![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The TV series is in fact much more sophisticated than the Movie, and shows the huge potential of a good combination of comedy with Science Fiction, and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever. For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated. According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication is that its writers were originally a surprisingly gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose."
I deleted the entire plot section. Holy shit have I not seen a more amateurish, grammatically horrible, opinionated, and entirely un-encyclopedic article! Stop posting here, fanboy. I'll leave it to others to replace the empty space with something useful. Of course I don't think there should be a "plot" section at all, since the show has no plot besides the movie's. CGameProgrammer 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The highly opinionated and totally unprofessional plot section has been deleted once again. Hey geniuses, you can't list references for opinions, only for facts. In all of history, there has never been a sophisticated or hilarious play, book, movie, TV show, etc. Instead, people perceive them as being sophisticated or hilarious, but those are opinions -- they are not facts. Opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Look at the articles on The Simpsons, South Park, CSI, The Sopranos, etc. Those are good shows, right? Well, guess what -- nowhere do those articles say the show is good, or funny, or sophisticated. They only list facts. CGameProgrammer 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will point out the flaw in every sentence/clause:
No, this is an opinion. Can you prove it's more sophisticated? No. You can prove that some people think it is, and some people think it isn't, and that's because it's an opinion.
Uh, this is not science fiction. It's fantasy. There's no science here, just magic. Look up science fiction.
Nearly every show has its fans that consider it the best show ever, and its detractors that consider it the worst.
This was my favorite. One reference is a website for people to list their opinions on when a show went bad. Another is a message board for people to list their opinions. The third is a fan's personal shrine to the show. This, folks, is comedy.
That's an opinion.
Uh, that website is a place for people to list their opinions. It's not a source of anything. Sigh. CGameProgrammer 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK anonymous, you just don't get it. I am RfCing this article. CGameProgrammer 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the presentation of opinions as fact, the relevancy of including them at all, and the use of fan sites and message boards as references. The following text has been repeatedly removed and readded by various parties about five or six times:
This entire Talk page has basically been devoted to arguing over this excerpt. 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: There can be no mistaking fan sites, bulletin boards, or blogs for reliable sources. Although it may be a fact that several fans of the show think it's the greatest show ever, that kind of information has no place in an encyclopedia, especially if there is no reliable source for it (i.e. a peer-reviewed survey of viewers published in a journal). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards,_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet for more info on this point. Furthermore, the subjective claim about "good combinations of comedy with Science Fiction" is unverifiable. I'd like to hear from the people who are in favour of including this information, because this really should be a no-brainer. BFD1 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It had been a continious dispute about a single paragraph, I think nobody should delete parts from an article, If is not willed to rewrite it. At least the person who wrote it originally took the time to do it, It's not fair just to delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madferret96 ( talk • contribs) .
Just saw this on RFC so I thought I'd drop by. Has the dispute been resolved at this point? I don't see any unsubstantiated claims in the article at the moment, though it could be beefed up a bit. E. Ripley 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed "ex-Marine" to "Marine-wannabe": unless I'm misremembering, it was established at some point that the Marines didn't take him. — Tamfang 06:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I had to go check whether this meant that USA showed 82 episodes out of 88, or 88 out of 94. How can it be worded better? — Tamfang ( talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The TV series is in fact much more sophisticated than the Movie, and shows the huge potential of a good combination of comedy with Science Fiction, and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever. For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated. According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication is that its writers were originally a surprisingly gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose."
I deleted the entire plot section. Holy shit have I not seen a more amateurish, grammatically horrible, opinionated, and entirely un-encyclopedic article! Stop posting here, fanboy. I'll leave it to others to replace the empty space with something useful. Of course I don't think there should be a "plot" section at all, since the show has no plot besides the movie's. CGameProgrammer 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The highly opinionated and totally unprofessional plot section has been deleted once again. Hey geniuses, you can't list references for opinions, only for facts. In all of history, there has never been a sophisticated or hilarious play, book, movie, TV show, etc. Instead, people perceive them as being sophisticated or hilarious, but those are opinions -- they are not facts. Opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Look at the articles on The Simpsons, South Park, CSI, The Sopranos, etc. Those are good shows, right? Well, guess what -- nowhere do those articles say the show is good, or funny, or sophisticated. They only list facts. CGameProgrammer 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will point out the flaw in every sentence/clause:
No, this is an opinion. Can you prove it's more sophisticated? No. You can prove that some people think it is, and some people think it isn't, and that's because it's an opinion.
Uh, this is not science fiction. It's fantasy. There's no science here, just magic. Look up science fiction.
Nearly every show has its fans that consider it the best show ever, and its detractors that consider it the worst.
This was my favorite. One reference is a website for people to list their opinions on when a show went bad. Another is a message board for people to list their opinions. The third is a fan's personal shrine to the show. This, folks, is comedy.
That's an opinion.
Uh, that website is a place for people to list their opinions. It's not a source of anything. Sigh. CGameProgrammer 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK anonymous, you just don't get it. I am RfCing this article. CGameProgrammer 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the presentation of opinions as fact, the relevancy of including them at all, and the use of fan sites and message boards as references. The following text has been repeatedly removed and readded by various parties about five or six times:
This entire Talk page has basically been devoted to arguing over this excerpt. 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: There can be no mistaking fan sites, bulletin boards, or blogs for reliable sources. Although it may be a fact that several fans of the show think it's the greatest show ever, that kind of information has no place in an encyclopedia, especially if there is no reliable source for it (i.e. a peer-reviewed survey of viewers published in a journal). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards,_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet for more info on this point. Furthermore, the subjective claim about "good combinations of comedy with Science Fiction" is unverifiable. I'd like to hear from the people who are in favour of including this information, because this really should be a no-brainer. BFD1 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It had been a continious dispute about a single paragraph, I think nobody should delete parts from an article, If is not willed to rewrite it. At least the person who wrote it originally took the time to do it, It's not fair just to delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madferret96 ( talk • contribs) .
Just saw this on RFC so I thought I'd drop by. Has the dispute been resolved at this point? I don't see any unsubstantiated claims in the article at the moment, though it could be beefed up a bit. E. Ripley 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed "ex-Marine" to "Marine-wannabe": unless I'm misremembering, it was established at some point that the Marines didn't take him. — Tamfang 06:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I had to go check whether this meant that USA showed 82 episodes out of 88, or 88 out of 94. How can it be worded better? — Tamfang ( talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)