Talk:Million Dollar Listing New York

Television Low‑importance

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.

More information:
/
	A production section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section discusses the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.
	A plot summary needs to be added to this television show article, or the current one needs to be expanded.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Real reality?

Is this show 100% unscripted reality? I've watched a few episodes and, while i realise that people in this world can be intrinsically fake, it seems to me some scenes were scripted. For example: some sellers are complete caricatures and people who lost their temper would probably tell the cameras to stop filming and not do a testimonial after they walked away. It's been a trend for many "reality shows" to actually be partially scripted and feature actors so these shows don't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore. As far as I'm concerned this show gets a comment along the lines of "this show might contain scripted scenes or actors, no information has been provided on that" PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC) PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment that it's mostly scripted. Not sure if i should also add this reference. It's very clarifying but it's about the LA show. [1] PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comment as you've written it is appropriate. Some scenes may be scripted or faked, but I don't think it is appropriate to put it in the lead in such a loaded way. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to summarize the reference. Please improve in stead of reverting. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is bad because the source is unreliable. You must find a better source, and also write more than one sentence, with quotes and specific examples, not in general way. The statement you added is confusing. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the first one i came across.§ Please provide a better source that the series is NOT partially scripted or let the comment stand. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the source was the first one you came across does not make it reliable. If you wish to add it, you must write more than one sentence with quotes and specific examples, as I said. Do NOT revert my edit, because you would eventually be blocked, per WP:3RR. Mymis (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does you saying the source is unreliable make it unreliable just because you say so. I think the line of reasoning is solid. But even if you don't feel that way, if you even read it, why not improve by looking for a better source? The article (now?) also has a NY Times reference on how fake the show is. There's no excuse for you to sensor away how fake the show is with such a reference. You could have just added the reference from the NY Times and improved my writing if you don't like it, if you wanted to productively make WP better. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that you're trying to add is confusing and gives very little information, and no need to add it in the introduction either. It is a controversial statement, so you must add reliable sources, from NY Times or whatever, write more than one sentence, add specific examples and quotes, in a new section "Reception" or something like that. And I have no interest in working on this article, and making WP better is removing misleading statements like the one you're trying to add. Also, please read WP:CSECTION. Mymis (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently your opinion is an absolute fact just because you say so and mine is irrelevant. Ever heard of collaborating? PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Million Dollar Listing New York. 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) 04:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]