Jump to content

Talk:Numbers (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Mathnet

Has mathematics ever been used in a way similar to what is portrayed in this series? — B.Bryant 13:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mathnet is sorta like this. Using math to solve crime. It was on the PBS TV show Square One. Mathnet was a parody of "Dragnet". They were both set in LA too... --Weyoun6 02:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What does the article overview imply? Does this article need spoilers/prefaces for each show? — Oracle 10:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Characters

I've put the information about the characters in this article as there wasn't enough to warrant them having an article each. It also makes it easier for someone to find out all about the show on the one page. I've made redirects to here from the pages in case someone looks up the character not the show. --Chammy Koala 16:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Errata

Do you think we ought to add some Errata? For instance, in episode 11, season 1, they describe a situation where an LCD is observed through radiation and records what is displayed. I'm pretty sure only CRT's can be spied on this way, and perhaps it would be good to fix some of the errors that naturally occur when science goes thru a hollywood screenwriter's hands. This is probably less important on a show that doesnt try to teach you science, but I think it would be a good idea. --Weyoun6 04:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

TEMPEST includes a link to Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays, which says, "Electromagnetic eavesdropping of computer displays – first demonstrated to the general public by van Eck in 1985 – is not restricted to cathode-ray tubes. Modern flat-panel displays can be at least as vulnerable."
—wwoods 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

However, there are a number of occasions where Charlie is able to apply statistical methods to samples way too small to obtain any reliable conclusion (such as inferring a distribution law from just a couple of data points); the results obtained in image reconstruction are also usually a little too good (MEM image restoration is pretty amazing, but not almighty, and certainly can't obtain crystal-clear images from an original which consists only of electronic noise because the exposure was below the camera's CCD's threshold); and don't get me started on the references to quantum mechanics and general relativity which are then being applied to human behaviour, complex systems and the like. The scriptwriters quite clearly often skim only the buzzwords from their consultants' advice and give more importance to a gripping plot than mathematical exactness. So an errata section might be in order after all. 142.3.164.195 00:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that adding errata is fine, but it wants to be attached to the appropriate episode summary on the List of NUMB3RS episodes page, in a similar way to the trivia comments on some of the later episodes. A possible problem is the Wikipedia policy of no original research, however. Mike Peel 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Another consideration, do we really want to nit-pick this much? Of course things aren't going to be exact and sample sizes will often be too small; the point of the show is to entertain, not necessarily textbook teach. If someone is interested in whatever concept is being discussed, they will researchon their own and reach a similar answer. --LadyShelley 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To Stub or Not To Stub?

AySz88 just added the stub designation for the episode list. Does it really qualify as a stub? After all, the title is "Episode List," not 'Episode Overviews' or 'Sysnoses', just a list of the episodes. (AySz88 lists the change as adding the stub sign to the "overviews"). Should it be changed/expanded? Or is the stub really necesary? (The Swami 01:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

Looking at the table, it looks to me like its maker intended the "Overview" column to be filled in by other users; thus, I marked it as such. Alternately, someone could go delete the column if such information is deemed unnecessary; however, other shows like First Monday have summaries. AySz88^-^ 00:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm, good point... alright, that makes sense. I agree, let's leave the stub. Thanks for bringing the last column to my attention. You are correct, it needs a stub. Thanks for tolerating my oversight (The Swami 02:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

Hi, I'm really new to this, sorry. I started adding Overviews but that made the table look pretty ugly. Is there a way to make the columns and text sit better? Also, I'd like to link to all the different math concepts that get mentioned in the episodes but that would make the overview really long. Is there a better way to do that?

Hey there, welcome! It looks fine to me, but I haven't had much experience with tables on Wikipedia. Go ahead and add your information and links, and I'm sure someone experienced with table formatting will come and help make it look better. :) AySz88^-^ 18:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added back the section stub designation, as it looks rather odd now that the list of articles has been moved off to a seperate page. Ideally, I guess we could do with some sort of overview to the season - but Numb3rs doesn't really permit this, as it's a very episodic show. Any ideas? Mike Peel 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding Math Concepts

I like the idea of adding the mathematical concepts used in each episode to the list of synopses. I wonder if there's any way to do this that wouldn't 'uglify' the page too much. Perhaps listing them under a "Related Mathematics:" section after each synopsis? Maybe a seperate list entirely? Any thoughts (The Swami 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

I also like the idea of linking in the mathematical concepts - but this is probably best done in line with the text rather than in specific sections. That way, visitors can see more easily how each concept fits in the with episode. Mike Peel 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the title mentioned by The Swami should be "Related mathematics" according to the Wikipedia convention for titles, in the event that someone would make such a section. If the mathematical exposition were to get lengthy, perhaps it would eventually justify its own set of new pages such as NUMB3RS Episode 1 mathematics, etc. — Teratornis 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources

I don't want to seem grumpy, but it would be nice if credit were given to my web site Running the NUMB3RS for some of the character and trivia information listed in this article. I've added a link in the Fan Site area, but still ... it's wiki etiquette to cite sources used. --LadyShelley 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Since many people edit these articles, you may want to take a look at the article history and leave a message on the specific user's Talk page. If you find that information has been taken from your site, feel free to add citations! Thanks! AySz88^-^ 18:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I have, unfortunately, most of the edits are made by anonymous editors, which means I only have an ISP to go by. The site is there to be used an referenced, I have no issue with the information being used, just that it needs to be noted where the information came from. --LadyShelley 21:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the information on the characters is derived from watching the show. The site aforementioned is not unique for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.120.206 (talk • contribs) 22:38, October 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there has been a lot of changes to the article since the above was posted.... And, ultimately, *all* the information is derived from the show, so chances are there'd be similarities anyway. AySz88^-^ 04:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel a copyright infringement has been made on this article, you should post it at Wikipedia:Copyright issues so that proper action may be taken to remove any such infringement. Havok (T/C) 23:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does the Numb3r Cruncher list link keep getting deleted? This is a legit list, it does exist; I've also checked the link and it works. --LadyShelley 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for links. And adding a link to a group that has 300 members is more ego boosting then anything else. Havok (T/C) 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
While this may be true, there were some good fan run sites listed in the fan section that supplemented the wiki article. (And I don't mean just mine, the SDKG site and the Peter MacNichol site are both fan run sites with good information.) How do you suggest these sites get listed? --LadyShelley 23:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, Ok I read the notes for the main site about the actor pages, so we are back to what to do about fan-run sites that do offer legitimate information in compliment to the wiki articles. --LadyShelley 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is not the links themselves, but more who decides which to keep and which to remove. We can not keep all of them. And yes, many fan sites offer substantial information and are well worth the mention, but again, who decides which one? In most cases it derives from which site is "notable"; in this instance it is more likely that someone will find the website www.numb3rs.org then www.yahoo.com/webpage/long/link/numb3rs_fan_club_wee/ Any thoughts about how to better conform to something like this? Havok (T/C) 00:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
OK I think I see where you're going with this. Basically numbers.org is a repository site, with a few other goodies added on, but it also contains links to the yahoo lists and such there. Folks read the article here, follow the link to there and will theoretically find other Numb3rs sites that way. Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.  :-) --LadyShelley 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Only happy to help. ;) Havok (T/C) 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Most of the pictures in the article are rather dark. Can anyone brighten them up, or maybe replace them with better ones? Sorry I cannot do this myself. Pelago 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider 2/16 to be "most" but I'll try and get to it. Goofyman 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Split some of the characters off onto their own pages?

I'm getting the feeling that some of the characters, mainly Charlie, should be getting their own page sometime soon - his synopsis specifically is starting to get rather long. This would probably require a general rearrange of this page, though, and ideally additional content in some other sections of it, which I'm not too sure how to go about. Any suggestions? Mike Peel 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Great minds I tell ya. I was thinking the same thing a couple of weeks ago. The article right now seems to be about the characters, not the show itself. If we split off the characters (at least Charlie, Don, and Alan and maybe have a new page for "supporting characters") What information could be added to the main Numb3rs article? --LadyShelley 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of some sort of general overview to the show - the main background of it, describing what it's generally about, etc. Some of this content's already in the article, but entwined with the characters - for example, "Don is an FBI Special Agent who recruits his mathematical genius brother, Charlie Eppes, to help him and the Bureau solve some of their most difficult cases." So rather than having to read the character's bios, visitors would just read a general overview, with links off to characters and episodes for more in depth information. Mike Peel 12:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest paring down the trivia section (this seems to be a dumping ground for just stuff as a competition to see who can update first from the latest episode. Not a good thing for the article) and checking if the external links really link to anything. I've been wandering through other TV show articles to find examples of things we might want to emulate. The West Wing has a good article. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation also seems to be good. Anyone else have an opinion on this? --LadyShelley 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and made this change, as noone else provided their opinion. Charlie Eppes, Don Eppes, Alan Eppes and Larry Fleinhardt all have their own pages, and the rest are on Characters of NUMB3RS. I think that this article could be expanded a fair bit now, but ideally the only content that should be on it is that which relates to the show in general - that relating to specific characters should go on the characters pages, and that relating to individual episodes should go on the List of NUMB3RS episodes page. Mike Peel 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I went in and cleaned out the dead links. What do we do with the trivia section? It's just messy and a lot of it could be deleted or moved to character pages. Anyone have a problem with me going through a weeding? --LadyShelley 18:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
My response would be "Please do". I did go through it and trim it a little, but I wasn't sure what to do with the bulk of it. Also, it seems that subsequently people have started adding the same old stuff onto the end of it (i.e. character-specific stuff).
Would it be worth removing the trivia section in its entirity, replacing it with a "Production notes" sort of thing, or merging the trivia content into the rest of the page? Mike Peel 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"Production Notes" might be a better solution, it would pare down a lot of what's there now. Let me fiddle and see what folks think, we can always revert and try something else. --LadyShelley 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
OK take a gander. Most of the trivia stuff already existed either in the character pages or the actor bio pages, so it was deleted from the main article. The on going list of who did not appear is which episode, was getting to be too much and as the series continues will happen more and more, so those were just removed all together. The section has bee renamed "Production notes" and should just be used for production related info. On a side note, a link has been added for the ITV web page for the series, this needs to be added to the show template I think. --LadyShelley 03:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better, methinks. I've removed the link to the ITV3 website, as it was just generically going to their website rather than anything NUMB3RS related. The ITV3 wikilink in the international broadcast dates section is sufficient for that. I think that the only remaining issue I have with the page is the lack of references - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I've added in the references structure, and when I get chance I'll try to fill in the missing ones. Mike Peel 10:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Number 5 regarding the Craftsman home probably came from my site. However I got it from an article written I think for the LA Times. I'll go back and check my info and add that one. (BTW how do you add info to the reference section? I click teh edit and get a practically empty page) --LadyShelley 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep here's the info

Arts and Crafts by the 'Numb3rs' by Christy Hobart, Special to The Times Los Angeles Times, Feb. 17, 2005

Problem is you have to pay I think to actually see the whole article on line, any indeas on how to link this? --LadyShelley 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it matters whether or not the article is pay-per-view or anything, so long as the reference is present so that we know where the fact came from. From what I was reading, it doesn't even matter if a link in the references stops working - leaving it there if it can't be replaced with a working link means that people still know where the fact came from.
The references system is slightly odd. To add stuff to the references section, you need to edit the place where the reference occurs, putting the text in between the <ref name="reference_name"> and </ref> tags, probably using a Template:cite news or similar template. More info is on the Wikipedia:Citing_sources page. Mike Peel 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added references for the Craftman home article and the link to Ed's web page. The MIT reference is from a comment one of the creators said on numbers.org forum and TWoP. I have no idea where those threads are now, or how we would reference them. --LadyShelley 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

inspiration

Hi, just an anonymous lurker, but I thought the following might be of some use to the article: "THE NUMB3RS GUY Bill Nye the Science Guy has inspired lots of middle schoolers to take apart their clock radios. It turns out the PBS host has also inspired a couple of TV executives to try an experiment. The CBS drama Numb3rs, which stars Rob Morrow as an FBI agent and David Krumholtz as his crime-fighting mathematician brother, was sparked by a lecture Nye gave 10 years ago on the subject of turning kids on to math and science. Now the show's creators, husband and wife Nick Falacci and Cheryl Heuton, have enlisted their hero to guest-star Dec. 16 as an engineering professor from the fictional Cal Sci..." Source: TIME Magazine, 12-04-2005, "People" section written by Rebecca Winters Keegan http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,1137661,00.html

title in capital letters

i changed the title... to put capital letters in a title is out of... how to say it politically correctly? a logo can appear in the article though... kernitou talk 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to point out that the show's name is officially spelt with capital letters, and hence the use of capitals in the title of the page is justified, however it seems that there is a mix of the use of "NUMB3RS" and "Numb3rs" on the internet (there's even such a variation on the official webpage). Unless someone knows for definite that the title should be all capitals, then we should probably keep it in the 'new' lower case form. Mike Peel 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Going off TV Guide, the show is written in all caps, the series name in the credits is in all caps as well. I can ask Nick and Cheryl for the official word if it's deemed necessary. --LadyShelley 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Season Three

tv.com has the wrong start date. According to the upfronts info, Numb3rs is not moving from Friday nights (the 19th is a Tuesday). zap2it This is the CBS lineup for fall. We should remove that Sept 19 date I think. 

--LadyShelley 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD Running Time

How is the first season DVD 43 minutes long? Shouldn't it be hours?

Never mind, I figured it out.

TI Math Initiative Added

I added a reference to the TI/NCTM outreach program based on the show, as a way of citing the usage of the concepts by teachers. My apologies for not saying so in the edit summary.--Braindrain0000 04:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. There was an entry for the TI program in the Trivia, but it belongs more in the NUMB3RS and Mathematics section than the trivia section, so I've merged it with your reference. Mike Peel 06:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better to have the in-text link on the name point to the official page or the internal stub? --Braindrain0000 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the offical page, I really don't think there's a whole lot to add to the stub article. (It might be worthy of deletion all together, there's just not much really write an article.) --LadyShelley 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The closest 'official' answer to this that I can find is from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), which says that "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article" (see Link titles). As long as we have an article on it, I'd say link to that. If we did not have an article on it, I'd put the link to the website in the External Links section. Mike Peel 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge in List of NUMB3RS episodes?

Following up from Ladida's edits, I think that it would be best to replace the 'Episodes and DVD releases' section with the content of List of NUMB3RS episodes pretty much as it stands. My reasons for suggesting this are as follows:

  • There isn't enough content at the moment to justify two pages
  • It would reduce duplication of the same information
  • The information at the list page would probably be better suited being on this page

What do y'all think? --Mike Peel 14:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the List of NUMB3RS episodes page isn't actually a list of NUMB3RS episodes (it links to the subpages NUMB3RS (Season 1) and NUMB3RS (Season 2)), I'd go along with this idea. --ScottAlanHill 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we see a test of this to decide? My only concern is how it will look with the rest of the article, will it make things too cumbersome and the like. --LadyShelley 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am going to merge it to the main article so everyone can see how it looks when it's done. Also, I am going to separate the DVD releases and episodes again because I think it would look better like before. See what you think. Ladida 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Season synopsis, no worries moving them back, but I did rewrite them. Do we want to have the same intro on both pages? If so I'll copy over the updated intros --LadyShelley 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing the season synopsis move before reverting. I tend to prefer having a short synopsis of a section with a main article, just to provide an introduction to that main article for the reader (so that they know whether they want to read the full article or not). It also looks a bit better than having an empty section with just a main link in it. Following from this, ideally the synopsis on this page should be different from that on the main page for the season - the latter should be a lot longer if possible. So I guess my answer is: it's up to you, I have no preference either way as it currently stands. Mike Peel 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try working something up. It may be a couple of weeks, swamped at work at the moment, so if anyone else wants to take a stab feel free. If not, no worries. The plan would then be to move the little intros in the episode list pages over to the main article and work out a more detailed summary for the episode sections. I'm thinking a paragraph or two, not a detailed list of everything that heppened each season. (If I did that, why bother watching! LOL)--LadyShelley 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a change. Having editted many episode lists to which most of my work is the basis for Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, I would highly recommend putting NUMB3RS (season 1) and NUMB3RS (season 2) back into List of NUMB3RS episodes.

  1. First, this is improper usage of disambiguation. NUMB3RS (season 1) is an episode list and, as such, isn't ambiguous with an article (NUMB3RS) about its TV series. If nothing more, it should be Episodes of NUMB3RS (season 1) but there has been a very heated debate over Episodes of Lost (season 1) and List of Lost episodes.
  2. Second, two seasons doesn't warrant separate articles. The number of TV series with their episodes in a single article is extremely numerous.
  3. Third, NUMB3RS doesn't need the episode list: this is what list of NUMB3RS episodes was for.
  4. Fourth, totally doesn't jive with the wikiproject.

Cburnett 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A month has passed and no comment so I went ahead and merged. Cburnett 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

title in capital letters

i changed it again > to put the title "Numb3rs" in capital letters (NUMB3RS) is not convenient

so many tv-series have capital letters titels, like

what would be ridiculous... and these are a few examples !

so please let the title "Numb3rs" to be coherent, thanks kernitou talk 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The move has been reverted by Elisabeth2 (talk · contribs). LadyShelley (talk · contribs) mentioned the last time that this happened (#title in capital letters) that she could obtain the official word on this; I have asked her if she can do this on her talk page to get a final decision on the title of this page. Please do not rename the article, or its sub-articles, again until we either get the official word, or consensus is established on this page. Mike Peel 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have written to Cheryl and Nick for the official word on the title. I'll let y'all know what the verdict is when I get a reply. --LadyShelley 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
many tv-series have capital letters titels <- but very few have numbers (no, that word joke was not intended) in their words. Darkoneko 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I've heard back ... the bad news is who I spoke to is not a fan of the wiki concept and doesn't want any part of the article. So I'd say we're back to going off the DVD's and the official site that the "correct" presentation for the title is "NUMB3RS" and that's how it should be in the article. For those who insist "Numb3rs" is easier to type, we could have a redirect. --LadyShelley 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a conversation about this ovver at WikiProject Television to get more people's thoughts/opinions. Mike Peel 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dropping by from the project. I haven't watched the show so I'm "neutral" in that respect. According to the CBS site, when they write the title in article text, it's NUMB3RS. Since this seems significant in respect to the code-breaking aspects of the show, I think it's appropriate to keep the article where it is. The title card alone shouldn't be the indicator; for instnace, Six Feet Under uses mixed capitalization on HBO's site.--Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters in NUMB3RS article

Checking pages I noticed the follwoing at the top of the Characters in NUMB3RS section: "This article or section may need to be cleaned up and rewritten because it describes a work of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please edit it according to the guidelines on writing about fiction, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Editing help is available."

So what exactly does this mean? Do we need to reincorporate this article back into the main NUMB3RS page (which I think is a very BAD idea). --LadyShelley 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I added the banner because the Characters of NUMB3RS page is currently written in what that page calls an 'in-universe perspective', rather than the preferred 'out-of-universe perspective'. Mike Peel 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK I see the point, it going to take some work to get them out of universe. The box should probably be on all of the character pages then as I think all of them follow the same style. --LadyShelley 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of a Nobel mathematics prize

Pardon my sloppy reference, but I think I recall seeing a past episode in which one of the characters attributed the lack of a Nobel prize in mathematics to an affair between Nobel's "wife" and a mathematician. Today during random Wikipedia browsing I learned there is no evidence for that claim. Does this tidbit warrant mention in the article, and would someone with access to the episode scripts care to track down the exact line? — Teratornis 17:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also recall the reference, but can't point to a specific episode. I get the feeling it was episode 14 in season 2, 'Harvest', but I'm not 100% sure, and I don't have the episode to hand to check. Oddly enough, I was thinking about this recently - but couldn't remember where I'd heard the story from. Thanks for the reminder, and the fact-correction. It is probably worth mentioning as an 'errata' under the episode description if you can find the appropriate episode. Mike Peel 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this would be an 'erratum' if a character simply mentioned it; characters don't have to be omniscient and might very well believe all sorts of wrong things. List it under Trivia (or whatever) instead. --ScottAlanHill 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Nobel shutting out mathematicians because of an affair is from Obsession season two. I don't think it needs to be added to the article at all though. --LadyShelley 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Character pages ...

So here's a question to ponder: Do we really honestly need the character pages? Wandering around to other TV show articles, the character information is very brief, either a one liner or a table with a very brief description. What's the consensus on reworking the main NUMB3RS article to just have this brief bit of info instead of long drawn out, in universe articles? --LadyShelley 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the lack of response agreement or is everyone off having a life?  :-) If I don't hear from anyone disagreeing with the idea of deleting the character pages and working in a short blurb for each on the main NUMB3RS article, I'll start work on the blurbs, get them loaded and deleted the character pages. --LadyShelley 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier; I've been busy with other things. Something needs doing with the character profiles, such that they aren't in-universe. However, I'm unsure if the way to do that is to do away with most of the information. It may be an idea to keep things roughly as they are - i.e. with the information on the Characters of NUMB3RS page - and just rewrite them there, linking to the current version of the page in a comment on the discussion page for the article, explaining what's happening. Then, we can aim to have them built back up to a decent size in an out-of-universe style.
Most of the well-developed TV show articles I've seen have short summaries that link to longer character information in a seperate article. Those that haven't generally haven't had people working on them that much. Could you point to an example where this isn't the case? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The two I had looked at were the CSI's and Magnum PI (hey you try thinking of large ensemble shows at 10:00PM!) The Magnum one does have just the short blurbs; I thought the CSI shows did as well, but looking more there is a Characters page laid out as a table, with a short reference (that looks to be in-universe to me) for each person. The larger problem I'm having is figuring out how to get the character descriptions out of "in universe". I'm still working on it though!. --LadyShelley 14:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
User:24.253.120.206 and myself, User:68.224.247.53, have done the substantial writing on the characters. This has been a lot of work and, since other shows have in-depth descriptions, they should be kept. If it is to be written out of in-universe, then there should be an introduction that makes the characters' fiction clear in addition to the in-universe character biography that has already been written. However, it may be difficult to write about non-fictional aspects of NUMB3RS, even with the production details given on the DVD features. --68.224.247.53 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of the pages are very long at this point, but the point we're trying to make is that they should never have been like this is the first place. Writing something out of universe is hard, I know I've started and scrapped several versions already trying! The reality is I don't think we'll really be able to do an out of universe article for any of the characters until after the series concludes; and I still stand by the idea of deleting them all together and going back to a short descriptions (emphasis on SHORT) of each character within the main article. Right now all of the articles are being treated like some sort of competition so see who can add the latest bit of character trivia first after an episode ends; that doesn't make for a good finished article. --LadyShelley 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If you reference the character page on Dr. Gregory House and the articles on the characters of Heroes, you will see that it is not the case that character pages are short summaries. Besides, these articles are not excessively long. Only minor corrections need be made to make the articles out-of-universe. --68.224.247.53 22:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that LadyShelley is trying to narrow competition with her website. Also, there is no contest to see who can add all the latest trivia, as I am currently the only primary editor of the articles. Only pertinent information about the characters is provided, with minor details sometimes being placed in the "Notes" sections. --68.224.247.53 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I resent this comment. The two web sites serve entirely different audiences, there is no "competition" good grief, grow up. My understanding on what an out of universe article should look like is one that describes a character from the creators and actors point of view. It uses interviews, DVD commentaries and the like as source material. It's not supposed to be a play by play write up of the characters life on the screen. --LadyShelley 02:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting such a rude remark — there is no reason to be derogatory or take the commentary personally. Besides, your response here ("grow up") shows your immaturity. An article doesn't need to give only an out-of-universe perspective. Only overviews of the characters are given and just the most important charcter developments are in the body of the article. The extensive character personality descriptions on Charlie Eppes and Larry Fleinhardt show how they are an archetypal genius mathematician and physicist, respectively. --68.224.247.53 08:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the most valuable resource for NUMB3RS information on the web and encyclopedias are supposed to be thoroughly detailed. --68.224.247.53 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In the hope of getting some progress made, as opposed to people spending their time bickering, I've converted the Megan Reeves info into an out-of-universe style, and have placed (episode?) tags where the episode names need to go. Mike Peel 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike, this is all the articles need to be considered out of universe? I thought the articles had to be written in a completely different style. For example, in Larry's article there is a several line description of Larry's announcement to leave as seen in the episode; I thought we had to phrase things more as "To explain Peter MacNicol's absence for a short role in the series 24, the character of Larry was written out of most of the second half of season three by sending him on a mission to the International Space Station." If all we need are episode tags, then that's a much simpler fix.--LadyShelley 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thought of something else, if this all we need, then I would suggest the episode tags be scripted with a "References" section at the end of each article for ease of reading and flow. --LadyShelley 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, yes. By doing it that way, it opens the way for information like that included in your comment (which I'd like to see added to the article, if it can be referenced). Mike Peel 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

does it really get the math right?

i stumbled across this thread on the IMDB board about Numb3rs, aparently theres a real discussion of mathematicians, reagarding those who support the show and those who are against it [[1]]

Actually, most of the math (and other tech talk) seems nonsense to me.... But nevermind. Some words actually make sense. --217.232.18.242 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Alice Silverberg voices the opinion that the math is not 100% correct, or at least not correctly applied. I support her whole-heartedly, so unless people protest, I will change the relevant section to give a more balanced view. At the moment it basically says that the math is correct and works, but that one mathematician has complained. I don't think that this is fair since Prof. Silverberg is a mathematician with great academic merits, and is/was a consultant for the show. Some examples of mathematical errors:

The typical example of true math that doesn't work in the Numb3ers settings is the various attempts at predicting crimes by using math for choosing an optimal target. While math can often find an optimal target given some constraints, I doubt that this could predict crimes unless the criminal is an equally qualified mathematician. The average criminal would choose targets using some "common sense", so the FBI should try to use the same "common sense" to predict locations.

Another problem in the series is that they often draw strong empirical conclusions based on very limited datasets (say 5-10 observations). It is very rare to get good result with so little data.

The last major problem is that Charlie sometimes solve the problems without doing the lengthy calculations normally required. If he had extensive experience with the application considered, he might "shoot from the hip", but this would not give the same accuracy as a mathematical calculation. His guesses are simply too good. (Of course, it is a TV-show, so it might be understandable that the authors exaggerate.)

Don't get me wrong, I think that Numb3rs is a great show, but this should not be mistaken for mathematical consistency.

Please read Prof Silverbergs article "Alice in NUMB3Rland" and post here if you disagree about changing the page.

It depends on what exactly it is you want to say. The article already states that one of the consultants for the series does question how the math is used in the context of the show. What more do you really want to add. I don't think we need to include Prof Silverberg's entire thesis on how mathematics is not used correctly, that's why there is the citation.--LadyShelley 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What I criticize is that the section clearly states that the math is correct. The two posts above mine on this discussion page suggests that I'm not the only one who doubt the authenticity of the math in some episodes. I would like the page to say something like "Much of the mathematics presented in the show is real ..." instead of "the equations on the chalkboards are real, and they are indeed applicable to the situations presented in each show." The section should clearly state that the correctness and applicability of the math is debated. The way it is formulated at the moment seems to suggest that the math actually is correct, but that one consultant is whining. Clearly this is not the case, and I think the page should be modified to reflect this. Imraith-Nimphais 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I'm reading the intent differently, I didn't see it as one consultant whining more like one consultant pointing out the errors. I think we're going down the same path, it's a matter of the wording that needs to be worked out. Can you post a complete idea here first of how you think the section should be reworded? I think the section needs to factually accurate as to how well the mathematics is used, at the same time it shouldn't completely slam the series and/or the creators either. --LadyShelley 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sure it wasn't intensional, but the section is a bit ambiguous. Anyway, I'll post a draft in a few days. Imraith-Nimphais 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the External links section from the article, as it was just collecting Numbers-related spam. None of the websites that were linked to in it were notable or useful (see WP:EL). In general, if the sites are notable, then they should be discussed and referenced in the body of the article. Please do not add the section back, or recreate it/add external links to the article (excluding references, of course), before discussing it/them here. Mike Peel 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike I'm curious, did you put the TV.com link in the info box? I'm wondering why this site is considered "official" as it is frankly not very useful information. As for the removal all together, I could argue that some of those sites did offer solid information (having the TV.com link there wasn't an issue as an example.) --LadyShelley 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what the situation is with the "official" links in the infobox; it's probably worth asking that over at WP:TV. If other sites do offer "solid information", then why can't that information (or rather, the parts of that information which are noteworthy) be integrated into the article and a reference to the website given? Users can then look up these references if they want more info/details. Mike Peel 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
sorry, end of year work catch up so fun. As for citing sources, it would be great if folks did, but let's face it, they aren't. I think some form of external links is a good idea, we would need to work out specifications on what are good sites to list and note that in the edit field for the section. Then it would just be a matter of keeping the area up-to-date. --LadyShelley 00:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Please verify this edit - editor has many vandalism warnings. Not sure whether to revert. Thanks. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine - there have been 50 episodes of NUMB3RS thus far. Mike Peel 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DVD Cover

What happened to the image of the second season DVD cover? --68.224.247.53 03:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the profile of the person who pulled the image, it looks like he removed it because he thought it wasn't available under fair-use rules. Since it's a promo shot, I don't think it should have been removed. Anyone have a better idea of how promo shots are used in the wiki? --LadyShelley 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


NUMB3RS → Numb3rs — This is a no-brainer, but after looking at the talk page I thought it would be better doing the full request. It doesn't matter if the "official" title uses all capitals, WP:MOSCAP and WP:MOSTM says normal capitalization should be used regardless of what the trademark holder wants, I have no problem with the 3 in the title though. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per WP:MOSCAPS and ample precedent. Neier 11:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as per WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCAPS. Read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). The current rule is clear, although some argue that it should be changed. According to the current guidelines, the "offical" capitolization is not relevant. DES (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please could you specify which section(s)/sentences of WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM that you (and Neier) believe apply here? Mike Peel 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    The "All Caps" section of MOSCAP, and the very first section of MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:". TJ Spyke 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. note that in WP:MOSTM after the capitolization rule, the first example is: "avoid: REALTOR® instead, use: Realtor". DES (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per Manual of Style. - Cyrus XIII 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per the ridiculous KISS (band) precedent. 205.157.110.11 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per [2], [3], and others, and MOSTM as well. We don't want to invent a new format, but when they're formatting it that way at numb3rs-online.net and amazon.com, I think we can confidently follow their lead and our own style guide. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - we've been through this before (see the two sections entitled "title in capital letters" above), and the consensus was to keep the name in capitals. I still agree with that decision; the name of the show _is_ in capitals everywhere officially that I've seen, and the "3" looks out of place everywhere that the name isn't in capitals (and the 3 is definitely part of the name). Mike Peel 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Why are we doing this again? The title of the show is NUMB3RS, why is this such a problem? --LadyShelley 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe because WP guidelines say the current title is wrong. The very first section of MOSTM says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". Which means it should be Numb3rs, despite the producers wanting it to be NUMB3RS. TJ Spyke 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    This has been discussed in these talk pages ad nausem, I don't see the point in having a vote (or is this tied to the whole other silly vote going on?) This discussion seems to come up every time there is a sustained break from the show airing, do editors get bored or something? --LadyShelley 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't watch the show, I just saw that the title here was incorrect. This is a no-brainer, I have provided two guidelines to support the move. "NUMB3RS" is not an acceptable name for the article. It doesn't matter what the producers or fans want it to be, the same thing happens with articles on anime shows (which, just like this show, use odd capitalization that violate WP guidelines). TJ Spyke 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    To the opposers, resistance is futile. The guideline trumps all, unless you happen to be brian d foy. Despite the guideline he gets special treatment. Rob Morrow does not.205.157.110.11 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    He's not the only one. bell hooks is also special. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
k.d. lang is another. --LadyShelley 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

For those citing the guideline, it has been contested at WT:MOSTM and resulted in no consensus move requests. Please don't turn this into as long a discussion as Talk:XxxHolic#Requested move. –Pomte 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It has alsom been used many times in getting article moved, like Tokyopop (which is technically supposed to be TOKYOPOP). I personally think MOSTM should be changed for titles of TV shows/movies/video games, but until that happens I will help enforce it. TJ Spyke 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Now, I haven't seen the programme, but my reading of the guidelines would have this at Numbers (TV series). Putting a "3" in the middle of a word does not "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English". The word being represented is clearly "numbers", but with a "3" representing an "e". Nobody pronounces it "numb-three-ers", so our spelling it that way is merely pandering to the CBS marketing department in direct contravention of WP:MOSTM. --Stemonitis 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous. We shouldn't be changing the name of something, which is what this discussion seems to be heading towards. Forgetting policy (which is only meant to be a guideline, not a law), what problems does calling the article the same name as the show, i.e. "NUMB3RS", actually cause? Mike Peel 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
We have shown a precedent to articles that don't follow the so-called rule, I'm not seeing a need to do this. --LadyShelley 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:WAX. Just because other articles violate the rule isn't a reason to let this one to. Those other ones should be moved as well, and if someone nominates them I will support the move. TJ Spyke 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from NUMB3RS to Numb3rs as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but who is this who arbitrarily decided to rename the article? --LadyShelley 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to the discussion above, there were six people giving reasons supporting the move, and two people opposing. All gave reasons, and there was some discussion. Then User:Stemonitis, an administrator who was processing requested moves, read the discussion as being in favor of the move, and completed it accordingly. Which part of that seems arbitrary to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Amita's last name

I had changed most instances of Amita's last name spelled "Ramanujan" to conform with the character's name as listed at the CBS website consistently as "Ramajuan".

A user who reverted these changes explained: "No, CBS's website is (pathetically) mistaken. It is Amita Ramanujan, an homage to great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan."

I am well acquainted with the famous mathematician Ramanujan, but have you considered the possibility that an homage to Ramanujan was intended by simply making Amita's last name close to the famous mathematician's last name without being identical to it?

I cited what must be considered an authoritative source (though admittedly, any source could have typos, even consistent ones). What is your basis for claiming that Amita's name is in fact "Ramanujan" ??? You can't merely state that it is supposed to be "Ramanujan" without a strong source contradicting the CBS website!Daqu 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think the CBS site is a typo (one of many errors on that so-called site) Why do network web pages always look so bad and have no content?
The following web sites all refer to Amita as "Ramanujan"
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433309/
TV.com: http://www.tv.com/numb3rs/show/25043/summary.html
Running the NUMB3RS: http://www.redhawke.org/content/view/115/11/

--LadyShelley 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh do you have the series DVDs? If you check episode 214 (Harvest) Right at the beginning when Amita is awarded the Milton Prize, her name comes up on the large screen spelled "Amita Ramanujan" --LadyShelley 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am the reverter. I apologize if I was curt or offensive in my edit summary: there was not much space (I should have made a note here). Anyway, I think any renaming must come with some discussion, as it would also require moving the Amita Ramanujan article, among other things. As for sources, IMDb and tv.com both say "Ramanujan." Also, if you look at the CBS "About the Show" section (instead of "Cast"), you see yet another spelling: "Amita Ramanjuan" (a simple permutation of Ramanujan), further lending credence to the idea that the CBS webmaster is an idiot :). Finally, Ramanujan is a legitimate Tamil surname, while Ramajuan would never be used, as far as I know.
And then there's LadyShelley's comment right above this :).
AndyR 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, almost my sole opportunity to watch the series has been on the DVDs of the first, and now (I'm working my way through the) second, season. By sheer coincidence, the last episode I watched (before I read LadyShelley's post) just happened to be "Harvest" -- and that totally convinced me -- since Amita's last name is not only spoken, but spelled out in a sign about an award she receives. (I had *not* had any inkling that this episode would contain such a confirmation.)
So please forgive me for my skepticism, but one just cannot trust website evidence, especially for the spelling of a name! (Hey, we can't even trust the CBS website -- and if anyone should know, they should -- which as of yesterday did not even spell her name as "Ramanujan" even once!) (Even the Merriam-Webster website at http://www.m-w.com cannot be trusted for spelling 6 months after being notified of a spelling error: try looking up Isaac Asimov.)Daqu 04:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine point in intro paragraph

The intro paragraph states that Charlie "develops formulae to predict the actions of various criminals." That's not incorrect, but it's only a small fraction of the truth. He does far more than "develop formulae" and the goals of what he does mathematically are far beyond just "to predict the actions of various criminals".

I changed this phrase to state that Charlie "uses math to help Don solve crimes for the FBI," -- which does not exclude all the math Charlie does that are far beyond mere formulae, and all the goals he achieves that go far beyond merely "to predict the actions of various criminals."

To whoever changed it back: Can you please present a reason that this phrase should not be changed to the vastly more accurate "uses math to help Don solve crimes for the FBI" ??? Your Edit summary consists only of the phrase "Season 3".Daqu 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been informed that I myself changed it back. Sheesh, this is embarrassing. I must have used the History feature in a way that fooled myself. Aaargh!Daqu 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry gotta a giggle from this, mostly because I've done the same thing! You're not the first and won't be the last I'm sure. --LadyShelley 02:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation question

In the Production notes section, there is a note that a citation is needed for the information regarding the second season being filmed on a set. That came from Cheryl Heuton on a forum. How would that be cited, exactly? --LadyShelley 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the best reference for it, then a {{Cite web|url=URL|title=TITLE|accessdate=2007-05-30}} should do the job. Mike Peel 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the citation info, it looks right to me, I'm so template challenged most of the time. --LadyShelley 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of international broadcasters section

I've just removed the "international broadcasters" section. It contained the following table:

Country Alternate title/Translation TV Network(s) Series Premiere Weekly Schedule
Australia Australia Network Ten August 15 2005
Belgium Belgium Loi des nombres, La (French title) RTL-TVI September 2006
Brazil Brazil Telecine Action August 7 2005
Bulgaria Bulgaria bTV January 19 2006
Canada Canada Global Television Network January 23 2005
Denmark Denmark Kanal 5 September 20 2006
Finland Finland Num3rot MTV3 November 24 2006
France France Numb3rs M6 April 14 2006
Germany Germany Numb3rs – Die Logik des Verbrechens Pro 7, now on Sat.1 September 5 2005 Thursdays at 10:15 p.m.
Hungary Hungary TV2 May 22 2006
India India AXN
Republic of Ireland Ireland Channel 6
Israel Israel ("מספ7ים" - Misparim) yesWeekend (Season 1)
yesSTARS (Season 2)		 October 27, 2005
Italy Italy Rai2 March 5 2006
Japan Japan Fox Crime/Fox 2006/2007
Malaysia Malaysia Season 1 - RTM1, Season 2 - RTM2 and AXN December 5 2005 RTM2: Tuesdays Midnight
Netherlands The Netherlands Veronica August 30 2005
New Zealand New Zealand TV3 July 20 2005
Norway Norway TV2 (Norway) December 21 2006
Philippines Philippines AXN
Poland Poland Wzór TV4 June 28 2006
Portugal Portugal TVI October 19 2006
Quebec Quebec Z Tele January 6 2006
Romania Romania Prima TV 2006
Russia Russia TV3 August 18 2006
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia
and Arab World		 MBC 4 October 30, 2006
Serbia Serbia Broj3vi B92 March 14 2007
Slovenia Slovenia Številke TV Slovenija 2 May 2007 Thursdays evening
Spain Spain Antena 3 March 7 2006
Sweden Sweden TV4 April 29 2006
Taiwan Taiwan AXN
Thailand Thailand AXN
Turkey Turkey Dizimax 2005
United Kingdom United Kingdom ITV3 October 5 2005
United States United States CBS Television (Broadcast) September 20, 2006 Friday, 8:00pm ET/PT

This has been flagged as requiring references for the last month or so, yet none have been added - and new content has also been added without references being added for that. I have no objections to it going back on the article - so long as it does so with references for each entry. Mike Peel 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 Conclusion Spoiler

I recommend the following text should either be removed or edited, "The season concluded with Colby Granger, (Dylan Bruno), being named as a double agent for China." People who haven't seen the finale, like me, don't want to know this. All i wanted to know was whether there was going to be a 4th season. --Nerox 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mispronunciations by Charlie Eppes

It is a real shame that such a distinguished mathematician and scholar as Charlie Eppes seems unable to pronounce correctly such distinguished mathematicians' names as the following germanic names:

von Neumann (pronounced incorrectly as "vaughn newman")
Riemann (pronounced incorrectly as "rye-man"
Euler (pronounced incorrectly as "you-ler")
Gauss (pronounced incorrectly as "gawss" (sort of like the english word "gauze" but with an "s" sound rather than a "z" sound at the end)

Maybe Eppes never took a course in German language or travelled to international mathematics meetings where he surely would have learned the correct pronunciations. At any rate, to a mathematician, hearing these names (and others) pronounced incorrectly is very grating, to say the least. -- Chuck 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think the pronunciation of "NUMB3RS" should be added. For example, "(pronounced "numb-three-rs")".

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Numbers_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1190110151"