Jump to content

Talk:Medium (TV series)

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

Alternative name

[edit]

I recently noticed that the name of this show is "Ghost In Crime" in South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teelo1024 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Medium fans coming to the discussion page

[edit]

Please note that the first two lines of the above banner state: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medium (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

Please do not use this as a general forum for the show, rather use this to discuss aspects of the Wikipedia article devoted to the show. I have deleted all previous discussion not relating to the wikipedia article devoted to Medium. --Pisceandreams (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was wrong, but I thought it was some sort of policy that discussion in the discussion page doesn't get deleted. This isn't a wikipedia article, it's actually not free for all. I see deleting or changing someone's comment as a form of vandalism. At best we archive things. It's not that I don't agree with them, I don't like seeing it either, and this isn't a forum, but deleting things people say just seems... wrong... 24.63.111.174 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

[edit]

Given the controversy that surrounds Allison DuBois' claims, I find it a tad irregular that nothing in the article refers to that at all. I realize that the article does link to the DuBois article, but it seems as though that is a fairly weak connection given that the veracity of her claims is so central to the show. Inother words, if there is significant skepticism about DuBois(there is), then it merits mention in the article. --Johnashby 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added content from the Dubois site, to bring the article on Medium more into balance. As it was, it was quite credulous toward the premise of the show, which is that DuBois has psychic powers. The addition merely quotes the fact that her connection with law enforcement has been verified as nonexistent. --Johnashby 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User MathhewFenton, who reverted my edits. I fail to see how it is "irrelevant to the show itself" when the show purports to be a factual acconting of Ms. DuBois' adventures. her claims to have worked with law enforcement are verifiably untrue, and as a result reflect directly on the show itself. To not indicate this in even a small portion of the article is simply dishonest to the reader.

I am going to revert to my changes, because I believe they represent a fundamentally necessary balancing of the POV on this article. If you cannot provide a better explanation as the irrelevance of demonstrating the falsehood of the claims of the show's protagonist, then you have no business reverting changes made in good faith. Johnashby 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a wikilink, we don't stray from the articles subject, that is why we have links, also from your above messages it sounds as if you dislike the lady? (please read WP:NPA) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted again. Please see WP:AGF. The edit is factual, and relevant to the premise of the show. The premise of the show is Alison DuBois' life story, slightly fictionalized for television. It is therefore fair to discuss her connection with law enforcement, specifically that it appears to be fabricated. This related directly to the television series since the protagonist is Dubois herself, supposedly retelling the stories from her involvement with the police.
I do not want an edit war here. Please adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and help to make this information work in the article. My opinion of Ms. DuBois is not stated, nor is it relevant. Assuming that it is the case is, ironically, WP:NPA. Note below:
"Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians."
Johnashby 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the addition, you must therefore get consensus to add it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice this little dispute here. Matthew, that is not how consensus and decision making processes on Wikipedia work. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I am reverting for a third time. If substantial reason for not including this information cannot be made available (which is factual and pertinent), thenit should be included in the article. Other articles about movies or television shows that are based on real people include these caveats all the time regarding how factually accurate the portrayal is. This is no different from that. Johnashby 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just happened to show up here Ned ;-) ? -- You are welcome to show me an article that includes irrelevant information that is unrelated to the show in general, yes the show is based on her life, yes the information is irrelevant in this article (why I have had to spend _my time_ reverting you..) and of course.. yes there is a wikilink. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Only_make_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_be_linked. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Mind (film) for one, with major issues regarding claims made or not made in the film. Also Bones (TV series), with a specific complaint that "Fans of the Brennan books have expressed their dismay that the character in the series only shares the name with the character in the books, and none of their life histories or characteristics match."
It took me only 3 minutes to find those 2 examples. The factual nature of television programs has been challenged on Wikipedia before, and will continue to be done. I believe you have a NPOV issue here, and visiting my talk page to complain was not civil, IMHO. WP:CIVIL I have shown you nothing but respect in spite of your continued refusal to help build this article be both factual and balanced.
One more thing...I edited the article, and posted a discussion item, per WP:BB. At no point was an attempt at discussion made by any other user other than calling my opinion of Ms. DuBois into question. The link to her page is insufficient, given that the show is ostensibly about her life, and the interaction with law enforcement is so central to it. Tit for tat, I begin to suspect you are a fan of the show and may have vested interests here. Johnashby 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ought I to presume my examples held up? Responses up to this point had been very fast, but there have been no objections to my examples. If there are none, I would move to unprotect the article and allow my edit...which I am of course willing to work with others on to ensure it is NPOV and the like. Johnashby 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It is still irrelevant to this article, and just detracts from the subject of this article (the television series and the fictional characters) - You should also read the wikilinks I have provided regarding the real DuBois. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this series, the fictional character and the real person are one and the same. I fail to see how a distinction is drawn here. I have read the links, and drew my section directly from the law enforcement section of the DuBois article. It is factual, and ought to have a place in this article as well because her relationship with law enforcement is the very heart of the program.
I invite you to write something to balance it, if you can find references that support the POV that the show accurately represents her dealings with law enforcement. Otherwise, the article is too credulous regarding those claims. Johnashby 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I write something when I have told you the content is irrelevant? You must also remember fiction and the real world are different things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you must remember that you have yet to produce any evidence for the way you want the article styled. I at least have attempted to do research into the matter. Your contribution to this discussion has amounted to stamping your feet and waiting for me to give up. You win: I have better things to do. Your shrine to the show and DuBois will remain intact. Johnashby 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Yes, I agree with Matthew, the content added is, as stated, irrelevant to this article and is succedded by a wikilink eitherway. --Peregrinefisher 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content is absolutely relevant. If the show is based on her claims, and the claims have been demonstrated to be false, then the article should mention this. Failure to mention this is tantamount to actually covering up the knowledge in order to put a shinier gloss on the program. The links present make no mention nor does it hint at the fact that there is a controversy over these claims.
You can keep your edit, I am done with this article...all you fans of the show can just maintain your glowing review. Admin Radiant, I would like to complain about MatthewFenton's incivility during this exchange...several times he has attacked me personally. I tried multiple times to present eveidence for my edit, and have been met only with personal attacks. At no point did he present any evidence for the way he wants to style this article, as opposed to me who actually went out and found credible WP articles that supported my contention. In the case of this article, the "fanboys" prevailed over an attempt to include pertinent information. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a MySpace page for fans of television shows. Johnashby 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could support an edit to change "The series is based on the life of Allison DuBois" to "The series often draws on material in autobiographical books by Allison DuBois" as being a lot more correct. The existing phrase was used by the network for publicity and probably as a concession in legal legally obtaining copyrights from the real Allision BuBios. While the statement is literally true, the implied meaning is clearly misleading.
How many people think the show is supposed to be an autobiographical mini-series? I doubt a high percentage of people raised their hands. When the show says based on the life of Allison Dubois -- I think most of us realized that merely meant the general concept of the real Allison Dubois was taken as a starting point. Yes the network hoped to hook some fans of the real person at the beginning. And I bet these fans would be the first to point out how seldom the show follows the real Allison's books in more than the general idea that Allison is a married psychic.
Yes the network bought carte blanche for their writers to steal story ideas from her books. But I am sure they are not required to use complete stories or even major fragments. Those copyrights are the main legal reason for continuing to mention the real Allison DuBois in the show after the first couple shows (indirect copyright acknowledgement). However, simply using the concept and her books as building blocks for the TV show is not a network endorsement of the real Allison Dubois beyond "gee, wouldn't it be interesting IF...". I hope no one thinks that by making Bug Bunny that TV claims rabbits really talk and totally outsmart hunters (but with 6 billion people there probably are a couple).
TV and movies often borrow famous real historical characters as starting points then make shows and films that have little to do with reality -- like say Daniel Boone (TV Series) and Buffalo Bill (movies). Usually these exaggerated and extended series are about colorful people whom it seems there ought to be lots of stories about but about which detail is often lacking for one reason or another. People those Daniel Boone and Matt Dillion stories are (gasp!) generally pure fabrication. Of course unlike Allison DuBois most the historical characters are dead and don't demand to be cited as a source of ideas for copyright purposes. Still the principle is the same: hook to some existing fame and stories as a kickoff point for your show -- but don't limit yourself to what has been done before.
As far as law enforcement connections go, I think it obvious that the first liberty the show took with the concept borrowed from the real Allison Dubois was to formalize a relationship with one particular legal agency. That was convenient for casting regular support characters. But I would like to point out two humorous aspects: (1) the real Allison Dubois has talked to law enforcement about cases (not necessarily by their desire) on an informal irregular basis by several accounts, and (2) IF the show was completely autobiographically correct then her formal employment by law enforcement as a psychic would be concealed from actual public record - even deleted. I don't believe #2 is reality -- just a humorous chicken and egg logic loop.
Personally it sounds more like the writer above is demanding that the article be turned into his personal forum for debunking psychics. It is not like he has something relevant to say about the actual TV series which is clearly heavily fictionalized, no matter what you believe about the starting point concept. Given that the TV show makes no effort to convert believers, his efforts seem driven by irrelevant mean spiritedness (oh a show oriented pun). 69.23.124.142 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Notable Guest Stars vs. Cast

[edit]

My first Wikipedia edit! So, I found this section useful because I came here looking for an answer to whether Kathy Baker had been the only actress ever to play Joe DuBois' mom. The cast list includes Jessy Schram, who has only been in two episodes (according to this page) and Bruce Gray, whom I believe has played Joe's dead father many times. But Kathy Baker has only appeared in 2 episodes according to imdb, and she is in the Notable Guest Stars section. Anyway, I was tempted to edit the page to add Mark Sheppard, who is notable to me as portraying Romo Lampkin in Battlestar Galactica, and portrayed the body jumping serial killer nemesis in 3 episodes of Medium (reminiscent of the classic Star Trek episode Wolf in the Fold).

But I noticed a number of edits and undos in the History of this page. So, not wanting to make an unpopular edit, I thought I'd ask you all. Does this community of editors have any ideas for criteria for whom should be listed as a Notable Guest Star or Cast?

Proposal:

  • If a character is a DuBois family member (or a past or future version of a DuBois family member), such that it would be weird if the producers cast multiple actors in the same role (which is sometimes unavoidable due to actor availability or death), then they belong in Cast. By this criterion, Jessy Schram and Kathy Baker both belong in cast.
  • If an actor has appeared in more than 5 episodes of Medium, has ever won an Emmy, Cable Ace, or Oscar for their work on other TV shows or movies, or if they have an IMDB filmography with more than 50 items, then they belong in Notable Guest Stars. By this criterion, Mark Sheppard, much as I like him, would be excluded from both lists.

How's that sound to the community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.183.230 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty

[edit]

Perhaps it should be mentioned that some episodes of this TV series are pro death penalty. -- 81.236.171.188

Second that: I was surprised there was no mention of it. -- Redge (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

name spellings people.....

[edit]

The DuBois's middle daughter is named Bridgette, not Bridget.

captions and credits concur with this.


Please sign your posts, lest others not respond to you. If you feel a change to the text is justified, be bold and make the change. I think you might also want to read Editing Help, which will give you additional pointers. Canonblack 12:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

Can the person who added the information on foreign airdates specify the years of these dates, and conjugate the verbs in the proper tense (i.e.: past tense) where appropriate? Thanks. Nightscream 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted Patricia Arquette's wedding to Thomas Jane as I don't see the relevance of what goes on with her personal life with the show. --The Shadow Treasurer 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've protected the page because of the revert war related to this addition. Please discuss and reach an agreement on this talk page. (Radiant) 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender, and will not attempt to edit the page again. You can unprotect the page. Please note my complaint above. Johnashby 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Medium2.JPG

[edit]

Image:Medium2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 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 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Information

[edit]

Does anyone else find that parts of the "Episodes" section are redundant? For example: "The show premiered on January 3, 2005, and ran for 16 episodes until May 23, 2005. The second season started on September 19, 2005, and ran for 22 episodes to May 22, 2006." Between the "DVD Releases" and "Broadcast History" sections, this information is clearly provided. Does anyone object to me cleaning up the "Episodes" section? Pisceandreams 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Strike

[edit]

Since 9 episodes have been produced, does that mean Season 4 will only have 9 episodes? If the writers strike is resolved soon will more episodes be produced? I sure hope our show doesn't get canned!! Jdcrackers (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say at this point what will happen. The show has the advantage of not starting until January because if the writers' strike ends, there will be time to produce more episodes without a hiatus. If the strike doesn't end, then yes, the 4th season might have only 9 episodes.--Pisceandreams (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD bonus material

[edit]

I added a column to the DVD release chart devoted to bonus material. Sadly, I don't have the DVDs yet, so I was able to add only the bonus material based on info I could find on-line. If anyone has the DVDs and would like to expand this section, please do so. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

[edit]

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International syndication

[edit]

I think there should be a section stating which international networks the series is syndicated to and when each country began broadcasting the series. It is featured on Wiki entries for other television series. I know BBC TWO broadcast 'Medium' in the UK on Saturday nights, as does the satellite/cable Sci-Fi Channel. Not entirely sure when they bgan broadcasting and what series that are on but a table featuring this information would be very useful.

Useful link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cfpm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.19.157 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions/comments?

77.100.19.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Updates & DVD doubts :)

[edit]

Hi guys. I updated the release date for the 4th season DVDs in Germany (according to Amazon.de it will be on September 3rd) and that Allison miscarried Brian, according to a quiz on the NBC Medium website (question 9 asks: "What's the name of Allison's UNBORN son?").

Now my question: I've read on Amazon that the UK Region 2 DVDs got both the original english and the german dubbing of the series. Can somebody confirm? Do all the seasons have at least those two languages? Also the 4th? Thank you! -- 77.54.112.55 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would interpret UNBORN son as one never born, and watching the episode i never got the impression that Allison and Joe had actually lost a child. i think the whole son thing, having one or missing one that had died, was part of the dream. DyNama (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

[edit]

Has this show actually be on for five seasons? Coffee5binky (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why? -sesuPRIME 08:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show now is in its 6th season on CBS and doing quite well. Jdcrackers (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7

[edit]

Anyone heard about Medium being renewed? I haven't heard anything yet!Jdcrackers (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now the end of April, any word if Medium will be renewed?Jdcrackers (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is great news that Medium has been renewed for season 7, however, I would say it would be the last. I hope Ghost Whisperer gets picked up by ABC because that would be good competition for both shows to show at 8 pm on Friday nights on Rival Networks.Jdcrackers (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anyone know when season 6 will be released on DVD?

[edit]

Has anyone heard about season six being released on DVD? I can't wait?Jdcrackers (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the family background really true?

[edit]
"Initially, Allison believed the gift had skipped a generation and her mother had had no psychic abilities. However, she later discovered that her mother had always possessed the gift, but had done everything she could to repress it."

This is identical to Melinda Gordon The Ghost Whisperer's background, but that show established it more deliberately. Yes, in Medium, the grandmother definitely had the gift, and the mother was antagonistic to the idea, in the only episode that portrayed Allison's mother, but her hostility seemed more out of the preposterousness of the premise, not in denial knowing the premise is true. if it was established that the mother actually had the gift, it was only in conversation in a later episode, not flashback or dream (because Allison's mother only makes 1 appearance) and i don't recall it. i will eventually rewatch the episode and edit the article but i've read what i consider a confusion with Ghost Whisperer on other websites too.DyNama (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings Numbers

[edit]

How can it be that season 5 ended with #61 8.5 and season 6 ended up with #52 7.9

Should it not be the other way around? Seems like # 61 would be a lower percentage and # 52 would be higher?? Just Curious! Jdcrackers (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the info with a better source, deadline did there own calculations. But still no, that just means less people watched TV, making a show with fewer viewers rank higher. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake

[edit]

I just noticed that near the bottom of the article it has a link for Glenn Gordan Caron (creater). Just letting people know that it's actually spelled creator.

Another mistake is Canceled has one l instead of 2 l's... just thought i would pass that along.Jdcrackers (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, that is not a spelling mistake. "Cancelled" is correct in British, Canadian, and other forms of English; "canceled" is the US spelling. That aside, we would use the US version here as it is an American series. --Ckatzchatspy 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation rush

[edit]

I don't know why there is such a rush to put in material about the cancellation, but some of it is highly unencyclopedic and poorly worded. I've tried to reword those portions to at least conform to the sources. As for the rest, it's one thing to have it in the prose, but putting it in sections of the article that involve the present or the past violates WP:CRYSTAL. Thus, for example, when someone changed the infoxbox in a way that implied the series had already ended, I reverted it. Similarly, putting the final episode date in the historical table about broadcasts and rating history is not true - it hasn't happened. So, I removed it, but another editor (without explanation) reverted my removal. I'm going to revert that editor's reversion and refer to the Talk page so that he/she can comment, but I would appreciate it if no reversion takes place without first discussing it here.

I should add that the cancellation and the comments about when the final episode is supposed to air have been clearly covered in the prose. It's simply unnecessary to add them to other sections of the article before they are in the past. Anything can change between now and then.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one responded, so in addition to reverting continued attempts to forecast the future, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, specifically here. Two editors have responded, and one has taken an even more aggressive approach than I, and removed everything about the cancellation because of the nature of the sources that are reporting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's annoying me is that people keep re-editing and removing things about the cancellation. At this time, there's not one mention of the events over the past week in the article, which is ridiculous because it should mention Arquette and Caron talking about the cancellation even if it's not official yet, it's times like this that I wish these articles were locked for a while just to stop all the cancellation edits.--IanM197 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2010 (GMT)
Semi-protecting the article won't affect auto-confirmed users, many of whom are involved in the changes. If you review my comments here and the discussion on the editor assistance page, you'll note that my position was to leave the cancellation news in the prose of the article but NOT include future dates in tables or the infobox. However, a well-respected editor, Kudpung, took the position that NONE of the information should be in the article, partly because of the nature of the reporting sources (I, too, would prefer more reliable publications) and partly because he said that even the announcements within those sources were somewhat speculative. As you can see, I took issue with that last aspect of Kudpung's assertion (the speculation), and I'm hoping he'll respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the ending of the series in the box since it has been confirmed that January 21, 2011 was the series finale. Why would that be considered a cancellation rush with all due respect? Upon saying that why can we not just put that the ending date is January 21, 2011 in the box?Jdcrackers (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the season 7 box it has already had the date put in the box. And, it seems every time I may an edit someone has something to do with to delete it. I use reliable sources as well. On that being said, I suggest that someone go to the Season 7 box and then tell those there they can not put the ending date as well!Jdcrackers (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been already explained, January 21, 2011 is in the future. We don't put dates in boxes and tables that describe the present and the history. Therefore, the possible ending of the show will get updated when it has ended, not before. On the other hand, news from reliable sources about the future, may be mentioned (carefully) in the text of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the WP:EAR team have addressed an enquiry about this article, and maybe the following expanded details might be of additional help in explaining why there is no harm n waiting for an official announcement from CBS:
Encyclopedias only deal with facts. They do not address or report on upcoming events that have not been officially announced and confirmed. In application of the strictest traditions of encyclopedia compilation, the closure of this series will not be included in, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica, until after the event. The closure of this series has not been announced. There is some tittle-tattle actresses and cameramen on blogs and other websites that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to use as sources (see WP:RS and WP:V), and it should be noted that those employees have themselves stated that they are not 100% sure of the facts.

  • Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.(WP:NOT#JOURNALISM)
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.(WP:SPECULATION).
  • Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. (WP:NOTNEWS).

In all cases, acceptable reliable sources would be mainstream national newspapers or news bulletins on national TV networks reporting on a statement or press release by CBS, the CBS official website, the official (CBS) TV series website. --Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I agree conceptually with everything you've said, although, in practice, I think that entertainment articles often rely on what some might consider to be imperfect sources. The one thing you said I don't understand - and I mentioned this on EAR as well - is why you say that the "employees themselves ... are not 100% sure of the facts." I reviewed the sources, and the only uncertainty expressed was about the content of the final episode, not about the cancellation or the date of the final episode. Of course, even if you change your asssertion on that one point, it may not have any substantive impact on your final conclusion, but in fairness, I thought it was worth mentioning.
Also, currently the article DOES have an assertion in the body about the cancellation, inserted by IanM197 who clearly couldn't stand not reporting some of it. :-) I did not revert that change because my position on the issue is not as strong as yours. That is the current state of the article, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a press release (almost certainly from CBS) circulating that basically calls the January 21st episode a "series finale", which for me is enough. I've added the information to the article. If there is anyone who thinks I've jumped the gun on this, please respond here. Theorycreation: Create Truth to Destroy the Lies (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your changes, thanks for finding it. I did, however, replace your source with the actual press release and changed the wording a little in the sentence in the body of the article. Where'd you come up with "Ending" in the infobox? Is that something that's done elsewhere on Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing it in an article for a serialized show that had been slated to end but was still on the air during that season. It might've been Lost, but I'm not sure. Theorycreation: Create Truth to Destroy the Lies (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canceled vs. ended

[edit]

The status in the infobox keeps flip-flopping back and forth between canceled and ended. More experienced editors seem to favor canceled, so I've been reverting IPs that change it to ended. Personally, I don't much care which it is, but I suppose we should reach a consensus on it. Please comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Medium had a proper finale why can't we just say it ended? Crossing Jordan, on the other hand did not. For me, Medium was canceled by CBS, but Ended 21, Jan. 2011. So can we use canceled/ended? Thanks Jdcrackers (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7 DVD

[edit]

Can someone upload the seventh season dvd box pic? I tried to no avail and it turned 0ut too large. Thanks!Jdcrackers (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Songs of Medium

[edit]

Does anyone know some of the songs they play in Medium? I really like the song where she builds the bomb and the song from Painkiller. If anyone has a list of these songs please let me know. I hear them on the radio quite frequently! Thanks Jdcrackers (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

[edit]

Another thing I wanted to point out is that the show didn't end too bad with the ratings for the 2010-2011 season. The show didn't do bad in its 7 year run. Hopefully a movie or a spinoff will prevail. Any ideas? Jdcrackers (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Plot Summaries

[edit]

Anyone object to the idea of me writing plot summaries? Season 4 had one so I added 3, 5, 6, and 7. If anyone wants to add more ideas or give suggestions ideas welcome and critical critiques are welcome to change or add thing I may have overlooked. I still need to do 1 and 2. Jdcrackers (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medium (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Medium (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medium (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Medium (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Medium (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is medium fillmed

[edit]

filmed 2601:602:D201:9220:9E44:F387:2829:64B7 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medium_(TV_series)&oldid=1205469699"