Talk:A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila

This page is not a forum for general discussion about A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila at the Reference desk.

Television Low‑importance

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

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Article Started

Just started this article, please help add to it! It would be good to write up episode overviews, and possibly go more into the Bisexuality public/religious controversy issue the show has been part of in the article CrazyRob926 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler template?

Do you think we should use the spoiler template above the "Contestants Asked to leave" section? It is kind of a spoiler if you haven't seen that episode then the shows climax is ruined, but I just dunno if the template fits this type of article or not CrazyRob926 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags aren't used anymore. This is an encyclopedia and it's expected that "spoilers" would exist if the information is available, notable, and verifiable. If you looked up an entry about Romeo and Juliet in the encylopedia Britannica, wouldn't you expect it to "spoil" the ending? --76.214.203.95 (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should it be included that MTV is casting for season 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.217.237.30 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

identification of songs used in show

Can someone help me figure out the name and band of the song at the end of episode one? I think it is a guy singing, and he's saying "how to say goodbye" and that's the only line I could make out. I tried rewatching the episode on the mtv website without successs. Thank you for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, it's "How to Save a Life" by The Fray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.99.12 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm Table contents

A quick glance shows that these tables are well-meaning but a bit unworkable. For starters they won't fit once a few more episodes have gone by. Secondly, we do not need such extensive information about each week; not a color-coded system (which is useless to those that are color-blind or have less-advanced computer connections (just an accesibility issue but I'm willing WP:MOS has a few points on that. I suggest that the secondary table(s) are all removed and replaced with encyclopedic text of notable events (a year from now we really just need to know contestants were eliminated because ___, ____ and one left on their own. We really don't need to know all their names and I'm willing to bet no one will even remember the top three but since this is a recent event and people who are interested in the subject will want to know let's start the trimming now so the article becomes more encyclopedic than tabloidy. Benjiboi 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking your same exact thoughts about the first table (and I didn't put that table together). The second table, however, which showcases why each contestant was eliminated, I like the idea of, and was going for what the Making the Band article does on that front, though that article isn't excellent or anything of that nature. Flyer22 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. That's even worse, I have way too much on my plate to start to sort that article out but it's even worse. We have way to much detail and i feel this detracts from the reasonably good start of the article. As a suggestion maybe write an intro paragraph for each table. "As illustrated in the table below each week a contestant was eliminated for various reasons..." This will provide a useful summary for everyone else who doesn't really care who was eliminated in week 8, etc but does want an accurate overview of anything noteworthy. Benjiboi 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Okay, I see your point. Flyer22 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't know what to tell you though because all the other similar reality TV shows also use those color coded tables. So if you're dissing on this article, then why don't you go diss all the other ones? I think that color blind or those with old computers would still be able to see who got eliminated and who didn't because at the end, all the tables will be filled in and there will only be one name left. So it still works. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill^/^lol 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix up the roster a little for each episode to incoporate Tila's call out order of the keys in episode 3 to present, putting the person who's elimination was announced first at the bottom of the list. I haven't been able to edit for the past two episodes yet due to the lock put on for matinence.

Table Colors

Ugh why are they so ugly? Omniii (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Omniii[reply]

You're welcome to change them. I mean, I don't feel that there needs to be a discussion about it if you want to change them. Go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This article has had some issues recently. The most recent included a random picture of an animal in the infobox. Not sure what was there before so didn't replace it. Please keep an eye on this!! Thanks! 66.19.205.172 (talk)

Yes, this article is well-guarded, even though vandalism to it is able to sometimes stay for a little bit before one of us tackles it. Thank you for helping to remove vandalism. I've restored the original primary image of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and controversy

I added a few more refs for Mr Banhart's claim that he was never contacted by nor given the phone number of Tila. It seems clear that this show is meant for ratings and not meant to be taken seriously. Bstone (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even if it's clear to you and me and the world, you need notable sources that also think the show is fake (so no Perez Hilton or Dlisted), if not it's original research. PS: even if it's a phony show, i'm totally watching the second season.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to quote a published editorial indicating this show is a sham? Bstone (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say it's a complete sham, since it's obvious that Bobby and the other contestants felt that they would actually get a shot at love with Tila Tequila, but there is already a source from a New York Post article stating that the show is a sham. That seems to suffice. Sure, it's not the viewers stating that it's a sham, but it gets the feeling out there all the same. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sham because the contestants thought they were getting an actual chance to have a relationship with Tila when indeed that was not the case. Can you perhaps post the link of the NY Post? Bstone (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well, not the exact link to that article. Here are the sources from the Criticism and controversy section about the above mentioned New York Post article. I thought you had seen this mention, since you edited that section: [1][2][3] Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thought you had an additional source. Bstone (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I got your hopes up. I, of course, can see how you thought I meant a new (or undiscovered) source. I felt that's what you might have meant. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more recent Tila vs. Bobby controversy. In this [4] interview, she explains that things fizzled out when they couldn't be together for two months, and Bobby couldn't deal with the cameras. Bobby responded with a MySpace bulletin [5] saying that didn't make sense, and he would be posting his own interview in a few days. AboveDust (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby's quote

Bobby's post on his myspace [sic]:

well everyone wants to know so here it is she never called me after the last show and no one would give me her number so pretty much I feel like and ass but we are not 2gather u cant have a realationship bye urself ya know so now you all know and sometimes no matter how bad you want things to work out they dont and theres nothing you can do i tryed… thank you all.

Now, instead of comunicating via edit summary, let's discuss this here. This quote should either stay like this or it should be replaced for something like "..on his myspace Bobby wrote that Tila never called him after the show...etc". Changing the quote is wrong, because it wouldn't be what he wrote, therefore it wouldn't really be a quote.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His spelling is sure terrible. I wonder how much of it is for show. Yes, the exact quote should be shown. We should take the time to revert/restore to how you posted it. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course his quote shouldn't be changed to correct grammar/spelling, but it is such a target for such changes from random IP addresses, who obviously feel that they are helping out. Me, however? I feel that it would be better if we didn't/don't include the quote and rather mention how he felt in different words. That said, I'm not entirely against keeping the quote either. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a template/tag we can append before his quote which identifies it as the original and ask that it not be corrected for grammar and spelling? I've posted at the help desk asking for assistance. Bstone (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to not insert the quoute and just mention that he addressed the situation on his blog. Maybe we should raise a fund to send him to grammar school... Feedback ^☎ 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we have the full quote, why not use it? and when it comes to the spelling...are you guys kidding? have you never been to myspace or facebook? everyone writes like that on the internet except on Wikipedia.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes, some people write like that at those places and across the rest of the internet, but even the ones that use the play of words such as "2gether" to mean "together" usually spell the word "tried" correctly...and often use periods when needed too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UT

Reference links 22 and 24 - regarding this commentary - are dead. The issue is tabloid-esque; is this information pertinent to the encyclopedia article? I'm also not sure if this information is verifiable based on Wikipedia's standards. --01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Yourai (talk)

I removed those two dead links. But, anyway, yes, I feel that this information is pertinent to this article, whether tabloid-esque or not. As for it being verifiable by Wikipedia's standards, Chicago Tribune even reported it, Bobby's quote. So, I'd say, yes, it's verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bobby's full quote was removed with this edit; I agree with the removal and the reasons given for it in that edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tila's Quote

The quote seems fine and well sourced, but the intro reads, "However, Tila disputed this and was asked what happened with the realationship" as if it is a response to Bobby's myspace message. I don't believe it is. She said nothing of Bobby's message and, thus, her version disputing Bobby's version but offering her own version. I shall change the article to reflect this. Bstone (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I dont see why her quote belongs in the C&C section at all. She isn't disputing anything and it seems her quote just documents why (in her opinion) the relationship failed. Bstone (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi's Elimination

This article states that she left in episode 6/7. However, she only stated this in episode 6, and then left in the begining of episode 7, only to come back later in that episode. I think that this should be changed to state that she was eliminated in episode 7. Flare13 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to state Episode 6/7 for her, for all the reasons you mentioned. It was really like a two-parter elimination for her...although she was never really eliminated. Still, I'm for what what you suggest on this matter as well, since it is like Tila sent her home in Episode 7. She left on her own in Episode 6, then gave Tila the choice to keep or reject her Episode 7. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven

Can anyone give me the info about Steven that was on the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMANGRIFFG (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tila Tequila's name

Since Tila Nguyen uses a stage name, and the show was evidently produced after she started using said name, it seems logical that the article should refer to her as Tila Tequila and not Tila Nguyen (Tila isn't even her real first name, after all). Anyone with enough interest in the lady will find what her real name is in her own article. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical, but is not what seems to be consensus. Apparently, the same point was brought up in reference to her article, but it was decided to go by her real name. And in any case, Wikipedia policy is that we go by last names when mentioning the person over and over again. So she shouldn't be called Tila in either article, ~~as you changed the wording to Tila, though I've twice reverted that.~~ It should either be by her real last name or Tequila (her fake last name). Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the latest consensus in her article's talk page was apparently that the moment in which she "switched names" and starting using her stage names should be taken into account. There is no point in calling Cary Grant Alexander-Archibald Leach or John Wayne Marion-Michael Morrisson in their respective articles (not that I want to compare any of these gentlemen to Tila Tequila) : that would just be confusing. As 1) she is primarily known by that name, which she uses in all of her professional endeavors 2) the program's name was not "A shot at love with Tila Nguyen", it would just seems pointless to me to use he real name. Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated above, if you are going to change her name in this article, it should be changed to Tequila, not Tila. Her article, where it starts to go by her stage name, also does such...per Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from her article's talk page : "I think you have a consensus here. Keep the main article at Tila Tequila, and refer to her as Nguyen until she started using Tequila, and Tequila after that." I think this is the best and most logical thing to do, rather than starting an edit war (bickering over Tila Tequila must be one of the stupidest things to do !). Well, indeed, it should be changed to Tequila and not Tila. I don't see where the problem is ? Wedineinheck (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd changed this article to Tila all the way through. Clearly, I'm suffering from loss of sleep. Anyway, I apologize for thinking that. I see that you actually changed it to Tequila. I'm fine with that. Oh, and I wasn't bickering. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just think using a performer's real name instead of his better-known stage name is confusing to readers. (I thought I'd seen it all, but now I've almost found myself in the middle of an all-out war over Tila Tequila. Who-weeee !) Wedineinheck (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing out loud. Yes, I also feel that using a performer's real name instead of his or her better-known stage name is not the best route to take. Well, not in most cases. Not sure if that should be done for an article like Tiffany Pollard. I mean, referring to her as New York all the way through or even half way through would seem a little unencyclopedic. Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby needs to be removed from the Elimination section

He wasn't eliminated. A vandal added it there, along with other vandalizing information, but that part of the vandalism was overlooked. It's still there. Will one of you hurry up and remove it? I would, but I am currently without computer access and am using PlayStation 3 to communicate online, which doesn't grant me as much editing freedom. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit just fine with wii! --76.227.60.166 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL? Doesn't it limit you in how many words you can type in one message, especially if you're responding to another message that has already taken up some of your word space, like the PlayStation 3 does? With the PlayStation 3, when I click on a section that already has too many words in it, I cannot edit that section without the PlayStation 3 cutting some or half of most of those words, meaning, of course, that a lot of the section would be lost. A lot of the times...the part of the section I went to edit is missng due to the PlayStation commmunication word limit. Also, were you just kidding with me about editing with the Wii, because you find it funny that I've been reduced to editing with the PlayStation 3 lately?

Anyway, I got hold of a computer today and took care of the problem about Bobby being listed as having been eliminated. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi and the elimanation

i know that it is really late to point this out but shouldnt we have her name under both 6 and 7 like i mean that she should be under diminicos name but either in red or purple or make up a color that lists that Brandi "the contestant left on her own accrod but had come back the next episode but was not let back into the house" somthing like that let me know on my talk page thank you --Spiderman2351 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351[reply]

Shot at Love 3

A new page has been created for A Double Shot at Love with the Ikki Twins, to air on MTV on December 9, 2008. Plastikspork (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. 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, 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) 20:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. 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: 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) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. 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.movieweb.com/tv/news/57/22557.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20071022170421.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217182204/http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2007/col20071130.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2007/col20071130.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/cable/archives.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Tila_Tequila_Possibly_Outed_As_Straight_11213.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=8816
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theinsider.com/news/556274_Tila_Tequila_Breaks_Up_With_Bobby_Banhart
Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Mtv-Finds-Amore/800029636
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.hollyscoop.com/a-shot-at-love-with-tila-tequila/mtv-gives-domeico-nessi-his-own-show_128.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217095050/http://www.patrolmag.com/arts/1108/oh-no-another-shot-at-love to http://www.patrolmag.com/arts/1108/oh-no-another-shot-at-love

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: 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) 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130021128/http://www.shotatlovecasting.com/ to http://www.shotatlovecasting.com/

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: 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) 14:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]