Talk:The Game (2006 TV series)

Is The Game Coming Back For a Fourth Season?

In early October your page indicated that The Game had been picked up by BET for a fourth season. I noticed today that it is no longer there. Do you have any idea of what is going on? I'm just curious because I am a huge fan and the suspense is killing me. 68.173.250.50 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a huge fan also please let me know. I love all of ther charaters and would like to meet them someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.148.3 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious to know if The Game will be coming back for a fouth season. I watch the reruns all the time, and I would love to see a new season of the Game. Please make that happen for the viewers. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.14.18 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes The Game will return to TV this Fall to BET : http://www.bvbuzz.com/2010/03/15/the-game-sitcoms-return-on-bet-nearly-finalized YEAH! 65.114.157.23 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge of character pages

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Barnett, the individual character pages should be merged to form List of The Game characters. Fences&Windows 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

past discussion on article content

This is posted here to keep everything together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.165.244 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Game (U.S. TV series), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. All that is changed is reliably sourced. I corrected tenses and information. I posted on the discussion page the specifics and the errors that were in the page when I edited it. THank You. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, your content is not properly supported. None of the sources meets the qualifications for reliable sources, neither tvbythenumbers.com, tvseriesfinale.com, www.multichannel.com are not considered reliable and www.hollywoodreporter.com requires a login and membership to view the content, which is not permissible. And do not change the capitalization of section titles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say those sources are not reliable? The hollywood reporter article does not require log in. And instead of just reverting why not aid in finding a source? And do not speak to me in that tone. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Game (U.S. TV series). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am not disrupting. It is you. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

5/14 changes i made to article

I have made edits to this article. Pinkdelica keeps reveting. Wikipedia is what we all own. We're supposed to work together. I have corrected things/erros pointed out to me, but still get reverted. I have made these changes:
1)I added meat to the intro. Intros do not have to be very concise per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section.
2)I added a source for Coby Bell being a recurring character
3)I added back in section on cancellation & revivial section has more in depth information. I corrected tenses because BET had its upfront in April & confirmed the show is indeed back.
4)I corrected info on showrunner/directors. Mara works 4 ABC Cougar Town. She will get her EP credit. Her husband Salim will be showrunner. 65.114.157.23 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Where does it say those sources are not reliable? The hollywood reporter article does not require log in. And instead of just reverting why not aid in finding a source? And do not speak to me in that tone. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, those sources are not reliable. There is no list of sources that are unreliable, there is an outline of what qualifies as reliable at WP:RS and the sources you added do not meet the criteria. Please don't copy and paste warnings left to you onto this page and refactor talk page discussion. The bottomline on the hollywoodreporter website is that membership IS required. If one doesn't belong to that website, the login page comes up. This is the page that comes up for non-members. Sites that require membership are not permissible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The specific URL the IP added was this, and I'm able to access it as a non-member. If membership is generally required for viewing some or even most content, that seems irrelevant so long as the particular article used here is accessible to everyone. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlive, What do you mean by "in fact those sources are not reliable". Whose fact? That is why I wanted a link to where Wikipedia seems sources good or not. Those sources are all websites and companies that follow tv shows. Still if you're adamant, let's work together. Why don't you find a source that you like for the information, since what I have presented is not liked by you. The Hollywood Reporter link does work. But again if you don't like it, find a link you do. What about the content I changed? The upfronts have happened, so I corrected tenses. Mara is contractually bound to ABC so she can't work for BET. Coby Bell is contractually bound to USA so he is only going to recur. I did not make any of these things ups. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, Glad you are able to see the article. Do you know where the list of sources allowed is? I have asked wild hart live why she does not like the sources, and to look at what I added. What I added is all true information about the show. I know with media struggling, by the end of the year the page may be in the archive. When that happens we could update the link to a google cache of the content.69.138.165.244 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As Wildhartlivie already said, there is no list of reliable sources -- only a guideline we use to determine that, which you can see at WP:RS. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, alright. I will read WP:RS page and look at the links I added to see if they are allowed. Be back soon. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop copy and pasting messages left on your talk page to this page. If you want to refer to those posts, then by all means, use a wikilink, but don't change section titles or refactor the existing content on this page. BTW, I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for violating the 3RR warning I left for you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I appreciate that you want to intervene, but there's more to this issue than meets the eye. There's no ownership or big bad meanie issues here. I have attempted to explain to the IP user why their edits are being reverted (MOS issues, WP:CRYSTAL issues, sourcing issues, etc.) to no avail. This disruptive behavior has been going on since the show was canceled and there were rumors BET was going to pick up the series some months back. The page has been locked on occasion because of this behavior and I fully believe that if I (or Wildhartlivie) were in the wrong, no admin would grant protection. Keeping poorly written content and fancruft out of articles is thankless work (as I'm sure you're well aware) and that's all that's going on here. If the IP were truly interested in working with the other editors on this page, they would not continue to do wholesale reverts even after it was clearly explained why their edits are not acceptable. Their problem lies in the fact that I rewrote and reorganized the page some time back and they basically want to revert everything back to the previous version because it is their preferred version. I would actually bother to go through proper dispute resolution if I thought it would be helpful, but with the ever-changing IPs and lack of basic respect the IP user(s) has shown, I doubt it would result in anything long-lasting. Again, this has been going on for months - please check the talk page archive for the history behind all of this. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is crystal? If you look up at my 5/14 post,I explained what I changed and why. I corrected tenses, I added information about the cast, directors, I made the intro better, and more. Where/what specifically is wrong ?How is it that my edits you call wholesale reverts, but yours are not ? How about we go section by section from intro to conclusion and say what each of us wants to be included? 69.138.165.244 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming you're not explaining your edits? No. Just because you say what you did and why does not mean your edits follow any kind of policy. I have explained to you on more than one occasion why your edits are being reverted and what you can do to fix them. Instead of adjusting your edits to conform to policy, you simply add them back in the very same manner time and again. At the very least you could make sure you format the dates correctly or stop trying to read into the future (that would be WP:CRYSTAL), but nope. You do wholesale reverts back to your preferred version with complete and utter disregard to what you've been told is acceptable. Since I'm clearly not the only person reverting you (though you wouldn't know that to hear you tell it), it's obvious that what you're doing isn't kosher. Either you simply don't understand how to properly write and source content even after others have told you how or you have a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. After dealing with this for months on end, I'm guessing it's the latter coupled with "preferred-version-itis". WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid excuse for repeatedly reverting the article back to an earlier version - especially an earlier version with multiples errors. Finally, I'm not terribly interested in going through the article with a fine tooth comb because, as the past year or so has indicated, I feel any further discussion about this with you would be an utter waste of time. If you want community input from other editors, I suggest opening an WP:RfC. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Going through the article with a comb is what wikipedia is about. You dont want to do that, then why edit. I asked what about edits needed to be changed to ' confirm to policy', did you reply People who actually want to help have, like User:Equazcion, have and the article is getting better. For months you have ust been reverting because that is what is easier for you. you want your edits. You didnt make efforts. I am not going to open anything, you keep up that. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, your "let's go through the article!" proposal is not what Wikipedia is about. That's a time sink tactic you're attempting to use to wear down other editors' patience. It's transparent and it's not going to work. Anyone serious about dispute resolution gets on with it - they don't bring time-wasting proposals and then beg off when someone calls their bluff. As for your claim that I never attempted to discuss your edits with you - try again. I took the time to leave you two non-templated messages on the talk page of the IP you were using at the time to explain why your edits were problematic. You did not respond to either of those messages using any of the various IPs you edit under. Since the only superpower I possess is the very superpower of assumption, I assumed you: a). Got the message and understood but ignored it or b). Didn't understand at all and ignored it anyway. The bottom line here was that it was apparent that you didn't heed any of my advise so I'm not going to keep doling out the help when it's fairly obvious that you're going to do whatever you want. Now, unless you can provide some diffs (ie proof in the form of a link to the conversation) that you "asked what about edits needed to be changed to ' confirm to policy'", I'm going to have to call major bull on that one because you did not even start communicating with me about anything until after I asked for the page to be protected about a month or so after you started this little crusade. Even then you did not communicate to me, you complained about the request for protection on the protection page! In fact, the only talk page edits you've made are to this article talk page (to bizarrely add the content that was reverted from the article) and to an admin's talk page to complain about my enforcing policy. For future reference every time someone edits on Wikipedia, it is recorded in their history. That means that any kind of communication that happens between two editors on-Wiki can be linked to and shown to either prove or disprove something. Take this into consideration before you attempt to claim someone did or did not do something on Wikipedia. I will continue to watch this article as I have for the last year or so but I'm done with this mess. Any further disruption from your various IPs will be reported. Since Wildhartlivie already reported you for edit warring, and Equazcion started an AN/I thread about your disruption, that makes documenting your disruption that much easier. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Boatman as "Chauncey"

Michael Boatman played Malik's father, Chauncey, but is not mentioned on the cast list. The actresses who played "Chauncey's" wife and daughter are mentioned but he's not. Also, "The Game" is not listed on Michael Boatman's personal page. Was there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.203.181 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidently it was an oversight. It happens. It's now been fixed. As for why the role is not on Boatman's page - no idea. I would imagine because there's no proper filmography listed and no body added his three episode appearance to the body of the article. That article is not locked so feel free to update his page and add the role. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

THE WRITING SCRIPTS FOR THE GAME SERIES HAS CHANGED WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY TOO MUCH

I love The Game, but all of this foolishness (Kelly, now the Tough White Girl, her daughter looking like a stripper; Malik, drunk, pill pusher, sleeping with the owner's wife etc; Tosha's lover some kid with his pants sagging. Tee Tee, all of a sudden, he's the man with his own business. All of this is too much, way too soon.

Can you please go back to the original writing, or writer. It was much better, all of this is ridiculously unbelievable, and if it keeps going in this direction, The Game will be cancelled again before you know it. I would hate for that to happen because it is a FABULOUS SHOW; BUT THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE, not the new scripts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.41.34 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realize this is not the place to contact the series' creators about the show? In fact, this isn't the place to discuss the ACTUAL show. Just the article. TwoBitSpecialist (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

fix special appearance section

Please with this section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(U.S._TV_series)#Special_guest_appearances.
Make it 4 columns. I tried with { { col } } { { col=2 } } { { col-4 } } but it doesnt work.
Thank You. 75.105.57.149 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. The {{div col|4}} template already produces four columns, without any need for column separators. Huon (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. it is a long list not a 4 column list. 75.105.57.149 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's four columns for me. I'll leave the help request open so someoe else can weigh in, but this may be an issue at your end. Have you tried reloading the page? Huon (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's correctly formatted and displayed as a four-column list. Try purging the page (click here to do so); that should show you the most current version. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I see it as 4 ccolumns now. Huon, Yunshui thank you. 75.105.57.149 (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

malik kiara tongtherBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.47.190 (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sequel Series but also new season?

I removed the Sequel Series section due its confusing language that can't tell apart a revival series from a new season. The section also contained unreferenced, original research and was written from a Fan POV.Thecleanerand (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Paramount+ now officially markets the revival series as being separate from The CW / BET run. Thecleanerand (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References