Talk:Misfits (TV series)

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

Las Vegas Picture[edit]

Some user said the Las Vegas picture of Simon and Alisha was taken while they were visiting Nathan, I can't find when they said this. If this never happend, the Las Vegas Picture would remain a mistery or a plot hole.

Start of series 3 ep 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.249.254 (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Las Vegas picture was taken before the events of the 3x00 webisode Vegas Baby. Before that webisode was released there were twitter accounts for both Simon[1] and Nathan[2] that showcased how Nathan invited himself along for Simon and Alisha's trip to Vegas. The specific tweet for the Vegas picture was: "Finally found out who took our photo in Vegas. A 63 year old waitress named Gladys. She was on rollerskates and had the same hair as Elvis."[3]

Djsosonut (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of original character descriptions?[edit]

I noticed that the initial edit of the page contains a set of brief character descriptions which went missing several revisions later and have since been re-introduced, albeit with some gentle massaging to reduce similarity to the ripped-off source, maybe someone should remove them again until an original work can be written to replace them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.68.120 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they sound like they have come off the Channel 4 website or some kind of promotional source. Even if they are not ripped-off, the tone is definitely not appropriate.

Realising how PR'ish the bios are I couldn't help but rewrite one character's bio, still need to the other 4, help would be appreciated NPeeerbvsesz (Push) 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha's surname[edit]

The Misfits website holds a weekly game at the top of the page, the character Alisha has her surname listed as Bailey. Can this be placed into the main article? 82.17.239.90 (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

umm however changed it both kelly and alisha have the same surname is that right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.22.70 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both have the same surname. All main characters' names carry stereotypes and inside jokes of the 1990s. Nathan--the classic loudmouth from a middle class family. Simon--suburban, serious, studious and eager. Kelly--the classic estate gobbler, male or female. Bailey was a popular baby name during the 1990s among "chavs". You get the idea. 0zero9nine (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedia storytelling[edit]

The article refers to the show's use of viral marketing but I would argue that the way in which the narratives on the other platforms (e.g. Twitter) relate to the show are examples of rabbit holes as defined by Henry Jenkins' theory of transmedia storytelling. Unloveablesteve (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon letting go[edit]

I've just watched the scene where simon try to save Nathan numerous around 3 times and i think its pretty obvoius he did not intentionally let go judging by the fact when nathan falls he is generally shocked and shouts "NO!" his reaction afterward and the way that nathan lost his grip so i am removing the part in the article about if it is clear or not that simon let go intentionally however feel free to change it back if you have an isue with this

devane1835 18th December 2009 20:54pm (GMT London) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.146.251 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's surname?[edit]

Has it appeared anywhere? On Twitter it states "Kelly B." Did it appear in the e4 website video when Simon is looking over the misfits' files?--Arjayoh (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's file seems to say Bailey in the video mentioned above (decidedly NSFW). There's also a quick glimpse of Alisha's file - I can't tell what it says, but it's not Bailey, as given in the police report from the game. So it may be a continuity error. If only Nathan were here to help identify blurry images from camera phones... -Hedgey42 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha's power[edit]

I definitely don't think it can be called pheramone manipulation, it is shown that people are affected by touching her, not smelling her. If there isn't a power like Alisha's already existing in fiction, it should just be described, not named.--Arjayoh (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pheromones aren't specifically always transported via particles in the air, they are simply chemicals secreted which impact behaviour. In this case, in universe, the description is adequate as we must assume the pheromone is transported by direct skin contact. Matt Zero (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title sequence[edit]

In the "Title Sequence" section, it says that "Nathan is followed by the shadow of a wolf, which no one knows the true meaning of...". Firstly, this sounds like a thirteen year old wrote it. But that's just my honest opinion, and secondly, as far as I can figure out, the wolf-like figure following Nathan would belong to his step-dad, Jeremy, who seems to be canine-like in his nighttime state. 91.105.33.159 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, Just removed that whole "Which no one knows the meaning of", since it's fan speculation. + npervez ☂ 14:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That whole paragraph still reads like speculation - "seems to hint at" and so on are more in the style of a fanzine than an encyclopaedia. I'm not actually sure there needs to be a description of the title sequence - it seems pretty trivial. I'm tempted to delete the whole paragraph, but I'll hold off for the moment in case anyone fancies giving it a re-write ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, so I've deleted it ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting, though.
Each of the characters is shown with a representation of their power [telepathy, time slip, etc], so what how does a wolf relate to Nathan's power of coming back to life ?? The fact that it apparantly relates to his step-father, who hasn't made any further appearance in the show, is a little odd - since that should indicate we have Curtis's power being represented by his girfriend's teleporting.
82.16.19.50 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading way too much into a poorly-written show.80.42.254.117 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon's crime[edit]

Are we sure it was arson? I thought it was indecent exposure from when he stuck his penis through the letterbox to piss the fire out, then he got caught with that in the letterbox.

I think that it was for urinating in the letter box-thus arson to an extent.=P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.196.205 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, arson' about...

List of powers[edit]

Is the "drug inverted powers" section necessary? It was (so far) a one-off thing, and I'm not sure the inference that Nathan's "backwards" power is mediumship is strong - from my viewing it seemed the implication was that he was dying - he felt terrible, and the masked man saved him from the exploding car which ordinarily wouldn't have killed him (at least not permanently). Lastly, Nathan himself seemed to imply that his mediumship was a side-effect of his immortality. David (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't his dead brother tell him the reason he can see him is because of his immortality? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Incorrect power description[edit]

"Alisha makes anybody want to have sex with her through touch"

Since when was wanting to take a dump on a girls chest known as "sex", or pissing on someone's breasts known as "sex"... id say the power more induces peoples inner lust or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.163.137 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had said this but it looks like its been rewritten and this is no longer a problem.HelloCthulhu (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time-travelling Simon[edit]

In Simon's secret hideaway, Alisha watches footage of when the Asbo 5 first get interviewed (after lactokinesis boy gets famous and they get outed by their probation worker). But then Curtis jumps back in time and negates that set of events.

So does Smon travel back from the future ?? Since the future he travels from had the Asbo 5, and that no longer happens ?? 86.158.97.112 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In episode S02E07 Simon is seen practising to become future Simon. 82.33.0.188 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

I include this request based off of people I know who feel that the article spoils too much of the show in the first paragraph of the article:

Under the "Synopsis" portion of the article, the first paragraph lists all the powers. My concern is that, the first season of the show is based somewhat around them finding out what powers they have. Most importantly, the character "Nathan" finds out his powers during the very last episode. Putting this in the first paragraph, which I consider to be a non-spoiler summary of the show, is very much a spoiler and the sentence "Seemingly left unaffected is smart alec Nathan (Robert Sheehan), who, in the final episode of the first series, discovers he is immortal." should be edited to say something like, "Seemingly left unaffected is smart alec Nathan (Robert Sheehan), who, in the final episode of the first series, discovers his powers.". It should then be noted at the end of the second paragraph of his immortality powers, such as "Nathan later find out that he is immortal before the season ends."

Mirthoneist (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please see WP:Spoiler. We do not take out information because it spoils the plot. The presumption is that someone reading a Wikipedia article, particularly a section called "Synopsis" or "Plot" should expect that key details, possibly even "spoilers" will be given. Our job is to neutrally present the plot, not write it in a way that protects potential readers/watchers. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOILER fits well with WP:CENSOR, we shouldn't leave out information just becuase it might spoil, just as we would not leave out information because it might offend, but it is not a license for editors to be jerks or an excuse to troll. From discussion of those guidelines you can see most editors would not allow the endings of the Sixth Sense, the Crying Game, to be mentioned just anywhere in an article and would make efforts to restrict such revelations to the Plot section (and ending belong at the end of plot section).
It is a little annoying and it would certainly not be apporpriate to mention his powers in the intro/lead of the article. I wouldn't have added it myself but I think it is acceptable to mention it at the end of the first paragraph. It is good that you tried to suggest an alternative better place where this might be mentioned, but if I were you and I had a good enough place to move it I'd have just done it. I'm not going to make the change for you but I wouldn't oppose you if you did.
If you could go back through the edit history and see where and when it was added - perhaps added by an anon-IP editor who has failed to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain why that bit of information needs to be relevealed (i.e. is quietly being a griefer and using WP:SPOILER to get away with it - you might be able to find some small excuse to remove that last clause of the sentence. If it was a named editor and you wanted to politely suggest to them personally that they might change the wording they might consider it, most other editors aren't likely to argue with an editor wanting to improve his own writing. -- Horkana (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPOILER states [...] section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers. With this edit, I've reworded the bit about Nathan discovering his power because the heading is "Premise". It appears that the info was originally included with this edit. At least one previous attempt has been made to remove this information, apparently without a reasoned argument being given. My justification is that a reader would not expect this information to be revealed under a heading entitled "Premise". Of course, it should be checked that it is still included elsewhere... however, as I've only seen the first 3 episodes of season 1, I'm not about to read through and check/reinclude myself just yet! Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the objections to the spoiler tag includes - much like your objection - that the spoilers are often contained in sections where spoilers are expected such as sections on plot summaries, character descriptions and episode lists. The opening section of this article includes spoilers. If spoiler warnings are out, then at least the content in the opening paragraph about *exactly* when specific characters leave/enter the show should be moved into probably the 'Main Cast' section or elsewhere. Barring any objections, when I finish the show I'll come back to re-work that bit. 69.11.25.100 (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

Some readers might be interested in a list of music included in the show but without commentary from a third party it doesn't fit with what is normally considered WP:NOTABLE. If you can find a review praising the musical selection in the show it might be worth a mention but even then it would be appropriate to add some prose describing this rather than a list. -- Horkana (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-Ray[edit]

A Blu-ray for series one and two has been made available, although I'm not sure of the date. 82.33.0.188 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300311. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on American show?[edit]

Misfits of Science -- SpareSimian (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you've cracked it. Superpowers and the word 'Misfits'. Just shows that anything good on TV must really have been an American idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol! That's like saying Batman and Superman are based on either because they wear y-front pants over tights. Apart from the title and the main characters having superpowers, MoS and Misfits are day and night. 0zero9nine (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, but ITC show The Champions predates even Misfits Of Science. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy's power[edit]

I think consensus needs to be reached on this. The explanation keeps changing and seems completely wrong

92.25.105.253 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kehinde Fadipe[edit]

Passing through and was a little surprised that Kehinde Fadipe is not mentioned on the page at all; she is "Melissa" (Curtis' female form). She is listed in the infobox on Curtis' character page, but the actor table on this mainpage would seem to be an appropriate place to give her credit as she is technically Curtis. Perhaps underneath the text (not in an entirely new cell) to show that the character is the same, but maybe in brackets or something? Choosing not to do so myself, as I'm an ignorant plebe about style/content rules/conventions. -K 208.127.189.38 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you Kehinde? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, unless she's already gone to Hollywood. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You "Geolocating" an IP perchance? Well, the point is reasonable, we ought to add her somewhere in these dreadful pages. While we're at it, perhaps we can chop the synopsis of series 3 down by about 94% here? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premise[edit]

The whole Premise paragraph requires immediate and thorough citation, for it details quotes and facts that are otherwise fictional, speculates wildly, and in general needs further sourcing and referencing. Also, I'd hardly think the second segment, summarising series 3, is needed. The Premise is the basic outline of the programme, not a intricate tale and summing up of all three seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatBlokeInTheMask (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Starring Section Issues[edit]

Its time this was stopped whoever keeps putting Joe Gilgun at the top should know that wikipedia rules state that actors/actresses added to a show should be put in the order they arrived as Gilgun was last in he should be last on the list even those who have left (Rheon, Thomas and Sheehan) retain their position in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.184.146 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

series v. show/season[edit]

the British use 'series' the way 'season' is used in the US, and that is consistent throughout. Problem is, the title disambiguation is confusing. One of those should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.228.158 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title disambiguation of "TV series" is standard for Wikipedia per the naming convention detailed at WP:TV-NAME. —Lowellian (reply) 01:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast dispute[edit]

(Originally posted here.) Hi! The misfits cast section on the misfits page says "cast", not "cast who are in the credits". Plenty of tv shows don't have opening credits with cast members listed, or they list guest cast, we wouldn't not list anyone or list everyone just to suit the titles. Even if that did determine how cast members are classed as main cast, they are listed in the end credits above the recurring characters. Alex is a regular, [7], there are probably loads of other sources saying so, same for Seth, i just don't have the time to dredge them all up. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#cast information even if Seth and Alex are recurring they should be listed, if the cast list was overly crowded then they should be split in to "main cast" and "recurring cast" sections in the cast section, but with only nine members of cast it wouldn't be worthwhile to split the sections. Please stop being unconstructive with your edits and reverting other people with out looking at guidelines and sources properly. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if you misinterpreted the article you cited as evidence. "For the main article of a series, it may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by 'Main characters' and 'Recurring characters'" and "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that 'main' cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time". News outlets are not necessarily reliable sources for such matters and, per your logic, characters such as Greg, who was listed in the end credits before Seth, should be added as well. The opening credits have consistently been used to denote who the main characters are as determined by contract and production. While the characters of Alex and Abby were reported as being regulars during casting, their treatment since the series began proves that there was clearly a shift in the character's direction. There needs to be some sort of official rule denoting what determines notable cast members and where to draw the line. I have clearly defined what I consider to be noteworthy in the main page and you have not. - Katanin (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but in place of evidence from producers other sources should be used. Another source is this interview, [8], Matt Stokoe says Alex is "one of the first main characters who’s not in orange, but he’s integral to the storyline". In another interview Matt Strevens was saying viewers would have to wait to see if Abby joines the "main gang" and calls Finn, Jess and Alex the "new gang" and says Alex is "not in orange but is key to the series story arc".[9] I can't check now, but i'm sure Alex and Seth are listed above the "With" bit in the credits, so are above the recurring and guest cast. Even if you ignore this, the section is a "Cast" section not a main cast or a recurring cast, so should inlude those that are given a large emphasis and that includes Seth and Alex, other characters may also fall in to that too, but out of all of them Seth and Alex are the most obvious. They have been treated as regulars since their introductions, appearing consecutively in every episode since they were introduced and given their own storylines, Abby isn't introduced until next week either. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be bothered to check but I was and Seth is very clearly stated below the "with" (and sometimes below the "and") in the closing credits. The page you linked earlier and which I quoted in my previous message stated that screen time has nothing to do with main characters. By your logic, characters such as Greg and Shawn, who consistently appeared in every episode during their respective series, should be added to the main cast too. I have outlined a strict guideline as to whom should be in the main cast list on the front page in order to stop debates like this from happening. Your method for whom is to be added to the list is arbitrary and goes against the rules set out by the very article you showed me. What we should do is have an official vote take place on the Misfits talk page in order to settle this instead of continuing this edit war. - Katanin (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't have the dvds handy and 4OD won't work, not that i couldn't be bothered to check. I did bother to find several sources from official members of production, which you ignored. I was also saying characters like Shaun, Greg and Nikki are important enough to be considered main cast, although they were never part of the main group and never got anywhere near as much screen time as Seth or Alex, or their own storyline but the guidelines also state "by the series producers", which is where Matt Stokoke is getting his information from and Matt Strevens is producer and saying they are the "main gang". Your guidelines are exactly that, YOUR guidelines, you can't just decide that the only way to denote main or starring cast is through the opening credits, we can't do that for many tv shows and it doesn't work in this case either. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it has nothing to do with screen time. The guidelines that I am choosing to follow are those that are followed by many other TV shows on Wikipedia. The guidelines that you are outlining are your own and are arbitrary. It's not just my decision, it's a procedure that has been used throughout countless numbers of television shows on Wikipedia for years. You are the one who is straying from the precedent, by adding characters who are not in the main cast without denoting their status. - Katanin (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No i am not. No where in the guidelines does it state "main cast is completely denoted by opening credits". For example, in Torchwood Indira Varma was credited in the opening titles of episode 1 but never again, she isn't included in the cast section even though she appeared in the titles, other tv shows, such as Skins, never list cast in the opening titles but use common sense and secondary sources to tell who are the main cast. Screen time is obviously important, you can't ignore that, it is a contributing factor in whether somebody is a main cast member or not, you can't have a main cast member who makes one fleeting appearance. I am not outlining any of my own guidelines, i'm using common sense. Other articles use common sense too. The opening titles do not correctly reflect the character's status - i have provided other sources from production members who say they are regulars and from secondary sources, you have not provided any sources saying they are recurring cast or not regular cast, you are basing the whole concept on a thirty second opening sequence. D4nnyw14 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

I frankly feel outraged when someone, arbitrarily, reverts the edits I have made, and the contents I inserted, back to a previous version. In this case, user "Docwhoaza93", who reverted it, says that Series should be used instead of Season - fine if you will, but why delete the whole bunch of info I provided elsewhere? That just aggravates me. In particular, I had added the following info on the introductory chapter: "The series is characterized by bleak-tinged photography, virtually no crowd scenes, and very limited cast, mostly shot in a handful of solitary locations with little or no scenes featuring passing extras or street traffic. The series also features very explicit language, softcore sexual situations, graphic violence and splatter, making it restricted audience show and a late-night scheduler in most countries." Honestly speaking, can anyone disagree that what I stated is one of the major traits of this series? And the one setting it most apart from the rest? Honestly? So please, Edit on your part, change what's needed if you want to, modify at will, but DO NOT REVERT. Please.

Max Ventura, Italy.

Hi Max. That's great writing, but it falls under wikipedia:original research and really doesn't belong in the article. Again, it's not very fun, but there it is. - JeffJonez (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misfits of Science connection[edit]

Two things I want to redress.

1. CarbonSparks reverted my edit stating, "There is no evidence to suggest the show's basis is from "Misfits of Science" in any way besides coincidentally sharing a word in the title."

The setting of the American television show and the British are quite similar. Both are about a group of troubled teens who either have or obtain superhero powers. The show deals with how they handle these powers and the relationships that evolve from working closely with each another. The show's name is not a coincidence. Modern television shows tend to gravitate towards single word names. Instead of "Misfits of Science" the creators opted for the simpler "Misfits". Lastly, I remember watching "Misfits of Science". My first thoughts when "Misfits" aired was "Hey this looks like a remake of Misfits of Science from the 1980's." | I'm not alone. Much like the Battlestar Galactica reboot, "Misfits" trades in comedy for darker drama.

2. Respecting CarbonSpark's writing, "There is no evidence to suggest the show's basis"

I wrote "The name and setting is loosely based on the American superhero fantasy television". Those words state that Misfits is not a direct reboot or update to Misfits of Science, only that the two shows share much in common. On that basis Misfits is a spiritual reboot of Misfits of Science.

The information presented is appropriate to the article and doesn't take away from the article's validity. I would like to request a peer review of the information and a decision on whether to accept or reject it.

-- Gorba (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be 100% correct, but without a few verifiable sources, or a good source quoting someone involved with the show, it's just speculation and doesn't belong in the feature. It's not very fun, but that's how Wikipedia works. See: wikipedia:source - JeffJonez (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

"A US remake is currently in production" ; sooo where is a reference to that in the text? (none only italian is noted..) So pls add a reference to this. 82.149.188.61 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for noticing! :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Abbey/Abby Smith[edit]

I am just wondering to which spelling of the name for this particular character should be used, during series four the character was referred to as Abbey both in the credits and on the official website on E4.[4] Since series five of the show has started the credits now have her credited as Abby but the official website still states her name as Abbey. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/simonmisfits
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/nathanmisfits
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/simonmisfits/status/113301543620583424
  4. ^ "Abbey Smith".

Spoiler in introduction[edit]

It says Sheehan leaves in the second series, spoilers should be in the plot description, not in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.113.140 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has nothing against spoilers anyway, but noting an actor left the show is hardly a spoiler as it does not include any plot-relevant information (i.e., what happens with the character). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Series 5 plot summary[edit]

This is way too long and written rather in-universe style. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Misfits (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misfits_(TV_series)&oldid=1208339814"