Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ben Seong or Ben Song

A lot of entertainment websites are calling him Ben Seong but per NBC its Ben Song. Which should be used? See here [1] 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:30D1:1ECE:254E:EB60 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also doesn't appear to writer error on the NBC website as another article calls his last name 'Song' too per [2]. 2A00:23C8:5228:1601:30D1:1ECE:254E:EB60 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wish the editor who edited it before used an edit summary. This first look video uses “Song” for him. I hadn’t actually watched the episode, but now checking on Peacock, 40 seconds into ep1, a phone contact is pulled up for “Ben Song” very prominently. No credit listing at the end, though. I’m guessing this was a post-production decision after the initial scripts (and subsequent press prior to release). So updating to Song seems fine now. -2pou (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ep 1 writer credits

@Xeditboy, YoungForever, and Masem: There has been a lot of back and forth on whether to include Gero in the writing credits of episode one. Can we reach a consensus here instead of via edit summary discussion? If he was credited in a Citytv version, I don't think it's wrong to include it in an efn note; but I think that the wording is important. It seems to be a stretch to say Gero "rewrote" the episode simply by having a credit listed. Perhaps he wrote a new introduction and the other content was preserved. We don't really know unless we're guild evaluators. It's worth noting that the WGA did not include him in its directory entry for the episode. If added, something along the lines of "Gero also received a writing credit in the Citytv broadcast" would seem sufficient as opposed to "rewrote the episode". -2pou (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:OR to say "Martin Gero rewrote the episode" without a reliable source. On NBC which is the original primary network, the episode only says "Written by: Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt". Adding "Martin Gero rewrote the episode" or "Martin Gero also received a writing credit in the Citytv broadcast" would required a reliable source because Citytv is a secondary network. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: It was credited on-screen as Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt and Martin Gero on the newer version that Citytv used. the and means rewrite. NBC stuffed up and didn't use the latest version and Citytv did. On-screen refs are whether or not they are from the home broadcaster or another one. YoungForever is a control freak who always dictates what valid and what's not and should be expelled form this site for their non-collaborated behavior. Xeditboy (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, you are clearly adding WP:OR because we do not know Martin Gero rewrote the episode or not. You were reverted by multiple editors. Also, no personal attacks as said repeatedly before. Your constant insults, name-calling, and baseless accusations are considered to be uncivil. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong anyone how saw the episode outside of NBC version saw the credits as Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt and Martin Gero. And you might as well include all on-screen credits as WP.OR and remove all the writing and directing credits. And you are the only one who removed the note because you are a control freak. Xeditboy (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the only one removed it and page history proves that. Again, no personal attacks. We clearly do not know which one is the newer one as WGA has the final credit one that says Written by: Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt only — YoungForever^(talk) 01:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said anyone how saw the episode outside of NBC version saw the credits as Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt and Martin Gero. And as for the WGA credits those were enter before the rewrite occurred. Xeditboy (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the WGA credits those were enter before the rewrite occurred. that is clearly original research — YoungForever^(talk) 02:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a reliable source verifying that and means rewrite, otherwise it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice that & means co-written and "and" means rewritten. Xeditboy (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's plain WP:OR. "and" does not means rewritten. It just means they are a separate individual writer. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also "standard practice" that "&" means a writing team and "and" means writers who aren't part of a team. You need to cite a source stating which of these standards is being used here. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, claiming Martin Gero rewrote the episode is clearly original research because do not know he rewrote the episode or not. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WGA crediting is that "and" simply means he was not part of a writing team but contributed enough to receive credit, whereas "&" means they are a writing team. Having "X and Y" receiving credit just means team/individual X and team/individual Y worked together and made significant enough contributions that both deserve an on-screen credit. How do we know what is newer and what is older? It seems like two versions of the credits could have been produced while waiting for the final WGA determination, and one broadcaster aired one version, another broadcaster the other. Is that what happened? I have no way of knowing unless somebody investigates and publishes it. -2pou (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked (presumably) Peacock, to see what the credits are on the Peacock version? If the Peacock version of the episode is using the same credits from the NBC aired episode, I don't think anyone else should be included here, as the streaming version would likely be the "definitive" version. Anything beyond that could possible be represented with an {{efn}} note. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock does not have Gero listed as a writer in the introductory credits when Lilien and Wynbrandt are. -2pou (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, for now, I think that is your answer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with IJBall. If Peacock did not update the credits, then you use the ones for the original broadcaster. As to "&" and "and", "and" most definitely does not mean "rewrite". It just means that the writers wrote individually. So in the example here, Lilien and Wynbrant were a writing team ("&"), and then (presumably) Gero did additional writing by himself ("and") along with that duo. The next step would be to wait until physical media is released (if at all) and then check the credits there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: and @IJBall: This is original research though. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any note would simply state that Gero also received credit for writing in the Canadian airing of the episode. That's the extent of what can be reported under WP:PRIMARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Gero also received credit for writing in the Canadian airing of the episode is not the same as Martin Gero rewrote this episode and was only credited in the revised version that NBC chose not to use, but Citytv did. WP:PRIMARY does not cover the latter as we simply do not know that. Therefore, the latter is original research. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also double checked on the official NBC website where you can also watch the episode and on the on-screen credits it only listed Steven Lilien & Bryan Wynbrandt as the writers of the episode. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that Gero wrote something specific for the CityTV airing (and only that airing) hence why he might get a credit there and not on the original broadcast (e.g., changed some vernacular to be closer to Canadian)? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, but generally my understanding of Canadian broadcasters airing American series is they don't receive a different edit from the studio that they send to the original broadcaster. I could be wrong on that though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus is that the wording matters, then we need to change the wording. For the {{efn}} note, how does Martin Gero also received credit for writing in the Citytv airing of the episode. sound? Like what 2pou and IJBall suggested above. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might swap the order of the content and do: In the Citytv airing of the episode, Martin Gero also received writing credit. But I think more or less this is the right info to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gero was not a credited writer on this episode and the Canadian airing was a mistake that Citytv fixed on subsequent airings. In fairness to the credited writers, the note should not be included. MichiganMan2323 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates

There have been a few bold edits to the air dates to the next two episodes. tvguide.com is listed as a reliable source at WP:TVFAQ, and says they'll air on Feb 20 (Family Style), and Feb 27 (S.O.S). I can't access Zap2It, but it apparently gives different dates, and seems to also be seen as reliable (based on the WP:RSN archives). Did NBC state the air date, by any chance? DFlhb (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back at my usual computer, and can now access both cites at the top of the table. Seems the episodes have just been moved. Disregard. DFlhb (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Character gender identity

I know this can be a touchy subject, but I think my interest is a matter of consistency. Ian Wright is the only character whose gender identity is part of their character description and it comes across as a bit othering. If a character’s gender or sexuality or race is central to the themes of the show it may make sense to include these identities in the character description, but that is not the case with this show. If there is a real-world relevance to the character’s gender, etc. (e.g., first trans network lead role, first woman news anchor, etc.) that should go in the Production section or even the Introduction, but the character descriptions should be parallel and relevant to the character’s role in the show. LAMerryman (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, taking that which is usual as implied and making that which is unusual explicit is standard practice in encyclopedic writing, and I daresay both fundamental and essential to how communication works more generally. So, arguably, large-scale consistency calls for small-scale inconsistency in any such situation, and the contrapositive holds as well. Or is that too naive?

- 2A02:560:58B2:7500:1D13:B8FE:23A6:D351 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two bits: context matters. Star Trek is touted as featuring one of the first interracial kisses on television. Now-a-days such things don't matter. Probably a similar situation here. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and my point is that this show’s diversity may be notable in the “Production” or “Casting” section but not for the in-universe character descriptions. In contrast, in “Boys Don’t Cry”, Brandon Teena’s gender identity is central to the plot and themes of the film. Here, the characters’ competence is front and center. The central plot and themes are of homecoming and destiny. For example, if Ben maintained his appearance when traveling to the past, it might be relevant to describe the character as Asian because it would be relevant to what happens to that character on an ongoing basis. LAMerryman (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the Star Trek character descriptions for reference just now, and note that neither Uhura nor Geordi are being described as "Black", while Paul and Hugh are emphatically being described as "gay". Arguably, neither trait was treated as plot-relevant in the respective series - in the latter case, their being an onboard couple mattered, their being a same-sex couple didn't.

Another aspect I picked up on in the process is that it's not necessarily insignificant whether characters "inherit" traits from actors. The analogy that came to mind for me is pregnancy, which has the advantage that all of the possible permutations are fairly common and none are considered problematic, AFAI am aware. The default situation is that neither actress nor character are pregnant, of course, but in the course of multi-season television productions, both actresses and characters do get pregnant every now and then. Sometimes the writers accommodate the real-life as an in-universe pregnancy. Otherwise, the actress gets to wear a fake bulge, or baggy clothes to conceal an actual one, and the viewers lean into their suspension of disbelief a little harder.

The point being, whether a character is to be considered pregnant is primarily about how she's written and only secondarily about who she's played by. Re-applying this line of reasoning, one might argue that in the case of Geordi, say, it was less about an actor playing a Black chief engineer, and more about a Black actor playing a chief engineer. That would lend a lot of support to the notion that "Black" has no place in the character description. A stretch, certainly, but as a thought exercise, I found it instructive. YMMV. :)

- 2A02:560:58B2:7500:50D4:B4C4:812B:AE88 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Taylor

Is she a main or recurring? The article I sourced is subheaded as "recurring" but in the article it states her as a series regular. I put her in main but if someone disagrees they can move it. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not clearly said, we can read between the lines that Ben and Hannah will meet again and it'll continue happening in episodes 9 to 13, which have yet to be filmed. So yeah, we can freely put her in the main cast. They're starting with shooting on November 27th, as Dean Georgaris said in interview on Youtube. Search for fateswidehweel. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]