Talk:Weird Science (TV series)

Accurate easily verifiable objective facts

"The TV series is in fact much more sophisticated than the Movie, and shows the huge potential of a good combination of comedy with Science Fiction, and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever. For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated. According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication is that its writers were originally a surprisingly gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose."

That amount of hyperbole does more to discredit the show than any amount of weak sauce praise. And using www.jumptheshark.com as a resource just *might* be worse than listing Wikipedia on an essay for history class.

Don't think I'm being "brutal", it's just that the evisceration of NPOV drastically cuts into the text, because when you get to the crux of it that's all this article actually is. Genuine details and info into the show would make your case a lot better. Papacha 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that alot of this violates NPOV since a good portion of it is highly opinionated and draws upon the editor's personal views on the show. Although I remember watching a good portion of these episodes long ago on USA and Fox Family channel and rather enjoying them through the course, the mention on how the fans feel about the show seems redundant to the fact that it's prolly on their favourite shows list already unless a citation is created to support this claim.

Frankly, citations should be found and this article rewritten not to reflect on a sort-of tone coming out of a fan persay.. Simply something nicely neutral and informative as say the Doctor Who article, although despite its being rather long is still a good example.

DrWho42 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the Plot section, GO AWAY

I deleted the entire plot section. Holy shit have I not seen a more amateurish, grammatically horrible, opinionated, and entirely un-encyclopedic article! Stop posting here, fanboy. I'll leave it to others to replace the empty space with something useful. Of course I don't think there should be a "plot" section at all, since the show has no plot besides the movie's. CGameProgrammer 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that a single person posted the entire plot section? Obviously the first paragraph with the grammatical errors was written by someone entirely different from the person who wrote the second paragraph. Anyway, stating that the show has no plot besides the movie's is completely wrong and shows that you obviously are not familiar at all with the series and, in short, you don't know what you are talking about. So I suggest that you go and post elsewhere on subjects that you are at least familiar with. Anyway, I removed the problematic 1st paragraph. 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so. I was frustrated because I had already deleted the overexcited fanboy part and that person had since reverted my edit. CGameProgrammer 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a strange criterion. The series has the same premise as the feature, true; if that were grounds for not elaborating here, why not merge the articles? (That proposal was rejected, I believe.) On another hand, each episode has its own plot. —Tamfang 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The first bit could be used for the first episode's Plot section if we do get around to making individual episode articles. DrWho42 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Each episode has a plot, yes, that's obvious. But this isn't an article on the individual episodes. Furthermore, the premise was labeled "Plot". A premise section is fine if it's brief and well-written. CGameProgrammer 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions deleted for the fourth time (and counting)

The highly opinionated and totally unprofessional plot section has been deleted once again. Hey geniuses, you can't list references for opinions, only for facts. In all of history, there has never been a sophisticated or hilarious play, book, movie, TV show, etc. Instead, people perceive them as being sophisticated or hilarious, but those are opinions -- they are not facts. Opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Look at the articles on The Simpsons, South Park, CSI, The Sopranos, etc. Those are good shows, right? Well, guess what -- nowhere do those articles say the show is good, or funny, or sophisticated. They only list facts. CGameProgrammer 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very easy to measure objectively for example the level of sophistication and/or other parameters according to a clear set of criteria. And the fact that this TV series is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever is an objective verifiable and well-referenced fact. 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot measure sophistication; it's subjective. And you cannot consider message boards to be a reference for anything; that's absurd. Every single decent TV show has fans that consider it the most brilliant show ever; who cares? It's irrelevant. You can say the show was popular, well-received, or critically acclaimed, except that, well, it wasn't. Sure it has fans, such as myself, but it wasn't very popular. They haven't even bothered releasing it on DVD. CGameProgrammer 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fifth time now - Let's go over this, shall we?

I will point out the flaw in every sentence/clause:

The TV series is in fact much more sophisticated than the Movie

No, this is an opinion. Can you prove it's more sophisticated? No. You can prove that some people think it is, and some people think it isn't, and that's because it's an opinion.

Yes it can be very easily measured objectively even by simply counting a list of objective criteria in the best episodes of the series and in the movie and comparing them. No one who has seen both the TV series and the movie would even think about raising this question or arguing about this point. Obviously you have apparently seen neither, as indicated also by your previous statement about the plot. So GO AND EDIT SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.29.138 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

and shows the huge potential of a good combination of comedy with Science Fiction

Uh, this is not science fiction. It's fantasy. There's no science here, just magic. Look up science fiction.

I agree that it is also fantasy, but it does also qualify as science fiction because a scientific explanation is given for Lisa's powers and because various episodes involve typical SF themes, such as for example Time Travel, Alien abductions, Startrek, etc. Again, apparently you don’t know this because you are not familiar with the series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.29.138 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever

Nearly every show has its fans that consider it the best show ever, and its detractors that consider it the worst.

No True. There are not many shows for which you can say that. Normally people might like a show for various reasons but they rarely say that it is one of the brightest shows ever. This case is special and you would probably understand why if you had seen at least some of the best episodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.29.138 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

(see for example [2][3][4])

This was my favorite. One reference is a website for people to list their opinions on when a show went bad. Another is a message board for people to list their opinions. The third is a fan's personal shrine to the show. This, folks, is comedy.

This is indeed a reference to opinions of fans and it is therefore quoted as such. The fact is that fans have this opinion, and that it is not something trivial or common. i.e., it carries a special information value in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.29.138 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated.

That's an opinion.

Yes, but it can easily be verified objectively by a list of objective criteria which show for example the level of sophistication indicators and other factors. It can also be verified by running a poll on this among people who saw it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.29.138 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication

Uh, that website is a place for people to list their opinions. It's not a source of anything. Sigh. CGameProgrammer 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a source like any other normal web page which is quoted in any other Wikipedia article. It is quoted once for supporting a sentence that describes what fans think about the show – which is quite correct use of this reference, and next for quoting some fact about the writers of the show. If you question what is said there about the writers being a gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose, then you can similarly question many facts described in many normal web pages quoted in Wikipedia. 06:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK anonymous, you just don't get it. I am RfCing this article. CGameProgrammer 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Opinions on the show

This is a dispute about the presentation of opinions as fact, the relevancy of including them at all, and the use of fan sites and message boards as references. The following text has been repeatedly removed and readded by various parties about five or six times:

The TV series is in fact much more sophisticated than the Movie, and shows the huge potential of a good combination of comedy with Science Fiction, and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever (see for example [1][2][3]). For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated. According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication is that its writers were originally a surprisingly gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose.

This entire Talk page has basically been devoted to arguing over this excerpt. 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There can be no mistaking fan sites, bulletin boards, or blogs for reliable sources. Although it may be a fact that several fans of the show think it's the greatest show ever, that kind of information has no place in an encyclopedia, especially if there is no reliable source for it (i.e. a peer-reviewed survey of viewers published in a journal). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards,_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet for more info on this point. Furthermore, the subjective claim about "good combinations of comedy with Science Fiction" is unverifiable. I'd like to hear from the people who are in favour of including this information, because this really should be a no-brainer. BFD1 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the arguments made by User:84.94.29.138, I have one thing to add. Saying that a fact "can easily be verified objectively" is useless. The point of WP:V is that facts must be verified, not that they must be verifiable. User:84.94.29.138 is confusing two very different things. BFD1 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources is wide and vague and open to subjective interpretation and definitely does not require it to be for example a refereed journal. And there is apparently a good reason why whoever wrote these guidelines did this: because requiring more strict “reliability” would lose a huge amount of information which is available on the Internet – in fact probably most of it. Therefore, a huge amount of sources quoted in Wikipedia are normal web pages (at least when dealing with subjects which are not scientific by definition), and that remains so until someone shows that it is wrong and quotes contradicting references. Simply removing the disputed paragraph does not improve the article. In the above example it strips it of all the essence and leaves it uninformative and shallow. Anyone who reads this article without it would remain clueless about what is special about this TV series, and without this added explanation would think, following the first paragraph, that in general there is nothing more to it than the film. This is clearly wrong and misleading. So if you have some reservations about this paragraph you may suggest adding a few qualifying words, but removing the information is not the solution. 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: I hear you, and your point is well made. There is indeed a bit of wiggle room with RS, but it still does not allow bulletin boards (such as www.jumptheshark.com) to be used as sources. So that sentence must go, period. Next, you have not addressed the fact that the whole paragraph espouses a non-neutral point of view, namely that the show is really good. Let me edit your paragraph for neutrality:

• • The TV series is different from the Movie, though it does combine comedy with Science Fiction‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . and is considered by many fans to be one of the most brilliant shows ever (see for example [2][3][4]). For example episodes such as Party High, Sex Ed, and Lucky Suit are hilarious and very sophisticated. According to http://www.jumptheshark.com/w/weirdscience.htm, one of the main reasons for its high sophistication is that its writers were originally a surprisingly gifted bunch with many former staffers from Parker Lewis Can't Lose. A comprehensive episode guide is available at tv.com [5].

Does editing your paragraph in the above way leave it "shallow"? Unfortunately, yes, and it has to be this way until better sources come along. The only thing that can be included is that there is a comprehensive episode guide, because that information comes from a reliable source, and is written using a neutral point of view. If we were to include the paragraph in its unedited form, this article is no longer encyclopedic, it is very poorly sourced advertisement -- and that simply cannot be allowed. I'm sorry, I know you're especially keen on this show, but these are the rules of wikipedia (See Five Pillars of Wikipedia). If you still cannot accept those rules then I think your writing skills and zeal are much better spent on a personal website elsewhere, where you can have things your way. BFD1 12:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Response (to anonymous): It's true that this article has little information, but the opinions presented as fact only succeed in making it worse. Just because a bunch of people believe something, that doesn't make it true. For example, I love The Simpsons, Futurama, Venture Bros., and Scrubs, and I and many other people find them hilarious, but I would never allow an encyclopedia entry to describe them as such, because that's an opinion, not a fact. It's totally irrelevant how many people find them funny. CGameProgrammer 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Write, do not delete

It had been a continious dispute about a single paragraph, I think nobody should delete parts from an article, If is not willed to rewrite it. At least the person who wrote it originally took the time to do it, It's not fair just to delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madferret96 (talk • contribs) .

Some things simply don't belong in an encyclopedia no matter how they are written. BFD1 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From RFC

Just saw this on RFC so I thought I'd drop by. Has the dispute been resolved at this point? I don't see any unsubstantiated claims in the article at the moment, though it could be beefed up a bit. E. Ripley 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For awhile it went on about how clever the show was. —Tamfang 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, definitely not appropriate. Hopefully that won't creep back in. I've watchlisted the article. — ripley/talk 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked this talk page. It appears that the POV problems have been resolved. I'm going to remove the POV tag. Val42 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chett

I changed "ex-Marine" to "Marine-wannabe": unless I'm misremembering, it was established at some point that the Marines didn't take him. —Tamfang 06:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

number of episodes

...the show ran for five seasons on the USA Network for a total of 88 episodes. However, new episodes ceased airing in 1997 with the final six still unaired.

I had to go check whether this meant that USA showed 82 episodes out of 88, or 88 out of 94. How can it be worded better? —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)