Jump to content

Talk:Monk (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Monk in other countries

Do we really need this section? I think when it started out it had some fairly good content, but now it has grown to include information such as showtimes and channels. My question is, who really cares? Airtimes and channel guides are beyond the scope of the article and aren't encyclopedic. I suggest we ditch the whole thing and just have a list of countries where it airs. If it airs under another name (e.g. Monk: International Man of Obsessive Mystery), that would be permissible also. Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this has been posted for almost a month, with no responses. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason why we need this section, I'm going to remove it. The information just isn't encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not TV Guide. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I performed a cleanup on the section, I hope you approve of it. Grumpy Troll (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC).
Yes, that's much better. The details were unencyclopedic, thank you. Someday we may want to shorten the list to something like this:
Brazil | Canada | Japan | Poland | Ukraine | ...
But the current form is fine for now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The French Monk show has a great fan site which should be posted as a link if you like the idea. It's written in French, but French literate users might find this of interest.

Misc

What episode is the following line, taken from the article, about? 

 In a dream, Monk is advised by Trudy that he should hire Natalie when she helps save his life.

I'd guess it's "Mr. Monk vs. The Cobra". If it is, the information is inaccurate; as Natalie has already been working for Monk. Monk is advised to hire her *back*, or, more precisely, to accept paying her what she's been demanding.

(If nobody's going to deny, I'll edit that line. Palpalpalpal 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

You are right, it was when he was trapped in a coffin burried alive.SFrank85 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. Now I'm wondering if this bit of information is welcome. It doesn't say much about the series itself. And it's not even mentionned on Natalie's own page. Well, I don't really mind, actually. Palpalpalpal 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

picture

I just want to know is it legal to put this - http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001KL5IU.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg - picture here?

It's possible, if you want to illustrate something in the DVD section or Trivia section, but would recommend not replacing the main image. You will need to use the DVDcover tag, and probably make the image smaller. See the following section Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags and review the Cover Art section. --Claygate 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Credibility of mental illness

In this section, the DSM criteria for OCD are applied to Monk to see how realistic his mental illness is. It seems to me this section would be a perfect place to apply the DSM criteria for autism to him as well. If no one else does this, and if there are no objections here on the talk page, I might start writing such an addition in a few days time.

Actually, now that you bring it up, quite a bit of this section sounds like original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Since professional psychiatrists aren't supposed to diagnose remotely, it clearly isn't the domain of WP editors to do so. The best we can do is cite specific sections (and occasionally quote, as has been done) DSM-IV to draw parallels. Considering how much of a challenge the professionals have even in deciding how to characterize mental illnesses from edition to edition of DSM, even this is rather arrogant of us. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this section. No sources have been added since the tag was placed there, and as stated before, it is clearly original research. Ckessler 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Phobias

I would agree with germs being his greatest fear, but I think the rest are fairly even. I can't even remember incidence of a few. Dying? Darkness? Also, I believe his fear of crowds has nothing to do with agoraphobia.

  • The list is a quote from Monk himself. He recites it in the episode "Mr. Monk and the very very old man", from the second season. He is standing on a table, because a snake is loose in the house that he and Captain what's-his-name are in. When asked about how he could stand on the table, because he is afraid of heights, he replies: "Snakes trump heights", and the recites his top nine list of fears

Wasn't there an episode where Leland mentions that Monk is afraid of puppies?


It says on the list that Monk is afraid of clowns. However, in the episode 'Mr.Monk Goes to the Circus', he shows no fear of a clown, only mild agitation. 68.184.57.165


In episode five of the fifth season, Monk claimed that "risk" was in fact his number six fear. RpgActioN 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw that as well, please add to page. I think he said it in the context of "Taking Risks". --Claygate 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Note: This Fear List is inaccurate, The Author of his fear list may have been incorrectly informed, Hights should be higher on the list as well as milk and dying, as shown in the episode, Mr.Monk and the Very, Very Old Man when Monk realises that one of a victims three snakes is not in it's cage,

QUOTE:"STOTTLEMEYER: I'm not getting on the table with you, Monk! I thought you were afraid of Heights.

(Adrian starts reading off his list of phobias as if it’s scripted in his head, frustrating the captain to no end.)

MONK: Snakes trump heights. It goes germs, needles, milk, death, snakes, mushrooms, heights, crowds, elevators.

STOTTLEMEYER: Okay, I don't need the entire list."

Darkness isn't even on there. Thank You, If the author of the original fears list would explain where he/she got their info, than maybe the writers screwed up...

-- 69.86.87.135 22 August 2006

Actually it is a,changing list, even among the writers, as Monk experiences different things during the different seasons. For example this year he added risk to the top 10. --Claygate 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In Mr. Monk and the Naked Man it was revealed Monk is afraid of Nudes and clouds although that seems impossible considering Monk does not commmonly look down on the ground and fear the sky. Courbit

Series Overview

I was looking over the changes made by Jtrost on 9/14 and am having problems with it. Setting aside grammatical issues, I find the removed material key to the overview section. For example, looking at the first paragraph, the new line "After he was unable to solve his wife, Trudy's, murder, which is [the] only case in his career he has been unable to solve, Monk suffered a nervous breakdown and became obsessive compulsive." This changes the focus of the problem to his being unable to solve the case. The real problem was his wife's murder. Dealing with that loss and, to a lesser degree, being unable to solve it, caused the nervous breakdown. This was better expressed in the previous version. And the new line makes it sound like this caused his OCD, which it didn't. As the previous version made clear, he has lived with OCD most of his life and the murder exacerbated the problem. I could go through the changes paragraph by paragraph, but my point being the original material did not require the drastic changes that have taken place. I'd love to hear what others think. McJaje 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at my revisions you'll notice that all I did was remove redundancies and episode-specific content that is found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Basically I made the section more of an overview and less of a blow-by-blow account of some of the plots. Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so feel free to clean up the section and move things around. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. As I look through the dozen or so changes you've made over the past week, indeed many things certainly can be transferred to episode-specific pages or removed altogether. But I've looked through various other TV series to see how things have been handled and haven't noticed anything out of line with what is contained here. But I was foremost concerned about the overview which, by definition, will contain material found elsewhere. And while I could have moved it back, that had already been done earlier only to have you return it. So, instead of fighting a war over it, I thought I'd open it for discussion to see if I, and others involved, are off-base. And while some material may seem "unencyclopedic", something like a current TV series is a living entity and likely warrants material that may be found useful. For example, the country listing seems a bit excessive, but it's easy for me to switch on USA Network. I don't know how hard it is for others in other countries to find the show, so I'm not a good judge. Perhaps a compromise is to simply move it to a dedicated page if others also find it to be inappropriate. ** McJaje 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) **
Thanks for discussing this. Everyone else is just reverting me and not posting anything on the talk page. The reason I am making these changes is because the article is in very bad shape. I have spent a lot of time on Wikipedia cleaning up television show articles, and use FA quality articles as sort of a guide as to what should and what should not be included in TV series articles. My reasoning for removing the international broadcasters come from this AfD where a list of broadcasters for Lost was deleted by a virtually unanimous vote. Perhaps we could have a short section of prose that describes the impact this show has had in different countries? I'm not sure how easy it would be to find verifiable references for that kind of information, but if we were able to prove that this type of section is notable and encyclopedic, I would like to add something about it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Several people asked you to discuss your controversial and large-scale changes before simply making them again as you had been, but you would not until now. As you have referenced one of the issues, at least, here, I will reply. Many articles have a list of other countries which air the show. Because one article chose not to does not necessarily set a precedent; please cite some kind of source for this. -Shannernanner 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see the section entitled References above. I discussed those changes, but did not receive replies. So I followed Wikipedia policy and removed those sections that were not referenced until references were found. As for the international broadcaster list, please look at all of the TV show articles that have become featured articles: Arrested Development, Cheers, The Office, The West Wing, and Lost is on its way there. None of them feature a broadcaster list. Also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Nowhere does it suggest that such a list is necessary. However, Arrested Development does have a section about broadcast history, which is similar to the section I previously described that we could include. With that said, my question is what does that list offer this article? Do you think it really is the most effective way to present that kind of content, or would you have something more along the lines of what Arrested Development has? To me it's just a meaningless list with no context. All it does is take up space. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You were asked, not solely by me, to move sections which were unreferenced to the talk page rather than deleting them, which you did repeatedly even after being asked to do so; that is not the only change you made, however, and even if that section had properly addressed that issue it would not cover all the controversial changes you made. As for the "International" section, I did not say it was absolutely necessary, but scrapping it wholesale seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. It is good to use such articles as a guide, and thank you for stating precedent, but I don't find it altogether meaningless. If you would like to add or request context for the section, that's fine, but I don't think it should just remain deleted. -Shannernanner 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
We could go back and forth all day about this. I'm going to ask you to assume good faith with my edits. I want to make this a better article. I was receiving no feedback on this page, so I was being bold and going ahead with the edits. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Can anyone find some verifiable sources for the sections Theme song debate and Sharona vs Natalie? I've been unable to find any. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am removing these sections until verifiable sources are found to back them up. I am also going to remove POV statements and unencyclopedic content in this article that do not abide by Wikipedia policy. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This topic has been here long enough for people to find citations. I have looked around, and was unable to find anything reliable. I am moving these sections here until citations are found. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding all of those references. It's definitely a great start. I have changed all of them from external links to proper citations using WP:CITE. I still have a few concerns. First, the Jeff Beal website isn't a verifiable source. It's okay to use temporarily to prove that we're just not making the stuff up, but more verifiable sources will have to be found. Also mentioning the petition isn't exactly notable in my opinion. If we can find a newspaper, magazine, or journal that reported on the petition's effectiveness, then it would be noteworthy. Otherwise it's just a small fact that doesn't bear any weight in the grand scheme of the show. Lastly, there's a quote from USA Today, which is great. However, I would like to find the original USA Today article. What does everyone else think? Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can find different references for Jeff Beal; I wasn't paying attention when I looked at it originally, I thought it was his official site. I don't particularly care about the petition. The USA Today article is only available in abstract form, where the quote used is not visible, which is why I used the site wherein it was quoted. -Shannernanner 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the changes that the anonymous IP person made. One edit was confusing and didn't seem to need to be there (in the book area), and then I reverted the part about racism. I have seen pretty much every episode (We'll have to wait until June 26th to see if I missed any in Season 5... which the DVD cover is available at TVShowsonDVD.com, for whomever wants to add that in), and I have not seen any references to racism or homophobia, outside of part of the 'joke' that that's how the characters perceive it, when they haven't met Adrian before. Lamename3000 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded a copy of the Season 5 DVD Cover artwork that was posted on TVShowsOnDVD.com, I am waiting for a response to see if it's OK with them that I used them as a source. This is my first image upload, so I hope I did everything ok. I had to open the original file in Photoshop to correct for perspective and then crop. I updated the page to reflect the cover, in the main infobox and the DVD Release section. I got the image as close to match the other DVD covers as possible, but any help and feedback would be appreciated. Lamename3000 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links?

Where are all the external links? Can someone who knows about that stuff please add links in the External links area to the proper websites? (AKA Monk.usanetwork.com etc) Lamename3000 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg

Image:MONK Season4Cover.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 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 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid bots.... There, ya happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamename3000 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2007
Lamename3000, for someone who advertises in a user box that he "does not understand mean people. Please be nice", you sure are comfortable with rudeness. Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but I hope you realize that there are quite a few Wikipedians who aren't the least bit concerned about whether Wikipedia will run into legal problems because they're too careless about making explicit assertions about fair use. Please don't encourage this cavalier attitude with snide comments. And please sign your talk page posts, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, it was a bot. I wasn't trying to be mean, just laughed a bit that it took a bot a year to mark the page. I totally understand the legality of the stuff, I just was a bit annoyed at weird bots. :) Lamename3000 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

Aren't Dr. Charles Kroger and Julie Teeger recurring characters? Unless they're listed in the opening credits, they're not main characters. Ophois 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so - why don't you edit the article? Dan100 (Talk) 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Because I was checking to see if the editors had already come to a weird concensus about it. That's what the talk page is for, you know... Ophois 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This issue seems to be resolved now anyway with a more specific and informative format, but I wanted to offer a counterpoint to Ophois's definition of a main character. The original listing was probably based on the Monk Website, which lists both Julie Teeger and Dr. Kroger among the main characters. - Cg-realms (Talk) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Spoiler warning?

Do we really need the spoiler warning? The overview section gives background on the series, but I don't think it "gives away" anything, like who Trudy's murderer is. It just gives background information on Adrian and the series as a whole. I think it can be safely removed. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk

Yeah, I think we should put it back. There are some things in there that I, not having watched the second season yet, would liked to have been warned about. It's just curtious, I think. --RayaruB 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be good to have on there, in case people new to Monk want to watch the DVD collections, reruns etc. Go ahead and re-add it. --Claygate 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I put it back. I suppose it's not the biggest thing in the world, but I think it's better to give readers a fair warning that there may be spoilers, however slight, in the text. --RayaruB 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree (late, looking at the dates here) as i found out why Sharona left - and i didnt really want to know at that moment in time.--Baston1975 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I think the Spoiler Warning is very important, especially for the episode links. Some people might just go looking for information about the show, and have it be totally wrecked by reading stuff they wanted to find out on their own. Luna'sPatronus 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MonkSeason5DVDCover.jpg

Image:MonkSeason5DVDCover.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 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin

According to a friend who was there, Monk was shopped to Fox several years before it was produced, putting the lie to the origin-at-ABC story given here. I'll edit as soon as my friend OKs my citing him. Robert Goodman (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of all episode articles

I just noticed that User:Ultraviolet scissor flame redirected all episode articles to List of Monk episodes. As far as I can see, there hasn't been a discussion about this, so I figured I start one here. Cheers, Face 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

on Talk:List of Monk episodes: Information from multiple secondary sources must be present for a single episode to need an article. This includes reception and development. Single plot summaries and trivia don't make a substantial article. Wikia and tv.com are alternate venues for this information. [1] Ultra! 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just saw the notification about this on the talk page of the list from almost a year ago. As there are no responses, I'll just going to assume that no one cares. Cheers, Face 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

People please!!!!

In Macedonia Monk is airing at Sundays. I live there and i know. I keep changing this from Wendsday to Sunday but you people change it back. Please let it be CORRECT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.79.199 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of fears

"Monk's compulsive habits are numerous, and an unknown number of phobias compound his situation."

Didn't Monk name how many phobias he had in the episode, "Mr. Monk Is Up All Night"? --Is this fact...? 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was added

Is it added that Monk get imsomnia ( I think I spelled it worng) a lot? Mooncrest (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Monk & iTunes

Monk used to be available on iTunes, but no longer is. Was there a fallout between USA and Apple? Not sure how relevant this is, but it could probably be mentioned in the DVD section. 98.210.169.226 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Me again - done more research, Monk isn't on iTunes anymore because it is produced by NBC, and since NBC threw a hissy fit about prices Monk and many other shows are not on iTunes. Is USA owned by NBC? B/C no USA shows are on iTunes. Anyway, sources for this research: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080101103841AAc6Sbs and http://forums.usanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=395633. 98.210.169.226 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, USA is owned by NBC. I'll take a look at the link. Definatley something that could be added. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No, we can't use either of those. Sorry, they're fourms, and could easily be lies. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Characters Section... -.-

Why are we listing EVERY single character on the main article, when we have this? I say, we just need the main characters on the main article, like all of the other shows. Or even better yet, we try to organise Monk articles like Lost articles. I hope that you understand where I'm coming from. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no one appears to care, I'm making some changes for the better. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is weekly schedule really needed?

Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a TV guide, and the schedule for all these countries is hard to maintain and bound to be full of inaccuracies. Not having in mind any relevant guideline (if there is one, please someone direct me to it), I propose the obvious: to remove the column from the two tables in the "Broadcasters" section.

Any objections? Waltham, The Duke of 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have waited enough, I think; I am removing the column. There is not a single reference in there, anyway. Waltham, The Duke of 18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agoraphobia?

How can Monk have Agoraphobia? He's perfectly able to leave his home, and he once walked the streets of New York in season three. How can he be Agoraphobic?

Agreed, that has been changed and moved out of the top 10. --Claygate 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is Monk's brother Ambrose who suffers from Agoraphobia.--Subman758 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have agoraphobia and leave my house. Agoraphobia is NOT the fear of leaving your house! It is the fear of crowds and public spaces. You can get panic attacks and feel like everyone is watching everything you do and judging you and its very uncomfortable (understatement). Monk does have agoraphobia I would say since he does not like being in situations with lots of people crowding around him.Camelbinky (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Natalie vs. Sharona

In the section on Natalie vs. Sharona the last paragraph mentions Mr. Monk and the two assistants. This is one of the books, not an episode of the tv series. As this is an article about the tv series I am removing this section as it is not cannonical.Camelbinky (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Section Move

Monk (TV series) → Monk (Novel series) — I think just the section over the books should have a main article of it's own. Do something sort of like the list of episodes and have a short description and then have a main article that goes into detail. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Conway

I got redirected to this page when searching Wikipedia for "Frank Conway", how come? There is no mention of any "Frank Conway" on this page 88.85.52.191 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds bogus will delete that redirect. --claygate (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I found out that Frank Conway was an alias that Monk used on one of his episodes. That doesn't deserve a redirect because it surprises people to arrive on the TV show article, so the former redirect has been nominated as an article for deletion. --claygate (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was used as an alias in Mr. Monk Goes to Jail (Season 2, episode 16). Kevinbrogers (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the alias is used in Mr. Monk gets Cabin Fever, where Police Captain Leland Stottlemeyer tells Adrian that his "Name" is ".... Conway. Frank Conway." Adrian's alias in Mr. Monk Goes to Jail was Van Lincoln. --208.96.115.82 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

more information needed in this article

This article needs information on its history, i.e. who conceptualized it, who pitched it to the networks, which network execs said no, which said yes. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IPA

Is [ˈmʌŋk] the correct pronunciation of 'Monk'? 84.226.242.141 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Monk's 'real' brother?

I'm watching Monk from the UK so am probably some way behind you guys, episode wise. Anyway, just been watching some early re-runs and watched an episode where an old lady was kidnapped but it was really the chair she was sitting on that they were after. The kidnappers tried to blame a 60's radical group called the 'lightening rods' and I noticed that the suspect gang member they were questioning looked very, very similar to Monk himself. So much so that I went back and studied the credits and sure enough the character was played by a 'Michael Shaloub'. Does anyone know if this was actually his real life brother? Apologies if this is an old topic and has been covered before. Adamacox (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Though this has been awhile since this was posted, I notice that there has been no one answering it. You may have already found that answer by now though. Anyway, Yes it Michael Shaloub is Tony Shaloubs real life brother who appeared in that episode. 24.255.228.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

Dr. Kroger

Technically, isn't he a main character as he was listed as such in Mr. Monk and Thhe Candidate? From what i have seen in other articles, any cast member who was featured in the starring credits for any amount of time is placed on the Main Cast section. Surely this should apply to Stanley Kamel as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.188.106 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

He technically is, but so was everyone else, even Benjy, the mayor, and every other character. This is because the Monk pilot was originally intended as a TV movie due to contractual obligations for Tony Shalhoub. Therefore, if Dr. Kroger is listed as a main character, it should follownthat Benjy, Sheldon Burger (the assistant to the mayor), and a whole lot of others should be added as well. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but they would not count as they were listed beneath the "and Ted LEvine as Stottlemeyer" credit, meaning they were not a priority, whereas Stanley Kamel was credited third after Monk and Sharona, and after Randy Disher and Stottlemeyer. This means he was of main character status in the pilot. Sohuldn't this count for something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMovieManiac (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed that, and you're right. By this standard, though, we should also list Lucinda Barry from Psych and Conrad Sheehan III from Covert Affairs as well, but no one remembers who they are. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be best to make a note of this in the cast section of Monk (season 1) if that hasn't already been done. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So should any action be taken on the main page and the box on the right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMovieManiac (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, probably not. You might want to get a second opinion though, just in case. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Monk changing cable history.

I found three sources that explain how Monk changed cable history but I'm not sure how exactly to word it. Here are the sources [2] [3] [4]. --JDDJS (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Searching for Monk

The Monk (TV series) does not come up directly from searching for "Monk" or "Adrian Monk" --24.118.56.251

That issue is not isolated to this article. That's a problem with all of Wikipedia. With $1,000,000's more, the infrastructure might be able to use better searches. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia uses only open-source software, things like search engines suffer -- That said, you may want to try "advanced search" which may provide better results. Plus, Google and Yahoo themselves often bring results in Wikipedia - just use them to search "within" Wikipedia.Johnelwayrules (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- That was then; this is now. "Adrian Monk" works and goes the the actor; "Monk" provides a pull-down menu with "Monk (TV Series)"; and the article for "Monk" provides "For other uses, see Monk (disambiguation)" so the reader can arrive at Monk (TV series) several different ways. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Monk's or Monks'?

I noticed, while reading the article, that the sentence "Ambrose nearly perished when the Monk's childhood home was set ablaze," uses "Monk's" instead of "Monks'". Since the house was owned by more than one Monk, shouldn't the sentence use "Monks'"? As it is now, the sentence makes it seem like the house is owned by one person, A.K.A. "The Monk." --Mr.Weirdo 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Claygate 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I was a bit unsure about this. --Mr.Weirdo 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your suggestion was good and the sentence makes more sense now. --Claygate 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually right? There's a first time for everything.--Mr.Weirdo 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the sentence is no longer there. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment

As requested here I've assessed the article. First of all let me say good job, I've given the article a B on the class rating because most of the important information is present. The infobox is fine, the lead could be expanded a bit - perhaps mention the awards. The plot section is nice and concise perhaps the episode list link should be moved up. The mention of the rebroadcast of the specific episode is quite specific and I think it should be moved out to the episode article, this would leave you free to amalgamate plot and episode list. The character list needs some work - it's all in list format and should be re-written as prose. The long list of guest stars is not very interesting for a reader unfamiliar with the show. Choose several of the most important ones only and describe their importance and their role on the show. Leave the rest for a character list or a list of guest appearances or for the episode articles.

Location should be part of the production section and should have some sources. The awards and nominations list is good but some prose about significant awards would be preferable. You are missing a section on critical response to the show - have a look for reviews and summarise them in the article.

I've rated the article as mid on the importance scale because of the awards recognition it has received and the longevity of the show.--Opark 77 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also notable because of Monk show popularity with the viewing audience; hence, longevity. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comedy-Drama

Does Monk really qaulify as a comedy-drama? Admittedly, the tone is light and there a few nice little one-liners, but to me the focus of the show has always been more on drama and detection. --Heslopian (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has enough elements of comedy to qualify as such. It's genre is classified as comedy as the first listing on Imdb.com. --claygate (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, however. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But, YES. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Monk's Psychological Problems

In the TV series, Monk was suggested he is an Obsessive Compulsive detective. It is very arguable if he is diagnosed with Obseessive compulsive disorder as well. By DSM 5, OCD diagnostic criteria are

obsessive thought, thinks shaking hands will get germs on him.

Compulsive behavior, straighten all the pictures on the wall

time consuming, obviously.

non drug induced, Monk is not using any drugs

not better described with other mental health disorder, This is where the diagnosis get stuck. in DSM 5, it also described that behavior has an onset from 14 years old, which we know Monk started this compulsive behaviors in early childhood (Mr. Monk in Outer Space book). Therefore, Monk probably is not experiencing OCD.

However Autism Spectrum Disorder according to DSM 5.

Social communication or social interaction issues, Monk does have different communication issues verbally or non-verbally to others. He is also having difficulty understanding relationships and make friends.

Restricted repetitive patterns of behavior, He flip objects, and it is discussed in OCD already.

Must be present in early developmental period, Monk used to measure all noodles length and measurement of petrol since childhood. (Mr. Monk in Outer Space)

Cause impairment in social, occupation and other areas. It cause him to lost his job as a police officer at least.

It is not better explained by intellectual disability and global developmental delay. Monk went to University, so there will be no doubt he does not have intellectual disability, and global developmental delay only diagnosed before 5, therefore, it could not be this one as well.

Overall, Even though Monk's symptoms match with some of the OCD diagnostic criteria, it does not match all of them, especially the last one, not better described as other mental health disorder. Autism Spectrum disorder suit Monk diagnosis more than OCD.

No original research. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 02:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monk (TV series). 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Episode Titles Section

The nature of the episode titles is valid for inclusion, but after that the Episode Titles section starts talking about various plot formulas, which is neither relevant to the section nor, I would argue, worthy of mention. Many modern detective/police/mystery shows vary the formula from time to time, so it is hardly uncommon enough to warrant inclusion here. I propose the section be trimmed to include only discussion of the title format. --Sm5574 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I split the plot formula stuff into its own section. I really don't care what happens to it, as I think it adds little to the article. --Sm5574 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monk (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

references

where is this almighty reference to show that the tv series is still going and not just the book series? Dw122339 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:TENSE. Monk is a work of fiction that still exists (master tapes, DVDs, etc.) but it was broadcast from 2002 to 2009. DonQuixote (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

yes but that doesnt prove that its still a current show if we go by the master tapes DVDs and other then why not say MASH is still going or Friends or CSI. It just proves that the previous shows are there. besides thats not a reference to say its still going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw122339 (talk • contribs)

It's proper grammar. That's the point. Monk is a show that was broadcast on such-and-such dates. Similarly, Les Miserables is a book was that was published on such-and-such dates. See MOS:TENSE. DonQuixote (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monk_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1145939632"