Talk:The Chaser's War on Everything/Archive 2

message: We probably should wait for the actual episode, but Sophia Loren getting Mr 10 question'd has gotten a lot of attention. Noteworthy? ~ Logging in is for the unexciting
: dont think so, we would consider it when the footage is actually show, this is an encyclopaedia, dont think spoilers are appropriate Jasewase 10:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for future reference, spoilers aren't a problem to Wikipedia, so long as they are from a reliable source (ie. studio press release or interview in a newspaper article is fine - a rumours website or forum isn't). -- Chuq (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia Loren 

message: Third showing. Does that mean it gets listed now? Chewbacca1010 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No even the cast admits its an "increasingly occasional segment". now that ive divided the segments up, im not even sure if life was a musical, osama bin laden should be a prominent segment. Jasewase 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Have We Learnt From History? 

message: If anyone knows, I'd love to know why only Australian viewers are allowed to view the video casts. Chris Fletcher  06:52, May 22, 2007 (UTC)
:This page is not a discussion forum for The Chaser's War on Everything. Please do not discuss issues related to the topic here. –Sebi ~ 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer your query anyway. It's to do with the current Australian copyright laws and the show features music and other copyrighted material that is only legally allowed to be shown in Australia. Offering the vodcast to everyone across the world is breach of copyright. Hopes this clears things up. --Lakeyboy 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm in Canada, and I managed to download their podcasts last season. I switched to torrents because the quality overall, is better then their podcast. Chewbacca1010 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this perfectly illustrates the idea of breaching copyright. good job Kiran90 06:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So get the RIAA or the MPAA on my anonymous ass then, if you're so concerned. It's not as though I can watch the episodes when they first air anyhow, since I'm not in Australia. Jeez! Chewbacca1010 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe its to do with the fact that the ABC is a government funded television station, and the copyright stuff to do with he songs and footage shown in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey88 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Oz only? 

message: In the introduction it is stated that the name of the show is often shortened to 'The War' by the cast.  I can't recall this ever being used as an abbreviation but I can recall it often being abbreviated to 'The Chaser'.  Is the comment about 'The War' correct? Afterwriting 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Most episodes start off with "Welcome to The War for another week." --Richmeistertalk 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when they refer to it as "The War" in that context they are refering to the small "battles" they "fight" as opposed to the show as a whole. EDIT: As in, "Welcome to the war we are fighting," as opposed to "Welcome to the Chaser's War on Everything," if that makes sense. Chewbacca1010 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood it as referring to the show, as Richmeister says above.  It makes no sense abbreviating it to 'The Chaser' because that is the name of the group (as well as the newspaper) which would cause confusion. -- Chuq (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont see any need to have it on the page at all, it doesnt contribute to anythingKiran90 06:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The group are the Chaser and the show is the War (hence it's their 'War on Everything', and hence why they welcome viewers to 'the War'). However, I've heard the show referred to in general discussion as everything from 'the Chasers', 'Chasers War', 'Chaser' and so on right up to the full title, but never just 'the War'. Perhaps the line should read: "often shortened to The Chaser by viewers, and The War by cast". It's something of a compromise in any case. DirectEdge 09:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show's name abbreviation 

message: Recently, The Chaser targeted donationss being sent to the government. You know, where Chas sent heaps of cheques to the Australian and NSW governments, and then went following them to "thank" them. Some body please add this in. --Pezzar 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find information on that segment on this page , under episode 35. I don't think it was notable enough to be included under the controversies section, nor is it part of any recurring segment. Recurring dreams 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Goverment donation dilemma 

message: I've quick-failed the article's GA nomination since all of the articles either lack a fair-use rationale, source information, or both.  Please addess these issues before renominating the article. Drewcifer3000 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: i think the article should be semi-protected for a short time (before this wednesday's episode) for obvious reasons. Jasewase 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed Muzzamo 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. It's already been vandalised due to heightened attention after the APEC stunt. DirectEdge 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if y'all think that's necessary, then one of you needs to do the necessary here:  Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now requested that the page be semi-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stickeylabel 09:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The request has been granted, and semi-protection will be enforced for a period of seven days. Hopefully this will negate the possibility of vandalism. Stickeylabel 11:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: I personally feel that this heading is a little misleading, suggesting an analysis or comment on how the Chaser boys have impacted on society rather than the highlighting of some of their more controversial stunts. Perhaps we should rename the section, 'Controversies' or something. DirectEdge 05:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have now changed to section to 'Controversy' accordingly. Stickeylabel 08:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Societal Impact" 

message: Hi all, 
Hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but I cleaned up the broadcast section a bit - it kept repeating itself (I think it mentioned the fact 'The Chaser broadcasts at 9pm/prime time' four or five times.) Apart from that, I really like the article, well done :)
I also removed  the line which referred to the fact the Chaser had apparently hurt channel seven's 'heroes.' Two reasons, one I think that's pretty speculative (yes I read the source, but that itself was speculative, frankly I think the fact channel seven tried to take on both House and the Chaser when they were there first was the reason for Heroes getting crunched, but thats just me) and two, I honestly don't think it's relevent. Sounds more like bragging then worthwhile. However, if people genuinely want it back in then go nuts. Cheers GreenGopher 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know its a small thing but its bugging me but could someone fix the aspect ratio statment for the dvd releases to the correct value of 1.78:1 Humie64 07:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: it's either 4:3 or 16:9. or thats what i thought Jasewase 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning

message: I find it hard to distinguish the green from orange, I'm not colourblind, so if someone could change these to make more easier on the eyes. SpecialWindler  talk (currently ) 08:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no offence but you must be colourblind, but to your request i have changed it to green and purple (one light and one dark, without using red and blue which are used for links) Jasewase 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, its alot better. I just figured it may be my monitor, and its colour resolution. SpecialWindler  talk (currently ) 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: anyone know what happened today at the local court or wherever? on one of the episodes it was mentioned that today (october 4) the chaser team would face the court... Jasewase 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  apec court hearing? 

message: Hi all,
I've started to go through the article to remove a few things. I'm keeping a list as I go, feel free to re-add them in if you think my reasoning is wrong. My thinking is we could cut this article down to size a bit, and perhaps add a sister article entitled 'segments of the chasers war' as per the discussion above, where more detail can be gone into. All 'abandoned' segments could go there, which would remove the clutter from this page.
Anyway, below are the major changes.
- In the final episode of Season One, they presented the "What Have We Learned From Current Affairs This Week Awards", with A Current Affair winning the "Slightly Less Crap Than Today Tonight Award". 
:I removed this... it's a bit trivial, and probably not notable - although it was hilarious, nobody has mentioned it since
- The Ad Roadtest section is conufusing as all hell, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Any suggestions? I would prefer if it gave one solid example and explained it in detail, rather then vaguely referencing three or four. My choice would be the nicobate spoof (no gary no) for two reasons; one it would be easy to explain, and two it has a reference (so it can exmplain if people don't get it.) Something like:
::* "The Ad Roadtest" – The team recreate situations shown in Television Advertisements to see if they would work in real life. An example is the testing of an old Nicorette advertisement, which contained male cheerleaders encouraging an smoker attempting to quit from lighting a cigerrette. In the ad this was successful, however when recreating the situation in real life, the Chaser stunt showed that different results eventuated. 
...yeah even that sounds dodgy, more like a TV promo. But you get the idea.
- In Other News/ The Fixers - I merged this together, although it was a tough call. Essentially, it is the same segment, with a different name and a slighly new twist. It would be appropriate to split in a seperate article perhaps, but for simplicity it probably should me merged in the main article.
I was going to go ahead with supporting segments, but didn't want to step on too many toes. So I'll stop there, and wait for other views. Ta GreenGopher 12:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the piece on other news shouls have been deleted, while it is fine to mention the fixers replaced this segment they are different segments without the exact same content and people should be able to know what in other news was about if they didnt watch it last year  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.134.53 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I reverted a change that include the mention of Mr 10. Questions interviewing Jimbo Wales. Even though there was a reference supplied (one news source) I don't think that this really deserves an inclusion; just because this article happens to be apart of Wikipedia, doesn't immediately mean that this should be included. We don't include a heap of other stunts that Hansen does that receive media coverage, why should this one be any different? I don't want to edit war over this, I'm just stating my points for exclusion of this from the article. ~ Sebi [talk] 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm cool with that.  I thought it was justified, but I see where you're coming from, and the article is getting a bit long. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales part inclusion 

message: Casting an eye over the article, I noticed that barring 'the fixers' there are now only two 'stunts' which are left in purple text - ie appearing only in season one - Famous Face Off & "The 2:30 Report" 
A few months ago the colour differences were useful to compare what was in which season, and there was a pretty even split, but by now pretty much every segment has been in both seasons (or just s2), and those which haven't probably won't be shown in the next six weeks. I'm wondering whether it would be easier on the eye to remove the colours, and just add for the two remaining ex-segments that it was a 'former segement' or something. Thoughts? GreenGopher 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll have a fiddle tomorrow to see what I can come up with GreenGopher 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green & Purple? 

message: Should it be put under controversial incidents?58.168.211.127 06:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has been but yes it should. It has sparked outrage across Australia even causing John Howard and Kevin Rudd to comment on it. --Lakeyboy 06:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha... I downloaded it earlier, obviously just in time :) I don't think you could really say it was more popular or controversial then, say, APEC... the difference is that with APEC everybody knew it was coming, and watched it on TV. This time the news only broke after the ep, thus the servers are crashing retrospectively as they can't watch it on TV. GreenGopher 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was surprised to see that message when I tried to download the episode just before. I'll just have to stick to YouTube highlights until the ABC put it back online. It's notable so I will add it to the section. --Lakeyboy 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eulogy Song 

message: I reverted this revert of my original attempt to remove the section. The only reason it's included in the article is because Hansen said something at the end of an episode. None of the news reports cited in that section mentioned anything that is slightly relevant to The Chaser (if they did, only a mention about what Hansen said). The section is referenced, but that particular stunt (or what the section calls it,  a "well-known stunt") isn't noteworthy (not "non-notable") for inclusion. ~ Sebi [talk] 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube controversy section 

message: Hi im hulkamaniak, i edited the article how today tonight aired a segment on the "eulogy song", the ep it aired on was on wednesday night, and the today tonight article was thursday night, making it one day after the event, yet someone edited it and wrote 2 days earlier  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.230.154 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message added to top and moved to bottom 

message: What justification is that the "Citizens Infringement Officer" part of the "Primary Segment". I wouldn't call it as such. Im my view it has had no more appearence than other characters such as the Spruiker or Warehouse Guy. I will move it unless someone has objections.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: primary segments is meant to mean it is more detailed and the team member(s) perform the segment in front of audience (jokes, analysis etc). when CIO was first created it was like that, but gradually it has just become a stand-alone pre-produced item. and also the removal of colours makes the article look boring now: it's just i was used to it i guess...Jasewase 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary segment 

message: The two scetions on A Current Affair, and Today Tonight are basically pointless. They basically just outline everytime the shows run a piece on The Chaser WOE. But In my own opinion they have no relevence to the article for example:
Today Tonight itself has previously come under fire for set-up stunts for their own show.
What point does it have? I am currently re-writing it to get rid of the irrelevent points (as most of it is.). Its like the Well known stunts/contreversies section. You don't have mention every contreversy, why are we mentioning every time the Chaser appear on ACA and TT.
If anyone wants to see the section before I put it up see: here.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with you, and have replaced it with the stuff in your sandbox.  The old sections were way to crufty, and would be more appropriate in ACA/TT's articles. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in this section it should also mention the show's tv ratings, if possible Jasewase 11:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's a good idea; they change constantly, don't they? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  media impact 

message: I only found two, and uploaded them to WikiCommons. They can be used on Wikipedia below:
*:Image:Julian Morrow at bookstore.jpg (image of Julian Morrow signing books that arne't his)
*:Image:Chaser members doing ad road test.jpg‎ (image of Chas L and Chris T doing ad road test on Godfreys Vaccums at pool tabel).
Hope that helps.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: You've done a great job addressing the points I had brought up.  But, if you have another free use image, why not go ahead now and replace it for one of the existing fairuse pics currently in the article?  That would give you a more solid footing later on at WP:FAC...  At any rate, a job well done.  Not to worry, I will update the tags and the article history stuff on this talk page myself.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bookshop stunt isn't mentioned in the article, so adding the image would violate the IUP...somehow (I know it would, I forget where/how). Thanks for the pass! :) — H2O —  09:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

message: In the segments section, do people think that the Introduction of the show should be mentioned. While not techinically a segment, it still constantly has the same themes (mocking people in recent news) and also has some of the big stuff that they do. While not a segment, it should be mentioned (in my opinion) in "Primary Segments"  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be in primary segments, as it isnt a segment but perhaps it could be listed in recurring themes. 4:42, 29 october  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.128.24 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps we could include a piece about the order of stuff, in general, that could include the introduction and conclusion, things like the fact that the ad road test is usually near the end of the episode and that the fixers is usually end of episode. But i don't believe they should be in segments  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.129.110 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's already overly crufted, and a segment isn't really defined that way... — H2O —  08:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  segments 

message: How are the Tim Freedman parody and Craig Reucassel/Peter Debnam speedos controversial or well known?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.69.149 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it is a "well known" stunt.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversies section