Talk:Haven (TV series)/Archive 1

"excluding Canada and Scandinavia"

"The series will be the first property to be produced for Syfy Pay channels around the globe, excluding Canada and Scandinavia."

This is taken almost word-for-word from the article, however the phrasing is extremely confusing. What is Canada and Scandinavia being excluded from? Is it not airing there? (despite being produced and filmed in Canada) Is it being produced for channels other than Syfy in those countries? There are plenty of ways this could be interpreted, but none of them seem reasonable. (if it's produced and filmed in Canada why isn't it being shown there? If it's being shown on Syfy in all other countries why isn't it being shown on Syfy in Canada and Scandinavia. Since I don't understand what the sentence is saying I can't determine whether it's even worthwhile to include in the article at all. I would suggest either rephrasing it to make it less ambiguous or removing it completely. --StarkRG (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes that is awkward phrasing. It is E1's typical phrasing for a press release announcing the broadcasting rights buyers for a series. To be simple, there is no Syfy channel in Canada. It is one of few countries where there is no Syfy or any other Universal channel save for NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC. In Canada Haven is a "Showcase original series". E1 Entertainment partners with a Canadian production company, in this case Canwest, to make this and a few other shows in Canada. Canwest also owns the cable channel Showcase. The science fiction themed channel SPACE is owned by Canwest's competition and its existence is why the American version of Syfy is not licensed to be shown in Canada and why there is no domestic version of Syfy.

In a somewhat similar fashion, there is no Universal or Syfy channel in Scandinavian countries (that i can find mention of anywhere). Other shows distributed by E1 are bought by local stations or networks in that part of the world. They will likely begin announcing acquisition of Haven soon if they have not already done so. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Fan Site

The site Visit Haven has been set up for fans to interact - it is being established by people directly involved in the series including Exec Producer Jose Molina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goer2u4 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please back that up, there is no such info on the website to support such claims. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Best I can do right now is refer you to a recent tweet from his official Twitter account JoseMolinaTV but I know from having spoken to him personally. There's also reference to the website on the official Haven twitter account HavenTV Goer2u4 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we don't include fansites here. The primary site for the show is enough. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

References to other works

I made a slight correction to the mention of Flagg. It was originally written as a mention of "Reverend Flagg", but after checking once again on the show intro credits...the flier mentions "The Most Revered Flagg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.153.249 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Destructive editing

Numerous points in the section "Homage to Stephen King" were edited out recently rather than noted with a citation request. The request for references might be expected, but individual hacking of the text does not reflect interest in consensus. I've put most of the material back after finding the suitable references. It's easy to hack, but it is not responsible. The aim of Wiki is to be informative. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, terming anyone's edits as "destructive" - especially when said edits aren't complete nonsense or vandalism - is considered bad faith; you assume good faith and you will find that you get it in return.

Secondly, while the aim of Wikipedia is to be informative, it is actually more important to be careful as to whose opinion is being rendered as part of the article. For example, if I said that Haven was a typical whitebread piece of Canadian trash, I couldn't add that to the article because that is my opinion. Drawing connections within the series to support that conclusion would be original research or synthesis. Drawing connections between Stephen King or his body of work in the absence of verifiable, reliable sources cannot be included as well. I cannot speak for ThuranX, but would presume that he looked at all the connections that were offered and considered them trivial; were that the case, I find myself in agreement with him. A nod to the homages have to come in a more reliable and verifiable (at least on of your citations is a dead link, btw) than a cheap version of pop-up video.

I propose we discuss each of these points on this page, to weigh how vital they are to an understanding of the series, or whether they are simply an interesting aside drawn by a group of fans with no citational standing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Destructive editing" is merely descriptive. Your editing destroyed the material, removing most of it. This is not a matter of good or bad faith. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, you should supply something more specific than "at least on of your citations is a dead link, btw". -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued non-consensus editing is not reflective of Wiki policy. Do not hack out other people's work then discuss it. You discuss, before you remove. Various other people put this material in. They reflect a consensus of active editors on the issue. I mostly only put the references in and edited it accordingly. If you have problems with the references or the section in general then you discuss the issues. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. To begin with, you might have noticed that I have undone some of your comment placement amongst my text. It's usually seen as extremely combative to alter the posts of another, even at the best of times. I'll address this more on your own talk page, but I must ask you to not do it again; its considered tendentious editing, and has a few negative repercussions, not the least of which is the loss of good faith (remember how I mentioned WP:AGF before?) amongst your fellow editors. As well, there is no good take on terming someone's edits as "destructive"; just because you disagree with those edits doesn't make them bad - it just makes them different than yours.

Lets address some of the points you have addressed. You keep speaking of a consensus, but I am not seeing that which you speak of. Are you referring to a consensus of wiki editors who feel the material must be in in its entirety? I am not seeing that and frankly, that is the only consensus that matters here within WIkipedia. Consensus is a built thing amongst editors with differing viewpoints as to what the article should and should not contain, and it changes all the time. Get used to that.

To put it succinctly, I tink you are relying overmuch on one site to provide you the trivial bits of connection that you are seeking to add to the article. One or two of the more significant points might be worthy of inclusion - and that is a hefty 'might' - but not every crufty little bit. I am open to discussing this, but understand that it is the crucible of that discussion that forms not consensus, and not you deciding that it belongs in all by yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have let off steam can we get back to the issue of editing?

You are a new editor of this article. You haven't contributed any content to it. You have come along and simply removed large amounts of other people's work without consultation or comment in the discussion page. This was done on the grounds that the material didn't have citations to support it. No effort was made by you on the discussion page at this stage to talk about whether it is reasonable to remove the material. You stated in your edit summary: Find a citation that connects the instances to King's works, and it can come back. This however, proved to be false. When everything that had citations was put back, you removed the material again, changing your justification, saying: "some of these choices seem synthesized, Hutch - perhaps addressing them singly on the discussion page might be helpful." (And my name is not "Hutch", so please don't refer to me that way.)

I work on attempting to respect the intentions of the editors who have worked on the material before me. That means I will try to use as much of it as possible, though I don't have any personal interest in the section under examination other than the effort attempting to improve it. You came and removed material as you did on the grounds of lack of citations. Your reasoning for removing the material you did should have been clarified by the several references obtained from the horse's mouth. The producers of the program have given specific indications of the King references. This is not a matter of original research. I don't understand why you were not satisfied with the citations, as per your original complaint. If you believed your new reasoning, why didn't you state it originally?

Several people have contributed to the section. They show that there is a consensus for the material in the section. I did appreciate your original complaint, causing a review of the material and the insertion of citations, but your reversion of the material rather than discussing your new objections to it is odd to say the least. You have received feedback on your original large edit. The problem was addressed, ie the material was changed, not reverted. Your reversion was promiscuous. Your reasoning changed. Your next step should have been discussion not reversion. You are not engaging according to the guidelines in WP:BRD. Your editing cashes out as disruptive and cannot build a new consensus. I see from comments on your talk page that you are prone to edit conflicts, suggesting that you need to consider consensus more seriously. This is not the first time that your have been reminded of the WP:BRD process, due to your preference to revert rather than to talk. Rather than project onto me your responsiblities, please talk about your new complaint rather than simply revert as you have. I am returning the material of the section to the last new edit where I provided the citations you requested. Discuss before reverting. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, this section still looks more like trivia than any kind of significant addition to the article. I would suggest that the material be completely rewritten and significantly condensed into a paragraph format. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Huntster (and ThuranX, if I may be so bold as to glean an opinion from his single edit removing some of the trivia) - the material is both inconsequential to the series and, at best, trivial.

I will again point out that you perhaps misunderstand our guidelines in regards to what is and is not a consensus. It doesn't matter that I've never edited the article here before - in Wikipedia, we are all equally qualified to edit an article, until proven otherwise. It's important that you absorb that, Ihutchesson - ere your Wikipedia ride is bound to be a bumpy one. Consensus changes, and often changes daily. Prior consensus only matters until someone else says 'say what?' and offers good reasons why the prior edits are silly.

And am sorry if you feel I was being less than genuine in my issues with the trivia section. While I was pointing out the largest issue with the crufty little section of King connections, the edit summary space is only so large - my issues with the section far exceeded the space allowed.

Perhaps you could express to us - via citations - how this additional material helps to obtain a greater understanding of the series, because I am simply not seeing how it does.

You don't provide any constructive way forward, Jack Sebastian. You merely try to put the issue onto me. You made an edit and I dealt with that edit by responding to your issue of citations. You are the one who wants to change the section. Where are your productive suggestions? Leaving the vestigal fragment that is there now is not of little use. It doesn't reflect the fact that there is an evident policy of the writers to consistently cite King's works throughout the series. It is merely an introductory passage with one random example marked with a dot. Rewrite it. Be a good editor rather than simply reverting a change that you stimulated. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means Huntster, rewrite the whole section so that it reflects what you would like. It will be either accepted or modified! It will probably be more useful than what has happened to it now. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've made some substantial edits to the section previously entitled "Homage to Stephen King". To begin with, I've changed the title to "References to other works", seeing as a reference to The X-Files is apparently out there, as well. I've converted some of the more solid references (ie. not prone to accusations of original research or synthesis) into prose. This should satisfy the editor most interested in preserving his researched additions as well as improve the article, moving it closer to GA candidacy. I've added a cited reference where someone noted a reference to the X-Files' Fox "Spooky" Mulder.
Additionally, I've trimmed down the cast list - no sense adding every Tom. Dick and Harriet, since there is a link to another page that details each and every one of them. Lastly, I've addressed some of the more egregious problems in the bullet-pointed opening credits section. I get why it might have a place in the article, but bullet-point lists don't really appear in GA articles; there must be a way to convert to prose these events. Perhaps someone citable has opined about the nature of them. Were such out there, we could simply refer to them, and not go out on a limb, expressing our impressions as to what we are seeing and what it means.
Hopefully, these series of edits will satisfy people. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Title changed to "Stephen King in Haven", removed the trivial reference to X-Files and added a few more examples of King in Haven. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to discuss that removal, as its cited. Unless, of course, you did it out of spite. Of course the matter is still up for discussion and, considering that the matter is in fact verifiable and reliably cited, it's going o stay in until otherwise determined to be trivial. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us examine those bits that keep getting added in by an editor (the same one who initially added them and is apparently loathe to see them go). The DIFF where their bold addition has been reverted can be seen here.

The title is changed to reflect only a Stephen King homage" to the series. Additionally, every single one of the less notable instances - instances alluded to in the (imho) better version of the text created by myself - have been reinserted. To list them all is trivial, as has been noted by no less than three other editors. I would say that that forms a consensus for trimming. Additionally, there is entirely too much synthesis occurring in the connections being formed by the editor linking one of the plot points in an episode to a King story. Lastly, the X-Files reference within the series, actually well-cited, was removed without any reasoning for such(here or in the all-too-short edit summary).

All have been reverted as the BOLD edits they were. It is hoped that the person seeking to change the info will make their way here to defend their proposed changes, and we can go from there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The X-Files business was obtained from a user-written non-reliable source written by one robertkillen@hotmail.com. Your edit in that issue is poorly conceived and has no value. As such it must go. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide something in the way of proof that the source is non-reliable, Ian, or any less reliable or verifiable than source you have provided for the article? I am not seeing what you are. I appreciate you seeking to discuss the matter instead of simply reverting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is not a recognized authority. The site is not a recognized authority on the material. You have no way of valuing the source. You should not have put the material on the page. It is against Wiki policy to use such a questionable source. The material that you removed is from the company that supplies the program and is thus considered a reliable source.

Please explain why you removed the material relating to King's "It" and the writers' use of it. This is non-trivial and shows a useful background to the writers and the material they use. Your reversion seems to have no sense in it. It has nothing to do with your trivia about X-Files. It is a separate issue. It was part of the material you removed in your first hack. You merely cut it out with the excuse of lack of citation. Then you cut it out again for another excuse. It is noteworthy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The title that you have used suggests that the material is merely trivia. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hutch, I am starting to suspect that you are going to oppose any removal of information about King references. i am hoping that isn't the issue, because it would mean that you haven't read up on WP:OWN, which would be an oversight ion your part.

As to why a lot of the minor refernces to King's work were removed was predicated on how Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The reference to It was visual only, and had precisely no bearing on the episode in which it appeared. That is the litmus for deciding what references of King's get mentioned. Where the references are explicit - as in the very name of the town and specific refernces to other parts of the King Storyworld, we mention it. If the changes are ephemeral, or require someone well-versed in King's works to understand, then we do not mention it. These are the basics of article editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And if the Mulder citation bothers you, the second one I added to the X-Files reference should represent an even more reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your importance is noteworthy, Sebby. You tout your own doctoring of the section as "better version of the text created by myself". I would expect this from anyone who edits their first page. Passing slights such as "Unless, of course, you did it out of spite" should make you reconsider WP:AGF. The claim of "too much synthesis" merely indicates that you did not look at the sources.

You stated that you are starting to suspect that you are going to oppose any removal of information about King references. Please stop with the unhelpful conjecturing. Much of the King material was left out of my last substantive edit, so a fair portion of the above is irrelevant.

The TV.com source is just another user-supplied quote and not reliable. I'll change it for you if you like. Perhaps you should reconsider what is and what is not a reliable source. You seem to have a generic problem on the matter. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that you are going to keep taking cheap shots, I am going to suggest that we take the matter to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and let them give us some uninvolved feedback. I suspect that is going to work far better than reverting each other. I will file there immediately. Towards that end, I will expect you to self revert immediately - you are in violation of 3RR, and I think we both know that I will report you unless you revert immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided waiting wasn't going to be prudent anymore. The 3RR complaint was filed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Er.. when you guys have finished arguing, would you update the Haven theme tune reference to the Leah Siegel page I've created. Now I know it's poor so feel free to use your energies tidying it up.Lanternrouge (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New additions

I've reverted the most recent bits that another editor has sought to add recently. The various discussions have concerned citability (since resolved, for the most part), relevance (which myself and two other editors have found to be wanting) and most recently, original research. This last bit concerns the one paragraph that was added that I think - with significant improvement - could be beneficial to the article:

Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers". For example, in "A Tale of Two Audreys", a little boy in a yellow rain slicker is seen outside the church chasing a newspaper boat that he has set in the stream in the gutter. He chases until it falls down into a stormdrain on Witcham Street. He then sticks his right arm down into the drain and screams. The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book. Also derived from It, episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who (unwillingly) takes the form of a person's worst fear, and in one instance appears as a clown, a visual allusion to Pennywise of the film version of It.[]

To me, this suggests that the contributor is seeking to connect - far beyond the citation's flimsy, unprovenanced, pop-up video - aspects of It to a Haven episode. I have noted it before, and it is no less true now than it was then, that we cannot connect the dots - no matter how glaringly obvious they may seem to us, as aficionados of King's body of work. We need actual relevant citations as to the episodes visual allusions to the book/film. Find those, and a lot of my difficulty with the inclusion of this particular information evaporate.

I am vehemently opposed to any synthesis connection between MacGuffin characters and King characters. It's largely trivial, especially when readers can explore the connections via the external link at the bottom of the article. This is directly because of WP:IINFO. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

FIRST UNJUSTIFIABLE REVERT above, based on false claims.

---

This editor was incapable of discussing the issues when he brought them to the dispute resolution board. The view of the editor is that it is ok to talk of the more trivial aspects of Stephen King's influence on Haven a book that someone gave the protagonist, or a few place names. In short, it is ok for this editor to allow the more trivial information. But, when it comes to substantial issues that Syfy have indicated, the editor refuses point blank to consider them, making false claims of synthesis, when the information is found on the web site of the primary source of information. He claims above that the source is a "flimsy, unprovenanced, pop-up video". He has "pop-up video" right. The rest is his opinion based not on the fact that the video is provided on the producers' web site and that it is a direct source for information about writers and producers. The validity of Syfy's material as primary was established by Mr Stradivarius here. What is the editor's opinion based on? I don't know. It has nothing to do with evidence. He just doesn't like the fact that the primary source of the information comes in a video with pop-up information.

When he says, "I am vehemently opposed to any synthesis connection between MacGuffin characters and King characters", it shows either that he has taken no notice of the information in the videos or that he hasn't looked at them. The connections are made in the videos. There is no synthesis. This editor has no justification for excluding good material from this article. He prefers to include the more trivial than the more important examples of influence. To bolster his position he has complained about citations, trivia, synthesis original research, repudiation of sources and back to trivia plus now "MacGuffin characters". This kitchen sink approach is definitely covering all bases. One thing is certain he doesn't want to have this information in the article. His reasons for this are not what he has claimed, as they have no basis in reality. Hence we go back to the last good edit. I.Hutchesson ► 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can stop the personal attacks at any point, Ian. It doesn't win you any converts.

Secondly, you aren't accurately representing the outcome of the DRN discussion. For precisely the same reasons above, I disagreed with the importation of all the fairly useless parallels you keep seeking to introduce. Indeed, they suggested mediation, and yet, your first impulse after the page protection is lifted is to revert back in precisely the same information that prompted the initial dispute and page protection in the first place.

You keep talking about consensus, but you are the only one wanting this information in the article, whereas three others (myself the most vocal of the three) seek to limit the unnecessary information. The smart way - indeed, the only way - to be handling this is to seek a consensus here in the talk page FIRST. You have not crafted a consensus, Ihutchesson. Current consensus of three other editors is to limit the crufty, unnecessary information. Therefore, you are the only one who thinks that your edit is "the last good edit".

I've seen the same information that you have. I don't feel that the same 8 or so additional references are necessary. Others agree. I would ask that you self revert immediately, as you have reverted twice in an article you were expressly warned against edit-warring in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You have once again initiated the reverting. And in your latest response you have shown no sign of having looked at the evidence from the primary source for the show and you have added nothing in this response that deals with the material under analysis. You took the same thing to DRN without entering into the discussion. I don't want to go through that again, Jack Sebastian, so rather than repeat it, I'd prefer to put the issue before other editors. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the material in section "References to other works" acceptable?

There is a dispute between two editors over the content of the section "References to other works". I would like to hear the opinions of any willing Wiki editors on the section's acceptability (last diff: [1]; reverted form here). Thanks. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the submitter forgot to submit the opposing edit, wherein most of the 11 references were trimmed away to 3, with a link at the bottom of the article for further reader perusal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Remove most - Because it looks like all the sources used are the producer of the TV show. The material would be undeniably good for the article if there were WP:Secondary sources that described the references/allusions. But the producer is a mere WP:Primary source. Although the WP:Verifiability policy does not prohibit primary sources, it discourages them. So when a dispute arises (like in this RfC), a good rule is to require secondary sources (e.g. a reliable reviewer, or a major newspaper or magazine, etc). I don't doubt that the references/allusions are valid and correct, but until there are secondary sources, it is not encyclopedic to rely on the show's producer for trivia like that (on the other hand, the producer could be relied on for facts & figures like dates & budgets). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. I recommend reducing the references/allusions material down to a single sentence (but it would be okay to have a large footnote with examples, etc). --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So, around this size or smaller? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That link is not working for me ... maybe you grabbed the wrong diff? I would suggest one or two sentences, listing the inspiration for the allusions, and giving a couple of them. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If some secondary sources were added, Noleander, would that make the two paragraphs acceptable to you? -- I.Hutchesson ► 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, as there are sources (albeit not the best) and it adds good and interesting content which ties together this work with numerous other works by King. However, what needs to be removed much more critically is the Opening Credits Sequence section, which is pure trivia and not encyclopedic in the least. Unless it can be cleaned up into a reasonable paragraph of encyclopedic material (which I honestly can't figure a way do), I'll remove it in a week. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that if we cannot find it now, why not remove it to here, and let people develop out the references and discuss them as we go. I think the title sequence info is overkill, myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, Jack, but do you mean moving the Title Sequence section here or the King references? — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, Huntster - I refer to the Title sequence section. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm responsible for putting the opening credits material there as a resource, though it was never my intention to leave it in the Haven article, but rather have it in a subsidiary article. Turning it into a paragraph would make it harder to follow the development of the imagery, if you—say—watch the DVD. -- I.Hutchesson ► 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Title Sequence section is not appropriate in either this article or any other, as it stands. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate to create an entirely new article just for it (either in its list format or in paragraph format)...that's something I've never seen done before, and for good reason: it's pure trivia. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not trivia. It's not a random collection of factoids, but a specific sequence of imagery as trivial as a list of plot summaries. You wouldn't want all the plot summaries woven into a paragraph or paragraphs, but pages with plot summaries are functionally a list of only loosely related information. I can put it in a table if that helps to get out of the trivia mindframe. We provide all sorts of supplementary information on Wiki that could be interpreted as trivia by people who don't see the utility of the information. Family trees and relatives could be considered trivia, as could all the people born or died in the same year, all the famous people with the same first names, and so on. The sequence purports to represent among other things an alternate history, marked with newspaper headlines going back several hundred years. Without analyzing the material it is a resource for readers, who may find a use for the information in forming their own conclusions about the show, as they may find a use for any of the other material that editors have included in various articles. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You need a secondary source stating or interpreting its importance. Otherwise, it is us as editors calling attention to its importance. In short, we need a review of the title sequence outside of its parent company Syfy, as per our guidelines on sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So, as I am reading it currently, there are four editors preferring fewer primary sourced references (or indeed, fewer references of any stripe) in the section, as evidenced by [this version:

Several allusions to the written works of author Stephen King are made in the series regularly;(ref) the series itself being based upon King's novella, "The Colorado Kid". On Syfy.com's Haven website, many of these references are pointed out as they occur in each episode. For example, Derry and the titular Haven are both fictional cities in Maine previously used in the author's stories.(ref) Other references abound: one of the main characters receives a copy of a novel written by a character from King's novel, Misery,(ref) while another character has just been released from Shawshank Prison.(ref) Many other, less noticeable references occur in the form of street names, characters and scenes reminiscent of either books by King or films based upon said works.]

...and two that are happy as clams with the current, disputed version chock-a-block full of references primarily sourced to a pop-up video on Syfy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your suggestion to move them to the talk page where perhaps they can be worked on without muddying up the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the claim that "there are four editors preferring fewer primary sourced references (or indeed, fewer references of any stripe) in the section" seems not to reflect reality. Four editors preferring fewer primary sourced references (or indeed, fewer references of any stripe)? Who are these four who prefer what you claim? Please justify your apparently inaccurate statement, thanks, Jack Sebastian. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned at least twice before, myself, ThuranX (2), Huntster (3), Noleander (4) and most recently, SMcCandlish ([2], [3]). And you really should likely re-read my post, Ian. The context for my statement was that a flood of references to Stephen King's work - all from the same, un-provenanced source within Syfy - is trivia overload. Additionally, most of it is being givenan importance by the editor adding it that it doesn't really have within the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian made a specific comment that was a deliberate misrepresentation: "there are four editors preferring fewer primary sourced references (or indeed, fewer references of any stripe) in the section". It is wrong to cite ThuranX in your trumped up numbers about editors preferring fewer primary sources. ThuranX said nothing about the passage we are looking at, but talked of lack of citations in a previous form of the material. Citing Hunster here is not useful, when Hunster specifically recommended keeping the material here above. SMcCandlish was dealing with the Title sequence and doesn't talk about the passage you cited at all. Nobody has requested fewer references. The assertion has been that there are too many primary sourced references. Noleander specifically talked about the need for secondary sources, which I have supplied. You should not misrepresent reality as you do, Jack Sebastian.

In the end it is just you fighting by hook or by crook to remove material that you didn't rewrite. You would prefer to keep the more trivial and omit the more substantial King influences on the show. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop the personal attacks, Ihutchesson? You asked where the four editors came from and I told you. All four of the previous editors are presenting arguments for less trivia, not more. I understand that you do not feel that the information you keep adding is not trivia; many of us tend to disagree. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing personal in trying to understand the comments you have posted here. The text of the passage has not changed since I restored it to the last good edit prior to the dispute. I have added no trivia to that edit, so why you say I "keep adding" anything is not clear.

You were talking about those four editors "preferring fewer primary sourced references (or indeed, fewer references of any stripe) in the section", which was not true. Now you're talking about more or less trivia. -- I.Hutchesson ► 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not going to play your reindeer games, Ian. Read the diffs supplied. Most didn't want the trivia - trivial was the term most of them used - you initially added and then kept adding back in every single time it was removed by myself and others. Additionally, some of the same people also noted that the primary sourced information wasn't really appropriate. So, when I say that four people seemed to oppose the inclusion of the trivial, poorly-sourced info, it wasn't a lie, a fabrication, or however else you want to characterize it as. It's the truth.

And I am going to state that if you cannot find a way to be more polite, you are not going to get any responses from me. I'm done dealing with the rude Ian. Show me you can be polite, or go away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I haven't heard back from Noleander, I've added some secondary sources to the material being considered. -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You really shouldn't do that until we've all arrived at a consensus. Tinkering with the article before then only muddies the waters and makes you ripe for another block. Please self revert. -- (06:11, 2 October 2011 Jack Sebastian) (Ascription added by Ihutchesson from diff)

No substance of text was changed. Secondary source citations were added, as per Noleander's comments. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It can await the conclusion of the RfC, can it not? You asked for the RfC; why not await all the responses before proceeding? This could easily be seen as edit-warring, considering that these statements you keep trying to justify are in contention. I will ask again (before proceeding elsewhere): please self-revert and await the conclusion of the RfC, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, the text itself has not been changed, merely better sourced. -- I.Hutchesson ► 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Using your reasoning, I will then remove the Syfy Channel references you've found replacement (secondary) citations for, as per PRIMARY; with the addition of fairly good secondary sources, we no longer need the primary sourcing (one of my many issues with the material). When we additionally consider that the source of the primary sources (in the form of unprovenanced pop-up video) can be found by following the Syfy link to the program at the bottom of the page, the primary sourcing becomes even more vestigial and unnecessary.

Keep finding secondary sources, Ian. That is a good way to avoid conflicts with others regarding the material you wish to add. Make sure to stay on point, though. Always keep in mind that just because something can be sourced is not the same as it being necessary to the article. Keep your own interpretations from the article, which only create issues of giving a minority view undue weight, or highlighting fringe views. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, we need to find secondary sources for the following points you wish to keep within the article:

(From "References to other works")

• "In some cases the plot of an episode revolves around an idea from the work of King: a character who has visions on touching people, but is unable to act upon them. The plot of "The Hand You're Dealt", derived from The Dead Zone.¹
• "The plot of "Roots", inspired by "Weeds".²

More statements in the section that reference primary instead of secondary sourcing remain, but I am sure we can find replacements to them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing relevant sources. PRIMARY does not support such an act. It says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." If you like, instead of the comments in the footnotes, we can cite the actual text from the video popups on Syfy.com:

1. "This ability references Johnny Smith from King's "The Dead Zone". Johnny, like Vanessa in this episode, becomes preoccupied with trying to prevent something he has seen."
2. "The trouble in this episode involves plants that come to life and start killing people. This was inspired by the Stephen King short story "Weeds" also known as "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill."

Also if you like, I can add in the same sentence a clause about the young man with the "gift" of pyrokinesis, as per the already cited French article which relates it to Stephen King's novel Firestarter ("Pyrokinésie" in French). -- I.Hutchesson ► 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these Syfy sources is that we don't know who's saying the things showing up on pop-up video. That's my first problem with the primary sources. Secondarily, it's a primary source' we deal almost exclusively with secondary sources here in Wikipedia, and we certainly don't include redundant sources for matters that are not contentious or disputed. As per WP:SECONDARY:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

There's your restricting policy, Ian. Once we have good secondary sources, the primary sourcing you originally hung your hat on is no longer necessary, especially when that primary source acts as a loose shed of information, without provenance or attribution. We don't know who's saying these things.

Thirdly, what is actually disputed is not the similarity of the "Monster of the Week" syndrome that plagues Haven, but instead the value of that information in relation to other, far more valuable references to King's works. Too many references within the article is too much. I don't know why I need to keep explaining that to you, Ian, but it is growing tedious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources have now been provided to show that dependence on King is notable. There is no problem using sources sanctioned by Syfy and published on the company's website once notability has been established. Your views about removing sources don't seem to have a basis. The rest of your comments appear to be ironic. -- I.Hutchesson ► 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, when you stop to consider that you are confusing how we view use and evaluate sources here in Wikipedia. The wiki relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, and when choosing from a mix of sources, you choose the secondary source over the primary source. Every time. As well, we don't 'double up' on sources that say the same thing, unless the matter is hotly debated as to accuracy (like the border of Palestine, for instance). We certainly do not mix primary and secondary citations together for the same statement; its redundant and unnecessary. We try to be concise in Wikipedia, so once we have the secondary sources, the primary ones are less useful.

I would point out that I am pleased that you finally took the time to go out and grab some secondary sources, Ian. It's just too bad that you had to get blocked to realize that it needed doing.

Lastly, I will reiterate that the problem with using a primary source like Syfy is that the pop-up video bit that you keep linking to doesn't quote anyone but Syfy itself; its like quoting graffiti - we don't know who actually said what, and we cannot hold a company to account for a generic statement made. A statement by an actual person (for example, a reviewer, PR rep for Syfy or reporter) is an actual statement from someone. We prefer the latter to the former, as the latter gives doesn't establish notability. We don't know who at Syfy is making the pop-up statements, so we don;t know if they are notable, whereas Bob Bobson from AintItCoolNews is notable.

I hope that clarifies matters for you. If you doubt any of my points, feel free to ask an admin for verification of what I am saying. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have said anything new or constructive, Jack Sebastian. -- I.Hutchesson ► 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

X-Files

There is a logical connection in the "see also" between the X-Files and Haven. Both deal with law enforcement covering and investigating the paranormal and supernatural. Mrld (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but as someone noted elsewhere, us noticing that connection isn't the same as a notable, reliable source saying that. They have to make the connection; we cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ever notice that a "See Also" is nothing much more than featured content from a category the article is already in? I have never seen a reference for a category. I have likewise never seen a reference for a "See Also" section. I have seen many people abhor such sections. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the see also section, it isn't meant to link shows that we think are like this one. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Nicholas Campbell from cast section

As per this edit by Ihutchesson, I need to point out that most tv projects list the characters wither in alphabetical order, or the order they appear in the opening credits. The aforementioned edit removed Nicholas Campbell from the cast list, but he still appears int he opening credits. Until the program removes him from the cast list, it would appear to synthesis for us to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Campbell was a guest star in ep.212, not part of the main cast. He is listed among the guest stars here. He died in ep.113 and has since only appeared in the one episode. -- I.Hutchesson ► 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Was in the main cast. Is in the main cast. Is a guest star. So long as either of the first two points is true a person and their character should not be removed from an article just because their character was killed off. If that were the case you could argue to remove episodes from the list which have been broadcast. The articles are comprehensive, not written for this week in the present tense. Ever look at the articles on Charmed and see what is done regarding its infamous cast change? Other than the people portraying Nathan, Duke, and the blonde woman we know as the fake Audrey everyone else is a guest star, recurring or one-off. The frequently recurring appear to be regulars but technically are not. Or are you saying the troubles are now affecting the episodes of the show, remaking them with different or less people in them. :) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Campbell is listed as part of the cast for Season 1 in the article, but not in the infobox, as he is not part of the current cast and hasn't been so for a year. If you don't think this is sufficient, feel free to change it. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I think it is easier to follow the onscreen opening credits of the program; doing so frees us from deciding shuld they stay or should they go - the program makes that decision and bears that responsibility. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was obviously not speaking to you, Jack Sebastian. You don't have consensus, so don't. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies - I argued that we shouldn't be synthesizing information and removing cast members before the program does. Your words - and I quote - " If you don't think this is sufficient, feel free to change it". You allowed it. What specifically were you agreeing to then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You talked about synthesizing information, but then you did it. Nicholas Campbell is indicated in the credits as a guest star (once in the second season), which should have helped you see he wasn't a cast member. The comment you quoted was plainly directed at Deliriousandlost. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My not-apologies. If you remove someone from the cast list you are effectively saying THEY ARE NOT IN THE CAST AND NEVER WERE. These Wikipedia articles are not simply about the most recent episode; the articles on tv shows are about the entirety of the shows from first concept pitch through the death of Wikipedia, as is available. As such, removing cast members from the cast list is a no-no as it is highly deceptive and treats Wikipedia as a tv guide, effectively dismissing everything but the current episode. I do note that Shaw/E1/NBCU has changed the casting credits. The newspaper editors were main cast as was the chief. That was the first season. In season 2 they and everyone save for Emily, Lucas, and Eric are guest stars even if they appear in 11 of 13 episodes. Though now frequently recurring guest stars they have been stars of the show and should all be listed in he infobox. Look at most any other article or the infobox documentation and see that you are wrong to be changing the cast list episode-to-episode. The cast list is comprehensive and is added to but not retracted from. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Or in short, by changing the cast list to remove those not starring in the most recent episode you are synthesising info and breaking those very policies you are accusing the other breaking. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As a thought... if you think the cast list should change to the removal of people because the current cast of the show changes then i dare you to try to remove Charlie Sheen from the cast list of 2.5 Men and not be reverted, warned, and who knows what else. Dito for Christopher Meloni on the LOSVU article. Discussing whether to violate the synthesis policy or not by only acknowledging the current cast is not really something that is a matter for discussion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Nicholas Campbell is mentioned as a member of the first season cast in the article here Haven (TV series)#cast. (And WP:WAX arguments aren't useful here.) As the infobox indicates "starring", Campbell doesn't star in Haven any more. -- I.Hutchesson ► 05:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you need to read WAX far more carefully - its used primarily for deletions discussions, not deletions/edits within articles. In any case, we aren't talking about how other articles might exist. Virtually all longstanding television series use this format, as per the MOS for WikiProject:Television, which this series (and article) are governed by. The infobox itself offers insight as to how we approach cast sections in the infobox: from the "Starring" section in the template for television infobox (italicized for emphasis):

"The show's star or stars. Separate multiple entries with line breaks in original credit order followed by order he/she joined the show (
)."

Removing a cast ember because you do not consider them to be a star is Original Research, as is removing them when their character dies in the series. From an in-universe perspective, Garland Wuornos' rocky remains were still moving after his death, which allow for an opening by which the character, reassembled, could return to the series. And I am not even going to go into the numerous possibilities of the character returning as as ghost (as James Remar does in Dexter) or Something Else™ - after all, it is Haven.
The best way to approach what cast members to list is to remove your own perspective from the equation and use the TV series itself for this information and ordering; they know who deserves credit a helluva lot better than you or I do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is the best way. Please go back and read the credits carefully. As with the previous 11 episodes the stars don't change. Campbell is credited as "guest starring" in ep.212. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally - we agree on something. Since the infobox template doesn't allow for "guest star", we should - as per project-wide consensus - list the cast as they appear in the opening credits, since "guest star" still includes the word "star". We list the regular cast in the infobox. We do not use our own personal opinions as to who is a star in the program and who is not. If you find yourself in doubt of this assertion, please feel free to check the WikiProject Television MOS, or maybe just ask over at the WikiProject itself for clarification. You now have two editors who have told you the correct manner that we utilize the infobox template, each providing sound reasoning. Please understand that this is a further confirmation of the consensus already in place wiki-wide. Stop arguing and ask around; this is how it is done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As you are having so much trouble understanding the difference between a "star" and a "guest star", here is a Wiki definition for "guest appearance" which "guest star" redirects to: "the participation of a performer which does not belong to the regular crew". A star is part of the regular crew. HTH. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point: the infobox does not have a listing for those other than stars. He is listed in the opening credits. Therefore, he goes int he box. Either ask someone else or go ask at the appropriate WikiProject. I have limited amounts of time to edit Wikipedia, and I simply don't have the time to further educate you. Let's both shut up and let others weigh in. Maybe their words will carry more weight with you, as you are simply using the time that I am posting as material to attack. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's list all guest stars in the opening credits in the infobox. Doh, Jack Sebastian, do think of the implications.

You've complained voluminously here about limited amounts of time, yet you waste your time on color choices or whether a guest star should be in an infobox or what is salacious trivia re Karen Gillan. For someone who has so little time, you do go on and on and on. It is your choice to come to articles that others have been contributing substantively to and offer your expertise. If you no longer want to help, you know what you can do. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Stick to this article, please. I did not say list all the guest stars in the infobox (ie. Freak of the Week or one-offs). I said list the main cast. So long as Campbell is listed in the cast, he should stay in. Now kindly give others a chance to talk and offer their opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume nameless is Jack Sebastian [he's finally realized], who is still in trouble. The main cast is indicated in the credits as Rose, Bryant and Balfour. That's it. After them come the guest stars. You want to arbitrarily include one in the main cast. -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are right. We should add the regular cast to the infobox. Thanks for pointing that out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The three starring regular cast members are already there. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, I was hoping other people might want to weigh in on this subject as well as whether we need quite so many references to King's work in the article. Ian and I have been going back and forth for awhile, getting nowhere, really. What do others think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

After grinding the most pedantic issues into the ground, you think you can stimulate discussion. LMAO. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is not only Nicholas Campbell who starred in the first season and not the second. The episode 13 credits are Emily Rose, Lucas Bryant, Stephen McHattie, Michelle Monteith, John Bourgeois, Richard Donat, John Dunsworth, with Nicholas Campbell and Eric Balfour. All of those people should be in the cast list of the infobox and the body of the article.
Also missing from the starring list are Mary-Colin Chisholm, Anne Caillon, Rick Roberts, Devon Bostick, Fiona Reid, Jennie Raymond, Dean Armstrong, Sebastian Pigott, Amy Reitsma, Lyriq Bent, and Caroline Cave. Now not all of them appear in more than one episode but they are all credited as stars rather than guest stars in what episodes of season 1 they appear in. At minimum those appearing in multiple episodes and credited as stars should be in the infobox cast list.
For some reason Michelle Monteith is listed all over Wikipedia as a guest star in each episode despite getting billing fourth among the stars.
Ihutchesson, you misunderstand as evidenced by you saying, "As the infobox indicates "starring", Campbell doesn't star in Haven any more." The infobox is not for who is staring in the show today; it is for anyone who has EVER STARRED IN THE SHOW. This bickering is really quite pointless. Ihutchesson, you are wanting Jack Sebastian to break all sorts of policy to abide by your error while telling everyone that people who starred in but no longer star in Haven and only Haven are to be removed from the infobox. Ihutchesson, look at any other show which is up-to-date. You will find you are wrong. It is optional to note when people starred in the show, and that is done when there are more than 2 seasons and the cast has changed significantly, such as with House. Calling it original research, arguements to avoid in deletion discussions, and whatever else amounts to a poor attempt to discredit your opponent.
Jack Sebastian, removing people as they leave the show doesn't negate their having starred in the show. If they come back as a one-off that doesn't change their having starred in the show previously. You are wanting the infobox to reflect 'this week on Haven' and that is not what it is for. As the cast changes people are added to the list as applicable but you do not subtract from it. Yet you subtract from it, arguing that the show dictates who the stars are and that only those people in the most recent episode count. You miss entirely the point of the cast entry in the infobox. You miss the point of Wikipedia. It is not written 'for today' or 'last night on Haven' but is written from the totality of the programme or the duration a hockey team is located in a city or until the league folds. The line up in the baseball playoffs will change game to game for every team but that does not mean the guy on the bench tomorrow night wasn't starting at third base yesterday and wasn't a starting player in that round.
I have partially corrected the cast list to the 7 most frequently appearing people billed at some time as starring cast members who have a wikipedia article. It should be more but try this out for now. If it doesn't scare you we can move to adding the others. I am tired of you two going back and forth about which policy to ignore, which one the other misunderstands, and neither of you are travelling toward any sort of resolution. A resolution which is already in the template documentation and can be seen applied to any show which is not neglected. If you don't like the cumulative cast being listed then take it to the template talk page to propose site-wide change because this has gone on way too long.
For some examples of how you are both wrong see:

• Karis Paige Bryant starred in 4 episodes of Charmed (out of 179). But she starred in those episodes and is listed as such in the infobox and the body of the article. Many other people starred for a season or three but are still listed.
• Dexter (TV series)
• House (TV series)
• Law & Order
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)
• Cheers
• Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
• 2.5 idiots
• Roseanne (TV series)
• Law & Order: Criminal Intent
• Grey's Anatomy
• Party of Five
• Ghost Whisperer
• Everwood
• NCIS (TV series)
• Charlie's Angels
• Scrubs (TV series)
• LOST
• Angel (TV series)
• The Practice
• Criminal Minds
• Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman
• Sliders
• Las Vegas (TV series)
• Torchwood
• That '70s Show
• CSI Las Vegas, Miami, and New York
• One Tree Hill (TV series)
• and even my beloved Gilmore girls list cumulative cast

and all went through some significant cast changes in their many seasons. Only when the list gets obscenely long (dozens) is it replaced with something like "see cast section" as was done with Smallville and Degrassi: The Next Generation. You can argue that other stuff exists but that other stuff would be found most everywhere as the standard and this here which you have advocated is the deviation.
Or if you will, call my vote the one that favours consensus which is to abide by standard practice. That makes it 2 to 1 to have Nicholas Campbell in. By that reason i add in the others who are also credited as starring in season 1 though they are guest stars in season 2 when they do appear. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deliriousandlost, just after you made your first comment on this issue I said, "Campbell is listed as part of the cast for Season 1 in the article, but not in the infobox, as he is not part of the current cast and hasn't been so for a year. If you don't think this is sufficient, feel free to change it." * It's no problem. -- I.Hutchesson ► 13:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

All the pretty colors

What criteria is being used to choose infobox colors in this edit? They are largely unnecessary and, to be blunt about it, quite drab. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The color matches the navbox. -- I.Hutchesson ► 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a escaping the horribly disgusting default. There is only so much white, blue, and grey, with black text that one can tolerate before their mind implodes. You can change it. Then someone else will revert it. PITA the defaults are. Pretty colours. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, who put the navbox colors together, hmm? I appreciate you seeking to actually follow a precedent, Ian, but baby poo brown and tan? Really? I've read somewhere that the general consensus is to use the colors off the DVD release. Not sure how that came to be, but I'm just throwing that out there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the color after my edit can only be seen as provocative, Jack Sebastian. Template:Infobox provides no info on the parameter. Many—perhaps the vast majority of—shows have the default #CCCCFF. You would never have considered the issue had I not changed the color. -- I.Hutchesson ► 05:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, our edit which altered the colors was not based in consensus. Your bold edit was reverted. As has been discussed here and elsewhere, any inforbox colors usually follow that of the DVD issuance. You might wish to ask around before making edits without consensus and then complaining when they get reverted. You have to defend your edit that changes the article. You did not do so prior to making it.

On a side note, I don't revert specifically your edits, Ian. Your edits simply aren't made with a consensus to do so, and if you are unprepared to have your edits altered, then you shold reexamine what you are doing here. This is a communal editing environment, and you need to begin demonstrating some good faith, and learn to work with others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, you have provided reasoning which doesn't pan out and a rule which does not exist. All you've done is arbitrarily imposed a dull grey (#C0C0C0) which does not follow your rule and which is against the only consensus we have. I changed the original color from the boring default to a unique color and Deliriousandlost notes above "There is only so much white, blue, and grey, with black text that one can tolerate before their mind implodes." This gave consent to my edit.

You chose #C0C0C0

• against my choice,
• against the statement of Deliriousandlost and
• against your own stated logic (for there is no obvious #C0C0C0 on the DVD cover).

You have, against your usual behavior, stuck around the Haven related pages and aggressively edited many things, as though, because you were engaged in a dispute here, you felt this Dodge City needed cleaning up. You have opposed everything this outlaw has done and used every trick of the law to try to enforce your just perspective. Any technicality seems to be okay, so here we are squabbling over a color I chose to get away from defaults.

You have no tangible reason for your revert and given your proven aggressive editing behavior (which is disruptive in my eyes), you need to stop asserting your will over everything I do here in the Haven pages and get back to the business you were engaged in before you stopped by to hack out a bunch of Stephen King references rather than flag them and stayed for dinner.

If you must assert your will in this color issue, at least try something that actually reflects your claims. Most of the colors you think are greys on the DVD cover actually have a noticeably stronger component of green and blue. Grey is inherently dull and defeats the purpose of a color change. -- I.Hutchesson ► 19:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I choose another color that isn't silver or baby-poo brown, you will stop edit-warring about it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer you went back to your roving sheriffing rather than settling and imposing your law around Haven. You have totally changed your Wiki behavior. I would also ask you to stop accusing me of the very thing you may be doing. An edit war takes two. You are flouting the slim consensus and "baby-poo brown" just tells me you need your monitor adjusted. The colors of the DVD are already in the banner image, so there is no point in restating them. I chose the color for design purposes as a relative contrast to them. See the first of the triadic colors here, then the second which is a base that reflects the tone range of the image and incidentally the DVD cover. So if you still want to propose an alternative color, try doing so with a little finesse. -- I.Hutchesson ► 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where did youi come up with the color palette you linked to? This is the DVD image of the cover. Unless you are deciding to use skin tone, Emily Rose' hair color and the color of someone's shirt, it is a gray color (or blue-gray) that is clearly the predominant color. Maybe you should look at the source image first before simply referring the color scheme only.

And btw, what "slim consensus" are you referring to? 2:1 doesn't constitute consensus in Wikipedia. A 4:1 ratio usually constitutes a consensus - you know, like the one that we have to not include all the crufty bits connecting Stephen Kin g to the episodes. You might want to review a fairly important part of our consensus policy, entitled - entirely apropos - WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

In short, my request to have you self-revert until we arrive at a consensus is based within policy. Please don't force me to take the next step here. Consensus might end up in your favor, or something else entirely. Trying to force the matter won't end well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As there is no agreement for a particular color I have reverted to the default. Please don't change it unless supported by consensus on this talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)