![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have provided multiple references in the past to support edits stating that this show had its world TV premiere in India. This is a first for any English-language series in this country, and was duly mentioned in major newspapers (which I linked to). I believe this is a tangential but certainly notable fact about this series, and a mention of the same should be made in the article. However, for some reason every single edit mentioning this has been systematically deleted by a user with the dynamic IP address 59.97.x.y. The article history will clearly show the vandalism being done by this user, whose sole purpose seems to be to delete all references to the fact above, for reasons unknown. I request a moderator here to keep an eye on such vandalism to this article in the future. Simply undoing someone's edits without providing any proper explanation for the same is downright ridiculous and I'm sure must be against Wikipedia's rules, so I do hope someone makes a note of this and prevents similar idiotic edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.15.34 ( talk) 22:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up to the first comment above: As you can see, all that the user with the dynamic IP address 117.219.x.y seems to be interested in is repeatedly changing the Indian broadcaster's name from STAR World India to AXN, without any source to back this up (plus I know it airs on the former and not the latter since I reside in India). Multiple edits have been made by this user and then reverted by others. High time to declare him a vandal as well?
As was mentioned above, "Missing" airs in India on Sundays, four days prior to the US airdates. As from episode three, it also airs in Canada on Tuesdays, two days prior to the US. Unsure which of these is considered the relevant "Original Air Date", I've added all two/three dates to the episode listing, with annotations and refs. Anyone with a firmer grip on policy/precedent, please feel free to (re)move the extraneous bits. - 46.115.0.103 ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a simple solution to the endless edit warring and vandalism in aid of "We saw it first!" I've changed the heading on the table to read ORIGINAL U.S. AIRDATE. It's an American show, and as ducky as it is that India gets it four days early, the primary viewing audience is American, and we're tracking American ratings, so the American airdates need to be in the table. I have no idea where this mania for removing India from the international broadcast table is all about, but the IP vandals are all from India, and the registered vandal has been warned twice. -- Drmargi ( talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one further question, just for future reference: Does the "of origin" argument only apply to countries, or also to individual channels/companies? If, for some hypothetical reason, this series were to air on another US channel the day before it aired on ABC, which date would be the relevant one, considering that it's an ABC production? - 46.115.0.103 ( talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added some minor information pertaining to the series synopsis description as well as the DVD information as recently announced by TV Shows on DVD. Reference was also added for proof. 98.209.246.195 ( talk) 13:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
When the pilot episode was repeated, did any of you watch close enough to notice if the show was edited down for more commercial time. I remember thats what happened on CBS, when the short-lived series "Smith," with Ray Liotta, aired. Great show. It was an action show with lots of location shooting like Missing. Only difference was the main character is a criminal, instead of law enforcement. It was a great show, but maybe it should have been produced as a ten-part mini-series. Maybe some of you noticed the same thing on missing. Probably a point, that you dont want to put into the article, although a brief mention might be made. 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There was some slight editing done by someone, on my "Ice Queen" episode summary. Not quite a good edit job. The person left the part about Interpol Agent Rossi fishing mary out of the Bay. Leaving that in the summary, is pointless, if you're going to take out the part about Mary being kidnapped by the mysterious blonde lady. Also, I re-inserted the part about becca dangling the diamonds over the bay, and the blonde woman putting her gun down. This is a key part of the summary. Otherwise readers of the summary do not understand why the blonde woman tells Becca that the whole kidnapping of Michael was all about Becca's husband, not Becca. Marc S., Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I recently revised the overly wordy, overly detailed, choppy and hard to follow summary for the April 12 episode, providing and edit summary why. The summary I wrote reads smoothly and provides the key points of the episode without excess detail. Soon after, my summary was removed by 74.166.156.250 with no explanation, and his original summary restored with no improvements. I reverted the edit, requesting he provide an edit summary to explain his edit, and discuss if he felt the summary needed restoration or rewriting. He reverted again, again with no explanation. I have now warned him regarding edit warring and use of edit summaries, but I'm concerned with the general quality of the summaries, which are all too long, too detailed and very poorly written. They need revision to improve quality and remove detail, not an edit war from an editor who cannot accept revision of his writing. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Are they stock certificates or bearer bonds??? 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it that Wikipedia allows biased websites to be cited as official information? The source links given in this report have been cited by "off the wall" websites like TV By The Numbers.com which are not official information but merely websites who engage in speculation. Neither TVline.com, Entertainment Tonight or any of the other "legit media" reporting websites have reported on this and I find it appalling that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.246.195 ( talk) 12:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Any Actors which should be moved from "Recurring cast" to the regular cast section? Similarly, any actor names which should be moved down into the recurring cast section? 206.192.35.125 ( talk) 12:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have provided multiple references in the past to support edits stating that this show had its world TV premiere in India. This is a first for any English-language series in this country, and was duly mentioned in major newspapers (which I linked to). I believe this is a tangential but certainly notable fact about this series, and a mention of the same should be made in the article. However, for some reason every single edit mentioning this has been systematically deleted by a user with the dynamic IP address 59.97.x.y. The article history will clearly show the vandalism being done by this user, whose sole purpose seems to be to delete all references to the fact above, for reasons unknown. I request a moderator here to keep an eye on such vandalism to this article in the future. Simply undoing someone's edits without providing any proper explanation for the same is downright ridiculous and I'm sure must be against Wikipedia's rules, so I do hope someone makes a note of this and prevents similar idiotic edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.15.34 ( talk) 22:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up to the first comment above: As you can see, all that the user with the dynamic IP address 117.219.x.y seems to be interested in is repeatedly changing the Indian broadcaster's name from STAR World India to AXN, without any source to back this up (plus I know it airs on the former and not the latter since I reside in India). Multiple edits have been made by this user and then reverted by others. High time to declare him a vandal as well?
As was mentioned above, "Missing" airs in India on Sundays, four days prior to the US airdates. As from episode three, it also airs in Canada on Tuesdays, two days prior to the US. Unsure which of these is considered the relevant "Original Air Date", I've added all two/three dates to the episode listing, with annotations and refs. Anyone with a firmer grip on policy/precedent, please feel free to (re)move the extraneous bits. - 46.115.0.103 ( talk) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a simple solution to the endless edit warring and vandalism in aid of "We saw it first!" I've changed the heading on the table to read ORIGINAL U.S. AIRDATE. It's an American show, and as ducky as it is that India gets it four days early, the primary viewing audience is American, and we're tracking American ratings, so the American airdates need to be in the table. I have no idea where this mania for removing India from the international broadcast table is all about, but the IP vandals are all from India, and the registered vandal has been warned twice. -- Drmargi ( talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one further question, just for future reference: Does the "of origin" argument only apply to countries, or also to individual channels/companies? If, for some hypothetical reason, this series were to air on another US channel the day before it aired on ABC, which date would be the relevant one, considering that it's an ABC production? - 46.115.0.103 ( talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added some minor information pertaining to the series synopsis description as well as the DVD information as recently announced by TV Shows on DVD. Reference was also added for proof. 98.209.246.195 ( talk) 13:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
When the pilot episode was repeated, did any of you watch close enough to notice if the show was edited down for more commercial time. I remember thats what happened on CBS, when the short-lived series "Smith," with Ray Liotta, aired. Great show. It was an action show with lots of location shooting like Missing. Only difference was the main character is a criminal, instead of law enforcement. It was a great show, but maybe it should have been produced as a ten-part mini-series. Maybe some of you noticed the same thing on missing. Probably a point, that you dont want to put into the article, although a brief mention might be made. 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There was some slight editing done by someone, on my "Ice Queen" episode summary. Not quite a good edit job. The person left the part about Interpol Agent Rossi fishing mary out of the Bay. Leaving that in the summary, is pointless, if you're going to take out the part about Mary being kidnapped by the mysterious blonde lady. Also, I re-inserted the part about becca dangling the diamonds over the bay, and the blonde woman putting her gun down. This is a key part of the summary. Otherwise readers of the summary do not understand why the blonde woman tells Becca that the whole kidnapping of Michael was all about Becca's husband, not Becca. Marc S., Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I recently revised the overly wordy, overly detailed, choppy and hard to follow summary for the April 12 episode, providing and edit summary why. The summary I wrote reads smoothly and provides the key points of the episode without excess detail. Soon after, my summary was removed by 74.166.156.250 with no explanation, and his original summary restored with no improvements. I reverted the edit, requesting he provide an edit summary to explain his edit, and discuss if he felt the summary needed restoration or rewriting. He reverted again, again with no explanation. I have now warned him regarding edit warring and use of edit summaries, but I'm concerned with the general quality of the summaries, which are all too long, too detailed and very poorly written. They need revision to improve quality and remove detail, not an edit war from an editor who cannot accept revision of his writing. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Are they stock certificates or bearer bonds??? 74.166.156.250 ( talk) 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it that Wikipedia allows biased websites to be cited as official information? The source links given in this report have been cited by "off the wall" websites like TV By The Numbers.com which are not official information but merely websites who engage in speculation. Neither TVline.com, Entertainment Tonight or any of the other "legit media" reporting websites have reported on this and I find it appalling that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.246.195 ( talk) 12:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Any Actors which should be moved from "Recurring cast" to the regular cast section? Similarly, any actor names which should be moved down into the recurring cast section? 206.192.35.125 ( talk) 12:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)