Talk:Weird Science (TV series)

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Whoever wrote the Plot section, GO AWAY 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Opinions deleted for the fourth time (and counting) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fifth time now - Let's go over this, shall we? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Write, do not delete 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chett 

message: : ...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)
thread_title:  number of episodes