Talk:Dante's Cove

Sky House?

Is there any real confirmation that Diana is of the Sky House? She references the Sun when she visits Ambrosius in his prison, but there's no verification of her association with the Sky is there?

It's implicit in the special effects from the final episode. Ambrosius's effects are red (Sun). Grace's effects are blue (Moon). Diana's effects are white (Sky, by elimination). She taught Ambrosius Sun Tresum because he's male.

Rewatching episode 4 of season 2, Diana's father confirms that 'the Sun House is strong in her'. Diana is a Sun Witch.--Legionsynch 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Sky House is described as a synthesis of the two, the Sun House being strong in her can just as easily mean that she's a Sky Witch. Given the OR-ish nature of the situation it's probably best to remove any reference. Otto4711 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711 05:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sky House was never mentioned anywhere outside of the series website. Is that considered canon? We never saw a "Book of the Sky" as we saw a "Book of the Moon" and a "Book of the Sun." Diana's father passed on his male energy "Book of the Sun" to Diana and specifically said that someday she would find a man who would be able to utilize the power (meaning Diana would not be able to utilize that power on her own, at the very least).--69.231.69.37 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that "Book of the Sky" (or Sky Book) was the merged Moon and Sun Books we saw in 3.05 "Naked in the Dark". We'll probably have to wait till the next Dante's Cove podcast or the extras when Season 3 comes out on DVD for any sort of official confirmation, should it ever come. They often like to keep us guessing on these things... in fact, I get the feeling that sometimes they like to see what we come up with, and often adopt it for future episodes. Talk about "creating your own canon"... Homoaffectional (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean Up

Otto, thanks for cleaning up my "clean up". The only place that I strongly suggest restoring the additional spacing would be in the first section. This will create a sleeker look with regard to the infobox and the next header. Just my thoughts on the matter. I'd rather post here than risk getting caught up in "competitive editing". Griff 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The look is going to be different depending on what browser one is using. On my home browser the infobox stops right at the header. I'll look at it tomorrow at work with a different browser to see what it looks like. Otto4711 04:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The page looks OK using both Internet Explorer and Safari. I made a couple more cosmetic fixes (spelled out numbers, etc.) and moved one picture to illustrate the tresum section. Otto4711 14:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The season 3 preview is a direct lift from the Dantes cove website. Someone might want to alter the wording a bit. Though with the season premiere around the corner the info will change soon enough.. ALSO, can folks please discuss here before deleting entire sections... thank you Griff 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to reviews of the show, are items such as Netflix comments and user reviews valid? Griff 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• If there's verifiable information available on fandom in general that would be a better tack to take IMHO than just listing quotes or reviews from fan-based or user-based sites. Looking at a few FA and GA television series article, critical response is generally reserved for professional criticism and fan activity is in a separate section. See Firefly (TV series) and Press Gang for examples. Otto4711 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode Titles

What is the source of the recently added "episode titles" ? The listed titles do not match the ones in my TiVo. Griff 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are wrong. I've removed them. Otto4711 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps add something about the switch in filming venues from the Caribbean in Season 1 to Hawaii in Season 2 and the total lack of continuity in the sets and ambience of the show between seasons? Thanks.

Why not go ahead and add it yourself? Otto4711 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of episode titles, anyone have any idea what the episode title is of Season 3, episode 1 that debuted just today? And still looking for source of episode titles in general. :2:31, 19 October 2007

• S1 ep 1 title is from the episode on-screen. Ep 2 is sourced to IMDB. All titles for S2 are on the DVDs. S3 I'm taking from IMDB. Otto4711 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the Unaired pilot count as an episode or fit in under the umbrella of the series? I know it doesn't fit in the chronology, but I think it should be addressed. I've not yet watched it so I don't feel qualified to put the info in myself. Griff (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Language

i'm just wondering if the most recent edit Ambrosius being buggered by his valet is appropriate language for wikipedia. I've never really read the article properly before so hadn't noticed it until it was edited and then reverted. I do agree that he was most definitely being buggered by his valet, but as i said - is that the correct language to be used in a wikipedia article? The term "bugger" according to wikipedia itself is an expletive so i question its use in this article. Thoughts anyone? Princesskirsty 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know we don't censor on Wikipedia, but I think we're trying for an encyclopaedic tone, which "bugger" definitely doesn't convey. If it was some sort of quote, like "I caught Ambrosius buggering the valet," that'd be one thing. But I think saying "having sex with" is perfectly accurate, less colloquial, and more NPOV, imho. --Ebyabe 15:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

God forbid we should use any but the driest, dullest language. "Bugger" is equally descriptive and more interesting word choice, and is not always an expletive per the article you cited. This is an article about a campy soap opera, I think it's all right to have a little fun with the language. Otto4711 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

but it CAN be an expletive, so why not change it to something less profane? This isn't exactly an appropriate place to be having "a little fun with the language". Princesskirsty 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate place to have a little fun with the language. Every place is an appropriate place to have fun with language. I don't find the fact that "bugger" can be taken as an expletive in certain circumstances, of which this is not one, to be a good reason for changing it. Otto4711 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Both buggery and sodomy have a long history, specific meaning and either are approriate here. Like many sexual words they now have an expletive meaning. Sanitising wikipedia is against policy (WP:CENSOR) and 'to have sex with' opens the doors to all sorts of Clintonesque ambiguities - let's call it as it is.--Joopercoopers 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of bugger in Canadian and American English is almost totally expletive and disappearing very quickly. If you want to use colourful language then you could use 'fucked' as it is not particular to male or female. However I find it totally inappropriate for a neutral and thoughful information source. I would rather be fucked by my valet than buggered by him, just because bugger is such an archaic word that the valet sounds old! Also the word bugger, because of it's negative connotations, seems more violent than a more neutral phrase. I vote for 'penetrated.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gebrelu (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

The scene in question takes place in the 1850s so if "bugger" is indeed archaic it fits well with the time period in question. Otto4711 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term "bugger" has more relevance in British english than American english. It is more archaic than expletive in American English, whereas British english may retain the expletive connotations. As a comprimise, I suggest substituting "engaging in sodomy with". Unless it was a violent act, in which case I would choose "Ambrosius being sodomized by his valet". I think this results in the most clarity, and sidesteps the expletive issue. I am not against using the word bugger on expletive grounds, but I think it can be made more clear. AThomas203 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article is a good start, and could make GA in the future, but for now it is not ready.

• I only has one reference. More of the Production section, the "Podcast and publicity" section, and most others need references.
• It has no reception information, what do (did) critics think of the show?
• None of the images has fair use rationales.
• It has a Google video and a Myspace link.
• The series overviews are pretty poorly layed out, the series two one is mostly just one or two sentence paragraphs, consider merging them.

These seem to be the main problems, but once they have been dealt with, the article can be re-submitted. Good work so far, keep it up! Gran² 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 preview

I've removed this again. There are problems with the wording. Frankly it reads like one of those bits of fluff the TV stations put out themselves, and if that's so it's not only extremely poor writing for an encyclopedia, it's a copyright infringement.

Secondly it's (as yet) completely unsourced and, if the programs in question have not yet been broadcast, this is just crystal-ball gazing. --Tony Sidaway 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode layout

Anyone else think the layout looked better out of the grid? I changed it a while back but I'm thinking non-boxed would be better. Otto4711 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I liked it unboxed as well.. though I do like the episode bu episode breakdown. I'd also like the season by season cast pic to remain. Griff 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

{{GAnominee|2007-10-21}}

Fair use rationale for Image:Dcdvd1.jpg

Image:Dcdvd1.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 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 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

Sorry, I still need to fail it. All of the season sections are completely unreferenced - they are complete OR at the moment. Please leave a note on my talk page if you have issues/questions/want another review. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Listed for reconsideration since the only (and controversial) objection has been addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this GA reassessment as having been no clear consensus. I would encourage the editors to renominate this article for GA at their convenience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moon Book

With 3.04 "Like A Virgin", now that the Moon Book has been located and in the possession of Grace and the rest, shouldn't the "current whereabouts unknown" bit in the section that says so be updated? I'll wait for someone else more versed in messing around with footnotes come forward to do this, or else I'll take a stab at it myself and let someone else do the cleanup if necessary.

OK, now I'm glad I waited to do it, now that the two books have apparently merged, and I have no idea what they're calling it. See "Sky House" above.

GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I'm impressed at the diversity of sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   interesting information about the production

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images in article

The DVD cover scans are not fair use in this article, per the guidelines outlined at WP:NONFREE. I have removed them. Generally speaking, covers are only considered fair use in an article about the scanned item itself, and even that sort of use is debatable, but generally accepted. Fair use images in lists, however, are strictly prohibited. Let me know if you have any questions about this and I'll be gald to help. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's your interpretation, and one that I disagree with. There is no mention of DVD covers at the guidleine you mention and, as a guideline, it is subject to exception. This article seems to be under attack over recent days. I have to wonder why there has been this sudden focus of attention recently. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, HiDrNick - this article *is* the article about the scanned item. I mean, the scanned items were covers of the seasons of this show - so how does that work? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Some explicit examples on prohibited use are at WP:NONFREE#Images_2. This falls under the umbrella of "An album cover as part of a discography.". The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, lists, tables and the like fails the test for significance (criterion #8 in the WP:NFCC policy), that is that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." DVD season cover scans in tables and lists like that are only decorative and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Clearly, the omission of the copyrighted DVD covers does not detriment the reader's understanding of the topic of the article. ➪HiDrNick! 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I can see what you're saying. Is there precedent for using *one* of the covers to illustrate? I mean, at the moment there's just the TV logo and some strange screencap. I kinda guess not - a quick look shows very few images for my favorite TV shows. Thanks for your help!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The best fair use images to use for television shows that are in currently production are promotional cast photos, particularly if they were released in a press kit. For some older shows the best we can come up with is a screencap. ➪HiDrNick! 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

What do y'all think about User:SatyrTN/DC cast redesign as a redesign of the "Cast" section? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any benefit to it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm having second thoughts about it. My goal was to make each entry more readable, but I don't know. Thanks for the input. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is it's not much different from the current version. Jubilee line (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled?

It's been 4 years since the last season was seen on TV for this series. I haven't seen any new news lately whether if this series will be broadcast or not. Should this show be marked as cancelled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Raven & JuJu Bee to make guest appearances in season 4

Anyone heard more about this rumor?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.17.235 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dante's Cove. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dantescove.com/podcast.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813192648/http://www.heretv.com:80/APodcastDetailPage.php?id=15 to http://www.heretv.com/APodcastDetailPage.php?id=15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813192648/http://www.heretv.com:80/APodcastDetailPage.php?id=15 to http://www.heretv.com/APodcastDetailPage.php?id=15
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dantescove.com/podcast.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://instinctmagazine.com/celebrity-interviews/dantes-cove-cast.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=44831

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) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Excess detail template removal

I did some work around the section of "Tresum" and "Saint", removing unnecessary detail and merging them into a single section named "Mythology". I think we can remove the excessive plot detail template. ¿Any comments? Not A Superhero (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging the LoE article back to here

List of Dante's Cove episodes needs to be merged back to here – it's long-standing WP:TV policy that 12-episode television series (even those that ran "three" seasons) should not have standalone List of Episodes articles. In addition, the episode summaries at the List of Episodes article are substantially over-written and need to be trimmed, as per WP:TVPLOT.

Bottom line: the LoE article needs to be merged back to here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Completed the merge simply; feel free to edit in situ.   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)