Talk:Warehouse 13

Question

Does this show have any relation to the GURPS book Warehouse 23? The underlying concepts (what little is described so far) sound identical to the concepts of the sourcebook. (144.92.84.206(talk)21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I believe a citation of similarity to The Librarian should be added since Friday the 13th: The Series is noted. When I watched the pilot I definately got a X-Files, Librarian, FTT:TS vibe from it.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by146.23.68.40(talk)12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GURPS Warehouse 23 = This Show. Of course, Warehouse 23 = the warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones first movie. Regardless, though, it's like these guys read the Warehouse 23 book and said, "Hey, look, this is a functional script."65.16.205.188(talk)22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Terry Whisenant (Austin, TX)

This show seems a little like the FOX show "Fringe" doesn't it?—Precedingunsignedcomment added by71.79.90.189(talk)16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know the cloak is "Fox" skin? It looks like deer to me.Sheherazahde(talk)06:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It's totally stealing off the SCP Foundation. Wouldn't be surprised if something like The Statue makes a fleeting background cameo at some point.

(And off Gurps, and QoW, and X-Files, and Twilight Zone, and Indy, and... all the other things that have cross pollinated or nicked off each other down the years. Though I'm pretty certain the Warehouses are the various containment facilities/ "areas", and Artie is supposed to be someone akin to Dr Bright... Just wait for the cerberus effect to kick in and they go from generally safe/ "euclid" class things that, at worst, cause a single person or small group to go axe-crazy, to the "keter" -type reality warping/world ending objects)193.63.174.211(talk)14:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Accompanying books

Is there a book to this series or are they just not out yet. I checked Amazon and could only find "Data Warehouse" suggestions (Darn preference history settings I guess - I hate those.)71.236.26.74(talk)09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilot (Part I and II)

I think that both pilots should be put under the same heading in the table, though I'm not sure how one would go about formatting that properly. There are several reasons for this to happen. It wasn't really two episodes. Yes, it took 2 hours, but it was essentially just one, double length, episode. There was only one episodic story, and there wasn't a clear definition of where one "episode" would end, and the next begins. Furthermore, the plot description for the second pilot is lacking substance (because it's the same plot as the first).

Does anyone know how they could be merged properly? I've tried looking on other TV show pages, but most of them have only one hour pilots.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by129.97.248.22(talk)02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dynastypremiered with a three-hour episode that was subsequently split into three episodes for syndication and the DVD, and it is listed as three episodeshere.The reimaginedBattlestar Galacticapremiere is also listed in partshere.Though we obviously don't know yet how theWarehouse 13episode will be packaged for syndication and DVDs, I don't see an issue with it staying listed the way it is; it seemed to me that the episode was somewhat clearly split, with the whole "welcome to the warehouse" thing in Part 1 and the Borgia comb story in Part 2. I'll get it out of the TiVo, watch it again, and report back;) —TAnthony^Talk04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So I took a look, and what I would call Part 2 (where the Comb story begins) starts slightly sooner than halfway, which makes me guess that it would be difficult to break the show into equal halves for syndication. Also, it aired all at once, while theBattlestar Galacticapremiere was over two nights. So for now, I actually think it should be listed as one episode until we have reason not to. I'll make the change.—TAnthony^Talk21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

when looking at isohunt.com the pilot is listed in one file but labeled as episode 1 & 2. episode 3 is called resonance. the listing on wikipedia is confusing because of the difference. (UTC)—Precedingunsignedcomment added by96.238.41.192(talk)

Scene release numbering isn't always the correct one, if you look at any other source the pilot is labeled as just one episode. There are a lot of shows which have episodes that are seen as a double episode and not as a two parter._Xeworlebi^(t•c)12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this, if it isofficial,present a source. For the remaining time, every episode list on the internet displays it as one episode. Using the torrent naming scheme is not really considered reliable._Xeworlebi^(t•c)12:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing the show has to an "official" website is their corner of the SyFy.com website, and there, the pilot is treated as a single episode.http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/#/episodes/season1/episode1Nolefan32(talk)18:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Scene" numbering is what fans expect to see when they come to a wiki, get with the times man...—Precedingunsignedcomment added byLostMK(talk•contribs)13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Benign" objects

Out of curiosity, what indications do we have that the rugby ball is special? To me, on first viewing, the impression was given that that was an effect of the Warehouse and not the ball. Seems that 'items' would be too important to leave outside like that.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by69.57.202.221(talk)12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, though it seemed to me like the ball was empowered or whatever but harmless enough not to need to be locked up. It definitely seems like a number of "benign" objects and contraptions like this will be worth noting in some manner (perhaps not in the same way as the "bad" ones), like the "Thomas Edison Concept Car," the video communicator device, the neutralizing agent, etc. etc.—TAnthony^Talk19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If an object like the football is indeed powered but is not dangerous, then it's not an artifact. The point of the warehouse is to house items that are potentially dangerous simply because they're potentially dangerous and shouldn't be out where they can possibly hurt someone. And I agree with the first poster, the potential exists that the football might not be an artifact at all, but gets its power from the warehouse - I simply don't see Artie being willing to let an artifact leave the warehouse for any reason, but he himself has thrown the football.75.66.233.184(talk)01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "rugby ball" and an American football?Sheherazahde(talk)18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You must remember that there are many other Artifacts that are taken outside the warehouse. The tesla gun and the communications equipment for example. The warehouse is for devices that still need investigation and study before other's are ready to accept them.

The tesla gun and communicator aren't "artifacts", they are "steampunk" inventions made specifically for use by Warehouse agents, similar to Artie's ancient as heck computer.Nolefan32(talk)13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the ball was an ordinary rugby ball, and Artie and Pete were using the magnetic field surrounding the Warehouse to accelerate it fast enough to circle the earth. Just my impression, although there's no canon evidence either way...Kt'Hyla(talk)01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We just found out what the football is- it's an Artifact Tracker. During it's flight it collects information on artifacts worldwide and downloads the information as it passes over the warehouse.Saxophobia(talk)01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. There's not evidence either way that the football is an artifact, so I would recommend not listing it as such, or listing it separately as "might be (or might not be) an artifact". If it's truly an artifact, that would mean that it's powers aren't fully understood, and I don't see Artie being comfortable sending it around the world where at nearly any point it can hit an airplane or a satellite and be intercepted by non-Warehouse agents, thus exposing its existence to the general public. If it's the power of the Warehouse that makes it go, though, then it's just an ordinary football, and if it's ever knocked down from its trajectory, there's nothing special about it, so no threat of exposure. But that's just my theory, certainly not proof one way or the other. Which is the point - there's no evidence that it's an artifact, as there's another possible explanation of what makes it go.Nolefan32(talk)13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of artifacts that are not dangerous, and a number of them are in Artie's bag, that he carries around with him. My guess is that the ball is not dangerous, but Artie feels that it would not be very useful to him, so he tosses it around the world, instead of carring it with him. I get the impression that anything that has any supernatural power within it is taken to the warehouse; The ball could allow a team to win games unfairly and therefore needs to be kept out of the public.— Precedingunsignedcomment added by67.168.209.84(talk)19:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons

Given thesteampunkstyle and 'feel' very similar to that of Sanctuary (even the theme music!) it would be nice to have a citation for such a link. Anyone come across one though? --AlisonW(talk)22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Item lists

The items in every episode don't need to be listed, especially since only one or two actually have any relevance to the plot. UnlikeThe Lost Room,where the items are the focus, this show focuses more on getting the items. Things like the mirror, the football, laughing bell, and so forth have no effect on the plot, no more so thanM. C. Escherdesigning the Warhouse's electrical grid (at least at the moment). AsWP:TRIVIAnotes, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." These item lists apply. —Trust not the Penguin(T|C)19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As I agree that it maybe isn't the best solution to put them in the episode list, I do however disagree that they are irrelevant to the story. These items are as important to the show as theobjectsfromThe Lost Room.Over half of those items where never named or even seen in the show (the belt, second cufflink,…) and had even less to do with the show, items like the mirror were actually used. Perhaps a new section with the items as a prose paragraph is more suitable. AsWP:TRIVIAnotes: "…it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."Xeworlebi(talk)20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTSisn't a good position to argue from. The object list has its problems, but those objects are quantifiable and for the most part relevant. The objects in this show are potentially limitless (whatever they happen to think up, basically) and almost meaningless to the plot at large. You can't tell me that Lattimer playing ping pong with his reflection has any bearing on the episode it appears in. I would agree that the primary objects (the head, comb, etc), would deserve mention, but listing things for the sake of listing things is what trivia explicitly warns against doing, and that is what these item lists are. —Trust not the Penguin(T|C)20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the comparison because the shows are so alike. A Warehouse 13 article without the items would be weird, because it's the core of the show. I agree that items that are just mentioned or seen should not necessarily be mentioned but the items that the episode is about definitely should. But then the problem presents what items should be included? I would suggest only the core items, those that they look for or play a vital part in the episode; Aztec Bloodstone, Lucretia Borgia's Comb, Unreleased Record (camera?) and James Braid's Chair. Perhaps add a new column likethis examplewith just the item and no explanation. what it does/how it works should be in the summary of the episode._Xeworlebi^(t•c)21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. —Trust not the Penguin(T|C)22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the football belongs on the list. It hasn't been expressly stated that the football is indeed an artifact. Another theory is that the football's ability to travel around the world when thrown may have more to do with the collected artifacts in the warehouse or possibly the location of the warehouse, but not the football itself. And that theory does bear argument since Artie is pretty anal about bagging, tagging and storing away even the most benign of artifacts, but he himself has been willing to throw the football. Ergo, until it's made clear outright that the football is indeed an artifact, I suggest taking it off the list. Or at least adding a line that it might possibly not be an artifact, but is instead affected by the other artifacts.Nolefan32(talk)19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well seems that that effort went nowhere, it seems that people really want this detailed list. I'm going to move it to a separate page since it's getting pretty ridiculous, taking up half the article. Probably toArtifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13._Xeworlebi^(t•c)20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How come the full list of artifacts and gadgets was deleted and merged into one tiny paragraph in the main Warehouse article? That list was a good review for people rewatching the series.Cpusavant(talk)18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted after the discussionherewhich basically is that they are trivia/not notable, I believe. --Jnorton7558(talk)18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Episode List

I think that the Episode List should be annexed into a separate article to avoid the main page getting longer than it should be. At the moment it is unneeded but doing it preemptively could be beneficial in the long run. Besides, this is how every other show I ever look at on Wikipedia does things, the have an article regarding basic plot, history, and characters (which are also annexed beyond the main cast) and then they have an article for an episode list (sometimes giving an article per episode but I don't think that is needed for this show). Thoughts?Jaj43123(talk)01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you were to make these changes it would leave it as a cluster of small pages with little information, I can see the sense of splitting a multi-series episode listing to a separate page, but if you were to split the characters and episodes to separate pages this early they would probably be too small - perhaps this would be better left until nearer the end of the series/the next series? (the only bit i can see that should be split at this stage is the item list, although trimming might be better, see above)—Precedingunsignedcomment added by77.99.248.44(talk)01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate episode list would be warranted if and when there's a second seasons worth of episodes to include. If there's just the one though, it makes sense to consolidate it all in this article unless it gets so largeWP:SPLITcomes into play. —pd_THOR^|=/\=|16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode writers

A lot of the writers are on Twitter, and their tweets often mention who wrote which episode—particularly, with regard to the ones that this article currently lists as "TBA".Here's onefromBob Goodman,talking toTamara Becher:

Thx @trbecher! "Implosion" is a goodie. W/ "Burnout" 2nite, "Duped" by B Raab & @dblackanese in 2wks, & then your "Regrets", WH13 is ROCKIN!

This quote doesn't make it clear who wrote "Implosion" or "Burnout", but it does show that "Duped" was written by B. Raab andD. Hughes,and "Regrets" was written by Tamara Becher. There are also other sources that I recall coming across that corroborate that latter fact.—Gordon P. Hemsley→✉06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Other warehouses?

I've watched this show a few times, and I once heard them mention the "other 12 warehouses"? In my opinion that is significant enough to be mentioned, isn't it..?—Precedingunsignedcomment added by71.79.134.3(talk•contribs) 17:02, 22 September 2009

I believe one of the recent episodes mentioned that the previous 12 warehouses had been destroyed or met some other untimely fate. Whether or not this is worth mentioning, I don't know. I'd say not, since it has barely been mentioned.—Huntster(t@c)02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned underArtifacts and gadgets"As the name suggests, there have been twelve incarnations of the warehouse prior to the one in South Dakota. One of the oldest warehouses was at the Library of Alexandria. Throughout history, the warehouse has moved to whatever country has the most power at the time (Mesopotamia, Rome, Russia, England, etc.)."_Xeworlebi^(t•c)04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the show's website at syfy.com there is a link that talks about each of the incarnations athttp://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/history.phpKluckie(talk)03:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also an inconsistancy with the origin date of Warehouse 13. In the pilot is it stated that it dates back to 1898.—Precedingunsignedcomment added byRedknight(talk•contribs) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)(I can't believe I forgot to click the signature button --RedKnight(talk)00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for putting "At the end of the first season finale, it appears he may have been killed. His fate, however, is uncertain." on the main page. Asshats.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by88.107.134.73(talk•contribs) 07:17, 23 September 2009

Wikipedia is uncensored, and it does not use spoiler warnings.—Huntster(t@c)02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Wikipedia is the confluence of what a bunch of different people editing an article want. Do YOU like it when the plot of a TV show is ruined before you see it? I didn't think so.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by24.107.12.36(talk)01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SPOILERS!

Deleted the MAJOR spoilers in the characters section, if you want to put things like "it is revealed that ______ is working for _____ in the finale" please put it in a separate section so people who have not yet seen the episodes can still be surprised.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by24.107.12.36(talk)01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot"WP:SPOILER.I always wonder why people read wikipedia entries about characters or the plot and expect it not to have information from the show in it._Xeworlebi^(t•c)01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go further, I hate reading a WP article on a book/film/series and someone's just written it as a teaser. If I wanted an advertisement I wouldn't be reading a bloodyencyclopedia!--PaulxSA(talk)15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

H.G. Wells

In reality, Wells is not "revealed to be a woman" on the show - instead, they established in the show that there were two H.G. Wells, Herbert George the author, and his sister, Helena, the creative genius that gave him the material to write about. I'm not sure if the entry here and in the H.G. Wells entry need to be re-written accordingly.Nolefan32(talk)12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually she referred to her brother as Charles. (Bry2006 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC))—Precedingunsignedcomment added byBry2006(talk•contribs)

Music

May be this music is close to the Opening titles music?95.19.4.9(talk)15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Stone Monkey - Kazu Matsul (http://open.spotify.com/track/5TzNbNtwBozHIlyshZk5K2,0.40 to 0.46 )

Maybe it is and maybe it's just a coincidence. Either way, without areliable sourcedrawing attention to it, it's not relevant. --AussieLegend(talk)04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Eureka / Warehouse Universe

Hi as mentioned int the article, both series play in the same universe, but how deeply are they involved? I have seen 3 actors from eureka in warehouse13 so far, but they don't have the charackternames from eureka (or at least I think so). Is that explained? I'm german and the show is not so far progressed. thx, --85.180.5.56(talk)19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuity withEureka (TV series)

It has been established on screen that Warehouse 13 happens in the same continuity withEureka (TV series)in the Warehouse 13 episode "13.1" and the Eureka episode "Crossing Over" so the article should mention this. --Nerd42(talk)03:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jinks is gay. Deal with it.

If the article can include details of the characters' backgrounds like a deaf sister and having an eye for detail then it can include information on the sexual orientation of a new character. The information is sourced to a reliable source and the constant removal smacks of censorship and homophobia. Stop taking it out.Matty Dean(talk)21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the lies and attacks

The information about the character's sexual orientation is cited to a reliabvle source. It was wrongly taken out by a robot. It was restored and then removed repeatedly with the lie that it is "vandalism". Now the source is being attacked as unreliable.Out (magazine)has been a reliable source for almost two decades and any suggestion that it's not is another lie. I don't know why I've been subjected to repeated lies and attacks but I have to think that there's some homophobia at work.Matty Dean(talk)02:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The mention of a deaf sister and and eye for detail have an impact on those characters and the story. At this point since the season has not started we do not know what impact his homosexuality will have on the development of the character. This has nothing to do with an unreliable source. If it turns out to be a major part of the character then it can be added at the appropriate time. Your actions on the other hand, are coming off as trying to make a statement, rather than the betterment of this article. CSLoomis(talk|contribs)02:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the tacit admission that the information was once again removed for about the fifth time under false pretenses, the idea that a character's sexuality has nothing to do with the character is crap. If theheterosexual"chemistry" between two characters based on two crossover episodes is worthy of inclusion then the homosexuality of a major character is equally worth noting. I can't figure out why "Jinks is openly gay" is causing so many people to have so many fits but it's stupid, it's censorship and it's bigotry. The only "statement" that I'm trying to make is to include a salient piece of information from a reliable source. What "statement" are the people who have spent the day lying and attacking me trying to make?Matty Dean(talk)02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, given that the new season has yet to air, "openly gay" is nothing but original research at this point, as you've not seen the episodes or the character, and appear to be basing this off one interview in a magazine that, let's be frank here, is probably a little biased on the issue. Accusing those who've edited your contributions liars and accusing them of attacks is not helpful, either.MikeWazowski(talk)03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so take out the word "openly". The idea that OUT is an unreliable source for LGBT topics is every bit as ridiculous as saying that Sports Illustrated is unreliable for sports articles because of its pro sports bias. If you are suggesting that OUT magazine reporter Philip B. Crook fabricated the quotes in his story then I suggest you offer up your proof. A reliable source quotes the series creator and the actor as saying that the character is gay. And when the information is taken out multiple times under false accusations of vandalism and now with the lie that the source is unreliable, I don't know what you expect me to think other than I'm being attacked and lied about.Matty Dean(talk)03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The only revert that stated the source as unreliable was the last one. The addition of denoting someone as gay is a common vandal attack. So that is why the bot originally reverted it. And the second individual apologized about his revert, stating it was in good faith. This is a place to talk in a helpful manner, not to attack one another.CSLoomis(talk|contribs)03:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree that attacking other people is bad which is why I've asked repeatedly that the attacks on me stop. And yes, the first non-robot person to revert the non-vandalistic edit apologized for the misunderstanding. The two editors who then reverted it without explanation (one of whom left a false accusation of vandalism on my talk page) and the one who reverted it with the false claim about the reliability of the source have yet to apologize.Matty Dean(talk)05:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for adding it. But until that information is introduced in the series itself, I do not think that it should be listed here as being openly gay. Jack Kenny in the article does not say he is out. It is possible to make a mention of the article. Such as, "In an interview Warehouse 13 creator Jack Kenny talked about the character being gay."CSLoomis(talk|contribs)03:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, if you want to re-word it, that's fine with me. That's a much better solution than the wholesale removal under false pretenses.Matty Dean(talk)03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is any argument I am going to add the following to the description for Jinks. "In an interview with Out Magazine, Warehouse 13 creator Jack Kenny stated that the character Steve Jinks is gay. It is yet unknown how this will play into the series."CSLoomis(talk|contribs)03:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, at this time the issue of the character's sexuality is as unimportant as it is for any of the characters. If his sexuality becomes part of the story then there might be a reason to mention it but for now it's really a non-issue. Have we listed the sexual preferences of other characters who aren't gay? This isn't Out magazine. --AussieLegend(talk)03:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I ultimately agree with you. For now I will not add in the proposed addition.CSLoomis(talk|contribs)03:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually, the sexuality of other characters is included, by way of discussing their heterosexual romantic entanglements. Unless you're suggesting that talking about the chemistry between a female and male character or noting that "only time will tell" whether another male-female coupling will turn into a "love connection" is somehow not including their sexuality. People and characters are assumed to be heterosexual until they are explicitly not. Expecting that the sexuality of the gay character not be included until such time as some editors whose knowledge of sexuality issues appears to be, shall we say, extremely narrow, arbitrarily decides that his sexuality is "important" enough to mention is a ridiculous standard. If Lattimer and Bering's heterosexuality is "important" enough to mention then the homosexuality of another main character is as well. It's typical of the heterosexist majority that mention of gay sexuality is deemed "unimportant" when the same mention of heterosexuality is considered not only standard but required.Matty Dean(talk)05:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The chemistry between the characters has already happened on-screen, so it's reasonable to include it. So far we haven't seen a single episode with this new character so his sexualiity isn't an issue yet. If he makes a move on Pete or Artie, then will be the time to mention it,afterthe event, just as happened with Pete and Myka. --AussieLegend(talk)08:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's just stupid. He's gay whether he "makes a move" on a male character or not and predicating mention of his sexual orientation based on whether or not he engages in any sexual behaviour is wrong-headed. Sexuality isn't an "event" that will or won't "happen" nor is his sexuality an "issue", and that you discuss it in these terms only reinforces that you really have no understanding of sexuality issues. Again,what is the big dealwith including the four words "Agent Jinks is gay" in the article? This massive resistance to this simple factual statement is bizarre.Matty Dean(talk)20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That already played a part in the show, if and when this characters homosexuality does so as well it really isn't anything noteworthy. It's like saying someone is left-handed, entirely irrelevant until it plays some part in the show. At this point the sexuality of this character (or Leena's, or Dickinson's, or Frederic's, etc.) doesn't matter._Xeworlebi^(talk)11:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Feeble excuses for disappearing the sexuality of a queer character.Matty Dean(talk)17:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're really sounding like a zealot who thinks that once someone is found to be gay, EVERYONE MUST KNOW. I'm all for LGBT issues, but you don't see it saying "Such and such character is straight." No reason to post the opposite --Ender The Xenocide| (Talk|Contribs)18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because as I said every person and fictional character is assumed to be straight as a default position so there's no need to specifically note it. Noting the non-heterosexuality of characters is a matter of factual accuracy, not zealotry. What does strike me as zealotry is this massive campaign to keep four words of factual information out of the article. How exactly does noting that the character is gay detract from the article in any way? Answer: it doesn't detract from the article in any way and there is no valid reason for not including it. "Oh, it's notimportant"or" It's not anissueyet "are BS excuses.Matty Dean(talk)20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not. Everyone (theoretically, of course) is assumed to be neuter until proven otherwise. And even when proven, it is rarely of consequence to their overall character. Even after all this back and forth, and seeing the same arguments elsewhere, I still don't understand the significance of including this. I fail to see how, before the character has made one single appearance, this has become one of his defining characteristics.—Huntster(t@c)20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for being left-hand, most people assume that someone is right-handed because 90% of the world is. Mrs. Frederic is black, we don't mention that because it is of no importance. Are we racist because of that? Doubt it. Wether a character is gay or not is usually of little importance to their persona, unless this character will be the stereotypical girly-gay guy, and as with any sexual orientation will only be noteworthy when that actual plays into something notable._Xeworlebi^(talk)21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that my two cents is worth much here (not a fan), but I would tend to agree with the current consensus; the sexuality of a character that has yet to even be seen is hardly of relevance. Since Matty Dean focuses on the tacit, casual mentions of dating as being assumed hetero, I focus on the status of Max Blum ofHappy Endings,who's being gay is barely relevant, as his status in the show is simply that as one of a group of six friends, even as the episode summaries onthe list pagecasually mention his romantic pursuits with phrases like "not realizing that the new place is owned by Ian, the cute new guy he just started dating" or "Jane meddles in Max's love life when she thinks he's passing on the perfect guy"; while not shying away from his persuasion, it doesn't go so far in overtly focus on it, as it is not an overwhelming factor in his character like the sexuality of characters who's storylines are driven by their sexuality likeBarney StinsonorKurt Hummel.It's best to wait until we see if and how it factors in to the overall plot, since the article is about the overall, and not the minutia.KnownAliasX19:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jinks being gay will probably come up at some point - I agree that we should include the information at that time, not yet. If it's never mentioned in the show, it may end up that the writers change their minds since the interview. --V2Blast(talk)18:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jinks being gay came up in the episode "40th floor". While Jinks is alone with the captive female "FBI agent" he says something like "Even if I were interested in women, you would put me off". *Now* can we put it in the article?Naraht(talk)11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jinks explicitly tells Claudia he is gay when she thinks he is hitting on her. His mother states she is fine with it when visited. Then his ex-boyfriend shows up the next season. Stop disputing it.voi2258(talk) 4:28, 8 July 2013 (EST)

Webisodes

The first webisode "Of Monsters and Men: Part 1" just went up on the Syfy website and on Hulu. We should probably mention them on this page and on the episode list. (Apparently it's a 10-part series of webisodes.) --V2Blast(talk)18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Merge of thePilot Episode

Hey guys, wanted some input. I'm working on a draft of the merge atUser:ComposerDude/Warehouse 13.Most of the article for the Pilot seems redundant in light of existing material on this page. The only recourse I see is to do season summaries, and severly edit the pilot plot section down under the season one heading. Thoughts?ComposerDude^(TALKIE)_*contribs03:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing seasonal summaries seems like an excellent idea. Regardless that it is the pilot episode, everything should be presented in roughly equal terms.—Huntster(t@c)05:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Worth adding complete list of Warehouse locations?

Should we add the complete list of warehouse locations fromhttp://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/history?This could be either as simply the list of locations, the list and "numbering" or list, numbering and dates.Naraht(talk)11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is Jinks?

Why isn't Jinks included on this page?— Precedingunsignedcomment added by98.192.189.160(talk)22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering this? Why isn't Jinks mentioned in the article, it needs to be updated!85.230.137.5(talk)02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jinks is not credited as a main character so he's not included in this article. Heislisted atList of Warehouse 13 characters#Steve Jinks.--AussieLegend(talk)03:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sister Shows

On screen, it has been established that Eureka and Warehouse 13 exist in the same universe starting with the 13.1 episode. However, the show still has no explanation of the presence of Joe Morton as Reverend John Hill in the episode Regrets while he is also one of the main characters in Eureka as Henry Deacon. Is he a twin? A clone? Genetically engineered?

Also, in this article's intro, it has been stated that Warehouse 13 did a crossover with another SyFy series Alphas. I'm not exactly sure if it is considered a crossover because I cannot recall Warehouse 13 being mentioned by Dr. Cadler. It could be the writers are only using her name as well as the same actor (X-Files).

With that again, is there are reference material to a press release statement where the producers of the show have stated that the three show indeed exist in the same fictional universe? Please add them up in the article if you find them.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byTJ Reyes(talk•contribs)13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about Warehouse 13 and Being Human being in the same universe. The citation listed mentions the same actor appearing in both shows, but as different characters.Bwald(talk)02:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just Morton, but Niall Matter and Erica Cerra appeared onW13as characters that were not theirEurekacharacters. The three shows were conceived independently by different creators and producers and were never intended to share a continuity. Syfy began exerting pressure on the producers to stage stunt crossovers in a cheap attempt to bolster the ratings of some or all of the shows. Since two are now long-canceled, it obviously didn't work. Playing the original research game to handwave discontinuities or synthesize meta-fictional data is discouraged here. The "crossovers" rate a brief mention only (no more than one sentence to state that they happened), not protracted pseudo-analysis. This is an encyclopedia, not your personalW13wiki/fanfic site.12.233.146.130(talk)00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Artifacts and Gadgets

Someone deleted the List of Artifacts and Gadgets article. I think it should be restored.ZFT(talk)14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13was deleted after discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13.A copy was moved toUser:DarkArcher/Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13if you'd like to see the content, but the article should not be recreated. --AussieLegend(talk)17:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And why is that?ZFT(talk)05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AfDis a formal process through which the community buildsconsensusas to whether or not an article should exist. The decision to delete represents that consensus. Recreation of the article is editing against consensus, which is inappropriate and a criteria forspeedy deletion.--AussieLegend(talk)13:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not SF (?)

Might "Warehouse 13" be better described as a fantasy series, since it deals with a warehouse and artifacts that have magical properties. (It could be classified perhaps as modern urban fantasy like "Buffy" or "Angel." ) 203.56.94.11(talk)06:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Helena G. Wells

Until now, we've only had character articles for the main characters, ie those whose actor is credited as a main character perMOS:TV.Today,Helena G. Wellswas created. Among other things, the author edited this article tomove H.G.Wells into the mainadd H.G.Wells to the character section,[1](which only lists main characters)despite not being a main character. I reverted those changes and redirected the article toList of Warehouse 13 characters#Helena G. Wellsbut the author has since restored the article. The problem withHelena G. Wellsis that the subject doesn't seem to meet thegeneral notability guidelines,relying almost entirely on episodes for sources. This might be marginally acceptable for a main character, but for a recurring character it simply isn't appropriate. There is no real-world treatment of the subject, other than mention of apossiblespin-off and mention of Myka's attraction to her by Joanne Kelly. The vast majority of the article is just in-universe discussion. If we advocate the creation of such articles, we're opening a can of worms; editors will feel free to create articles on any and all characters no matter how non-notable they are. Comments? --AussieLegend(talk)10:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you would prefer to have this discussion on THIS page rather than on the article's page itself where people would be more likely to read it, nor on any of the other venues where I have tried multiple times to engage you in friendly discussion, but that's okay. Firstly, I didn't move her into the Main Character section. There is no such section. There is simply a section titled "Cast and Characters" with NO distinctive marking regarding whether it is meant for "main" or "not-main". Secondly, there is no Wikipedia law that states a character article must conform to a main character format vs. a recurring character format. As such, the argument that we're just opening a can of worms so that anyone might do the unthinkable, as it were, and create more wikipedia articles is wholly invalid. The better discussion is not whether articles need to be removed so much as how we can improve articles that exist. As I have been up literally all night with this article and the drama surrounding your treatment of it, I plan on taking a look at how I can incorporate your suggestions (which weren't suggestions and were just criticisms). In point of fact, the article forMyka Beringwas my template for the Helena article - and it has absolutely NO outside references of any kind. So the Helena article has 2 more than it does - and the episode references are not internal to Wikipedia as the ones on Myka's article are. In point of fact, the same holds true forPeter Lattimer's article,Arthur Nielsen's article,Claudia Donovan's article, andLeena (Warehouse 13)'s article. NONE of the main characters have any external references - every reference on every one of those articles is an internal Wikipedia reference, so Helena's article has more external references than any of theirs; all of theirs refer to ONLY episodes for references; and ALL of the are written in-universe. In point of fact, even THIS article is written in-universe. And THIS article has only ONE external reference. It hardly seems appropriate to dismiss or want to remove another article for being a BETTER WRITTEN article than the very one from which the argument is being launched - not to mention better written than the ones for the main characters when the biggest argument given. Since there is no wikipedia law that governs how main vs. recurring character articles SHOULD be handled by comparison to one another - the basis for your arguments lose merit and become invalid as a result. Or, at the very least, cause every single article relating to Warehouse 13 to be subject to deletion based on the objections you have put on the table. Still, you have my assurances that I do wish for the Helena article to be as well-written as possible, and I will be seeking out the advice of many in the community who offer help and assistance rather than criticism for criticism's sake.Electprogeny(talk)11:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing - I NEVER mentioned an attraction that Myka feels for Helena. I did say that, for Helena, Myka is the presumed love-interest. Big difference. I then cited an article for that presumption wherein Joanne Kelly states that she and Jaime Murray chose to play their characters that way. The referenced article mentions attraction, and other things. I never mentioned attraction. Ever..Electprogeny(talk)11:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the discussion here for the reason stated on the other page, this is watched by more people than the other article. It's also relevant to the creation of other such articles. You are correct about the character section, I have ammended my post appropriately.Wikipedia:Notabilityis a guideline that we use for the creation of articles. In order to meet thegeneral notability guideline,a topic has to have received significant coverage inreliable sourcesthat areindependentof the subject. Helena G. Wells has not, so the article shouldn't exist. Main characters are normally assumed to have such coverage while non-main characters need to demonstrate it. By advocating the creation of articles such as Helena G. Wells, we're advocating ignoringWP:Nand just creating whatever articles we want, so yes it is a can of worms that we really don't want to open for the reasons that I've stated. --AussieLegend(talk)11:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for amending your error. Please do so for the one regarding the alleged mentioning of an attraction by Myka for Helena (which I never, in fact, actually mentioned). Since we're being sticklers about these things we should attempt to be correct in our discussion at the very least.:) Thank you for linking those sections I will read them. I'm glad to know your argument has been reduced to the notability thing. I think you will find, in less than a day, that I will have provided a plethora of external reference material for the article since Helena has - in fact - received quite a great deal of independent coverage. Have a great day!Electprogeny(talk)11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said thatyousaid anything about an attraction. I said that there was a citation supporting that, although "Myka Bering - Her friend, fellow agent, and presumed love-interest at Warehouse 13" are your words. I haven't reduced my argument, what I said still stands. Fiction should always include real-world treatment which, while related to notability, is separate from it.Articles should not be plot-only summaries,which the article is currently. --AussieLegend(talk)12:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of semantics. This is a matter of you alleging something that I never placed into the article. I referenced an article for the point I wrote regarding Helena having Myka as a presumed love-interest. That is very much not the same thing as me going into a real world treatment of Myka's attraction to Helena. To claim otherwise is not only disingenuous, but is entirely dishonest. If you're going to engage me and this article in such a debate then I should hope you would be a credible person and not someone with a maniacal need to pick fights for no rational reason. If that hope is misplaced, then I'll just disregard the rest of what you might wish to point out in this discussion, but I'd rather not be forced to do that. By the way I was just looking at the notability thing - and it turns out that since there are plenty of independent resources I can cite regarding Helena, that part is covered... but, I thought it important to note how the IMPORTANCE of a topic was not an issue for the notability test. Kind of cool, huh? Anyhow, I will be providing a literal plethora of external independent sources (I had already provided two, and the episode references were to give the reader the episode titles without typing them all out repeatedly) even though the other accepted formats for character articles have none. When I'm finished I will eventually get around to doing the same for the other articles - because I would hate to think someone might go on a rampage and start nominating all of them for AfD. Although, and I do have to admit I find the idea comical, if that happened and the Helena article stayed I'd just have to laugh. I do have one question for you - when it comes to, say, the Character History, section... exactly what sort of different wording would you suggest there other than plot-summary for a fictional character?Electprogeny(talk)12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I never said thatyousaid anything about an attraction. I was just reporting what is in the article.WP:Nis not "covered" until such time as the notability of the character can be demonstrated. I note there is a response to your question at the teahouse.[2]--AussieLegend(talk)13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could do away with the pretense. We both know I have been the only actual contributor of content since the page was published, and I authored it, so whether we say "you said" or "the article says" there is really no delineation until those circumstances change, imho. As it stands, I'd appreciate it if you amended it because neither I nor the article actually MENTION anything about an attraction Myka has for Helena. You'd have to open the referenced citation and then look for the statements to draw that conclusion - because the citation was never about how Myka feels about anything. It was always about how Helena feels.:) In any event, yes, about the notability thing - I think a dozen secondary and independent sources is a nice addition for this morning. And, yes again! I do have a response to my teahouse question! Thank you for bothering to monitor all my wikipedia activity for me.:D— Precedingunsignedcomment added byElectprogeny(talk•contribs)16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the independent references that the author of the article has added, I think it's fair to say that the article meetsWP:GNG.The character is that of a notable TV production, and while she is not a main character, it appears as though there is enough media coverage/reception/criticism to merit a standalone page. There's way too much relevant content to merge the character with the article on the show. That being said, there is quite a substantial bit of cleanup that needs to take place. Namely, the repeated use of references in-line when one citation can simply be added at the end of a paragraph or several sentences. I've discussed this issue with Electprogeny and it will be corrected.IShadowed(talk)22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Crossover with John Ringo novel Queen of Wands

I wasn't sure how to show the sources for this information. However, you can read the Acknowledgements from the beginning of the novel on the Baen web site:

Dfmclean(talk)07:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what you added to the article isn't supported by the acknowledgements. Sources must directly support claims and that one doesn't do it. --AussieLegend(talk)07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's also the actual text of chapter 9 of the novel where Artie and Claudia appear.Dfmclean(talk)07:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not enough. You need a source that explicittly supports the claim that "partly because of that, and partly because the author enjoys watching the series, at the end of chapter 10 of the first part (" The Mother's Tale ") of the novel" Queen of Wands ", Artie and Claudia make a brief appearance". --AussieLegend(talk)09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm really confused here. It is absolutely clear in the novel that Artie and Claudia make an appearance. The acknowledgements from the novel make it clear that the author did this because of the appearance of his novel in the show and because he likes the show. There's no OR here - it's all just taken verbatim from what is printed in the book.108.3.139.179(talk)20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The acknowledgements from the novel don't make it clear at all. They only acknowledge the presence of the Warehouse 13 reference and thank thank the writers and producers of Warehouse 13 (and the entire staff of Dragon*Con). They certainly do not support the claim that "partly because of that, and partly because the author enjoys watching the series, at the end of chapter 10 of the first part (" The Mother's Tale ") of the novel" Queen of Wands ", Artie and Claudia make a brief appearance". --AussieLegend(talk)08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a crossover in at least one direction and should be mentioned in the crossover section of the article somehow. --Irrdc(talk)08:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In chapter 10 of Queen of Wands, Artie and Claudia DO make an appearance. I can quote the novel if you like. As for the Acknowledgements - here's the text: "This book has been in the works for a long time. From well before Warehouse 13 came on TV. The Warehouse 13 reference at the end of one of the stories was a very late but I think humorous add. I’d like to thank the writers and producers for not only making a really good television show (words that are very hard for me to type as they’re so uncommon) but for featuring my novels in one of the backgrounds." It seems to me that's a pretty clear indication that the author added the scene a) because he likes the series; and b) because his novel was featured in one of the episodes. So, I'm still really confused as to what part of my addition is OR and how/why you are considering it OR. If you could just explain it to me like I'm a complete idiot, perhaps I can come up with a wording that you don't find objectionable.Dfmclean(talk)16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"It seems to me that's a pretty clear indication" That it seems to you to be pretty clear indication is insufficient. As I've indicated above, sources must directly support claims. You need areliable sourcethat directly says the scene was added because he likes the series because his novel was featured in one of the episodes. Your own interpretation of the meaning of the acknowledgement constitutesoriginal research.Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. --AussieLegend(talk)16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that was clear enough. Why didn't you just remove the words that caused the problem rather than then entire thing?Dfmclean(talk)17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And leave it in the article unsourced? Anything challenged (which this has been) or likely to be challenged needs to be supported by an in-line citation, so that wouldn't be appropriate. --AussieLegend(talk)18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't Mrs. Frederic/CCH Pounder be listed here?

Why isn't Mrs. Frederic listed in the Cast and Characters section? Surely her character is more central to the show than Daniel Dickinson. (talk)01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CCH pounder has never been credited in a starring role, whereas Daniel Dickinson was. --AussieLegend(✉)07:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Could she not be listed as a series regular?MisterShiney(talk)15:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This article only lists characters who have appeared in a starring role. Listing her here would be inconsistent with the way other characters are treated. --AussieLegend(✉)16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but that's ridiculous.C. C. H. Poundershould definitely be mentioned, regardless of who appears in a starring role. The guidelines we use aren't meant to trump common sense.Viriditas(talk)07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Daniel Dickson appeared in a single season as a very minor character. Mrs. Frederic (C. C. H. Pounder) has appeared in all four seasons as the woman in charge of the warehouse.Sumtimreh(talk)15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Simon Reynolds, who played Dickinson, was credited in a starring role during season 1. C. C. H. Pounder has not. If we start discussing recurring characters here, we have to discuss them all. --AussieLegend(✉)16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Isn't Jinks' Sexuality Mentioned In His Character Bio?

Seems like a pretty odd omission. Everyone knows the character is gay. It's been addressed, discussed, and established many, many times throughout the characters run. I have made attempts at a minor edit and told my edit wasn't "constructive". What does that even mean? It's a fundamental character trait that should be included in his bio. It makes one wonder why people are so weary of an obviously true piece of information.

74.195.173.57(talk)04:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If a character's sexuality so vital, why aren't all straight characters mentioned as such? This is trivial, and unnecessary for inclusion.—Huntster(t@c)05:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OR?

From the article:

...Warehouse 8 in Berlin during the Holy Roman Empire (1260-1517)...[the] previous warehouses...were placed in the centers of their empires...

Assuming what is meant is the center of administration of those empires, the Holy Roman Empire had three capitals during its long history none of which were Berlin. Since this passage is unsourced, may we assume that this is OR by someone who is guessing/ignorant of history? If what is meant is the geographical center...well, the three capitals were far closer than Berlin, which was rather out in the sticks to the far north and east of the geographical center. If it was actually stated incorrectly in the show that W8 was in Berlin, then we need a specific citation of the episode. The Syfy website being used as a source for some of the other claims in the same section does not even mention Berlin.12.233.146.130(talk)01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing Character

I see nothing about the black actress who plays Mrs. Fredrickson, and her character is not listed!? She is the one who recruited the main characters, not a minor role.68.108.55.155(talk)19:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of how large a role a character played, but whether they were credited in a starring role. C.C.H. Pounder has always been a supporting actress in the series, and thus is not listed.—Huntster(t@c)21:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Alibi

The Alibi is a recurring location where some of the show happens. Is this not a relevant bit of information? I thought that fans might like to know where the real bar is located, but two attempts to include this have been erased. If the edit is not quite right, please offer some advice, or help with the format instead of erasing it. Many people that go to a Facebook Warehouse 13 page were interested in the information about the real bar so I think that fans of the show in general would appreciate the inclusion of it.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byTighelander(talk•contribs)04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is considered trivia, not encyclopedic. It is exactly the kind of thing best suited for Facebook rather than Wikipedia.—Huntster(t@c)09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)