down'. I am only stating facts and logical reasoning. You are providing NO facts whatsoever. Zarinas1 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please be civil. I'm not sure why there is such an explosion of debate over a simple listing of external links. While I agree that certain transitory or non-notable sites such as petitions should not be included, I don't think the article is being helped by the slash & burn and rapid reverts that seem to be going on. The Jim Butcher site is perfectly acceptable. He is the creator of the works upon which the series is based on, he was featured in one of the episodes and members of the crew involved with the series have posted information there. Also, I think it's reasonable that an article on a TV show have at least one fan community site listed, such as Dresden City, when the site in question contains info on the series not readily available elsewhere, such as quotes from the producer. I don't see anything at
WP:EL that automatically restricts these.--John T. Folden 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dresden images downloads desktop cast 800.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal Effort Campaign

I think it should be mentioned that some fans are desperately trying to get the show into a second season. These renewal efforts should be catalogued. Vegetaman (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see the Dresden Files continue. --Haldrik (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Website? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument about "Departure from Novels" section

In the "Departure from Novels" section, the following is used as a supporting statement:

"In episode 9 "The Other Dick" Harry is seen using a digital camera that in the book series would have rendered useless, while in episode 4 "Rules of Engagement" he shorts out a surveillance camera by moving close to it."

Actually, the camera used in "The Other Dick" is a film camera. This is clear because Harry sends Liz Fontaine out to develop the film. Now, why the incubus' essence wasn't captured on the NEGATIVE rather than the photo Harry started to burn is a different matter. But as far as not being able to use electronic gadgets, this camera doesn't qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.75.30 (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry is not incapable of using electronic devices. Walking into a room doesn't unleash an EMP; things are just (alot) more likely to fail. ARSchmitz (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement

In the books, Harry owns a silver pentacle necklace he inherited from his mother. <-- this did show up in Season 1, Episode 5, Vampire Episode when Harry was in bed, with his shirt off. It just wasn't attributed to his mother.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the pilot?

Has anybody information on the pilot before it was recut into episode 8, Stormfront?204.14.79.229 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Episode List

I've merged the Episode List back into here. Per

WP:SIZESPLIT, the extrapolation shouldn't have happened. I realize this was to lay a foundation for the individual episode pages, but they didn't work out, did they? Please leave the episode list here as it prevents extraneous navigation for those still interested in TDF. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dresden_Files_(TV_series)&oldid=1207036317"