Talk:Californication (TV series)

message: Im not a native english speaker, but isnt the sentence bogus, i mean grammatically?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.83.66 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be a little better now. CohenMD (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence of Article 

message: The term is not a "portmanteau of California and fornication" but rather a term to describe the metamorphosis of something, particularly cultural, into the ways or ideals of California. I wish to see the fornication reference removed. Anyone agree?
24.61.129.48 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah, it's Califonia and fornication. Otherwise it would probably be Califoniacation (with an "a"). Just look at the content of the show. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 08:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The term "Californication" 

message: Is this show sponsored by the cigarette industry?  It appears to be blatantly pushing cigarettes.  The scene blocking revolves around cigarette antics.  David puts his cigarette out in holy water.  He gives a lit cigarette to a child - who subsequently smokes it.  He can't get his lighter to light over too long  a time to be natural.  The list goes on.  In fact, he does everything with a cigarette except inhale.  The camera always cuts away for that. 
The main message of this show seems to be, smoke, drink, and you can have a great life with lots of sex.  It's like a 30 minute version of the cigarette commercials that at one time were shown on television in between cartoons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking 

message: "Tom Kapinos, former manager at Blockbuster and long time resident of Long Island has been writing creatively in California for over a decade. Tom was born on July 12, 1969."
This doesn't belong on the main page but is a start for someone who wants to write an article on him. WindsorFan 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kapinos bio 

message: I originally added the mention of Slayer albums as Hank's book titles.  It was then edited to include the context, which was great, but I changed the book names back to italics, from quotes, which is the proper style.  And I also massaged the phrasing a little.
Stormj 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture References 

message: Why were these deleted? IanLamberson 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find out who got rid of them I can take a look into it. I think the episode synopses should remain, too. ScarianTalk 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californication_%28TV_series%29&diff=next&oldid=158887274 *one more night*talk/contribs 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! ScarianTalk 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See The Sopranos for reference. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course, I understand now. Thanks for pointing that out. But to be a bit logical, Soprano's has 86 episodes whilst little Californication here has a mere 12 for now. Oh, I was looking through some of the episode articles, a little heads up might be in order as they may all receive the same fate as the X-Files episodes(Being deleted for not expressing notability). ScarianTalk 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that, and it is a concern of mine. I hope, when I have some more free time to expand the articles significantly. (I hope other editors will, as well!) For now, my hope is to fly under the radar, so to speak, of the deletionists. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem before was that there was no reference to the episodes whatsoever. I wasn't aware that there was a separate article for them because it wasn't linked. It's all good now though. :) *one more night*talk/contribs 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was linked. In the infobox it says "No. of episodes 12 (List of episodes)" but it could be more clear. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode synopsis 

message: ... amazingly terrible. Except for a seemingly random lists of items relevant to "popular culture", it says nothing about the show. Surely we can do better than this? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have to agree but for different reasons.  It reads like an advertisement for the show. --Mokru 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is... 

message: :Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale is there you damned dirty bot. — 60.241.67.229 12:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg

message: Hi, I just added two links to this page and they where deleted. I do know that these links will have nothing to do with the pageranks and that is not why I added them. The website and forum I added are the only fansites out there and they are information sources and places people can come together and talk. 
Please let me know if I can add the links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwidegirl86 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated at WP:LINKS, links to discussion forums are not allowed.V-train 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website has no content, merely a link to the forum. The forum, as noted above, isn't allowed per WP:EL. Beyond that, it only has 6 registered members so it isn't as though it is a high traffic website. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links deleted 

message: :Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg

message: Bit concerned that the reaction section concerns itself disproportionaly with the reaction of the religious right in the US, and Australaia, it almost reads as if this the only reaction worth mentioning when these groups are actually just a tiny minority of the potential audience and also as the reaction is likely to actually represent the views not of these groups but of the few individuals that have actually watched the program. Suggest the reactions are removed or supplementented with a large number of reactions from the mainstream.--82.69.113.120 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's probably a good chance that the only reactions [Negative] were from the far religious right. But I do agree, there should be a balance between favourable and not-so-favourable reactions. I'll have a look tomorrow. ScarianTalk 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reaction 

message: The sentence about the lawsuit by the Red Hot Chili Peppers seems biased.  It only states the accusations of the band and does not include the fact that Californication is a term that has been used for decades.  There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the term with references of its use going back to the 40s.  TIME magazine had an article published on August 21st, 1972 titled "The Great Wild Californicated West" that used the term.  Also, there is no mention of the fact that the Red Hot Chili Peppers never trademarked the term they claim to be their "signature".
-- What happened to this lawsuit? There's more to the lawsuit than just the tile Californication (such as the character of Dani California).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.241.38 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal action by the Red Hot Chili Peppers 

message: I removed this section from trivia: 
*In Episode 8, there is a scene when Hank Moody is with his father while on the set of a film production and is having an argument with the director. The scene intimates that Moody is the writer of the film Risky Business,  as a Tom Cruise character can be clearly seen, in a typical cruise pose, on the screens behind him and a Rebecca De Mornay character is then introduced to Moody's father.
(obviously both this and my reply constitute "original research" but I wrote it to explain my actions to the poster in the name of fairness) Actually, the flashback is to the filming of "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" the movie that was made from Moody's anti-God book. Yes, the actor is supposed to make us think of Cruise, but it's not "Risky Business."  Been a few weeks, so I can't remember the blond, but on the monitors you also see the Katie Holmes lookalike.
This is a prime example of why the "no original research" rule is in effect - the poster provides no documentation. It's like in a few years there will be folks who will claim that the line "I like it when balls are in my face" from 40 Year Old Virgin is a reference to "Borat" when in fact Virgin came out a year before.  SteveCoppock (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Risky Business removal

message: I think this whole section needs to be either:
:A) Removed entirely per WP:TRIVIA as it's just random unsourced "information"
:Or 
:B) Condensed and cut down to things we can source and prove.
Basically, what happens is, users come along and add their own WP:OR observations. I just think it needs to be removed entirely or cut down. Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think pop culture references saturate the show and should be noted. Obviously, the OR nature of the section leaves a lot to be desired. I think the best way to deal with a pop cultrue section is to de-trivialise it by converting it from list to prose and condensing the items thematically. Items such as direct song references would be an example of one such potential paragraph. What this could really use is sourced third party discussion of the content. Skomorokh incite 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you Skomorokh. I'll try and bring up a list of the more important points in that section when I have time and we can sift through them. Thanks for the reply, friend! ScarianCall me Pat 08:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems pretty good to me. I'll have a go at that tomorrow! Thanks for the suggestion! ScarianCall me Pat 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been bold and removed the entire section. There are no references, as it stands now it's just a section full of original research and lists of episode/album titles and trivia. Dayewalker (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Popular Culture section

message: It was my understanding that season 2 is tentatively slated for a Summer 2008 release, as the source from Showtime says.  It said "Summer" a week ago, and I think someone just decided to substitute that for "Fall" without supplying a source.  Right now the source for it coming out in the fall is the source that was there before which talks about it possibly airing this summer.Larphenflorp (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. As the ref says summer, i have reverted the edit. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 06:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think the average Wikipedian has a big grudge on internet piracy. I know i don't. This information can be added to the article, however, for crucial details like this, a source should be found. One that is reliable (something like torrentfreak I guess), but without download-links would probably the most appropriate choice. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems somewhat noteworthy simply because they leaked prior to airing, and two no less, though that could just be me (I thought shows leaked after airing).  Regardless, I always see the articles for albums mentioning a "leak", so it seems worth mentioning here.  A person could just as easily read the editing page as the article itself, though I would guess that most people probably just read the article.  Also, those who are already predisposed to downloading media illegally most likely know already or will know soon enough with or without Wikipedia.  But yeah, it doesn't add much to the article anyway, so I suppose leaving it out definitely won't hurt.  Also, I guess it's not worth going to every article on every popular show that airs on TV and point out that it's available to download illegally.Larphenflorp (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season Two 

message: This section reads like a press release with no sources cited for all the quotes. I'm tempted to remove the entire thing. Davhorn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alterntively, you could roll up your sleeves and find a few citations, Dav. That's usually how it works. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Towards that end, after I wrote that, I expanded it somewhat. Go ahead and pitch in, Dav. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: The official website does not state their last name. However, on the show Mia's last name is said to be Cross. It's being displayed on her book F&P.
I have changed the names two times. Someone changed it to "Gross" and now it's back to Lewis. Does anyone have a source saying the last name is Lewis?
I'm planning to edit the page again. But it does not make a lot of difference if someone makes the changes undone again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilcrepus (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The surname was originally "Cross" and episode 3 of season 1 shows an invitation for Karen's and Bill's wedding displaying that name.  By the time of the 4th season the surname has been changed to Lewis and is mentioned a few times during the course of Hank's trial.  I have not seen any explanation for the name change.  --BenM (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last name of Bill & Mia 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

message: I added Quebec in the Airtimes worldwide section, since diffusion began last week. However, I don't know if I should have made some kind of subdivision in Canada or if it must be in its own row. Since I do not know how to do the primer, feel free to correct me.
66.130.156.83 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quebec

message: Has anyone heard anything about this?  http://www.amazon.com/God-Hates-All-Hank-Moody/dp/1416598235  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.128.242 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: God Hates Us All

message: The section about the reception of the show talks about how it is mostly well-received, but then gives no examples of good reviews. Instead it talks at length about boycotts in Australia of all places (I suppose because it requires advertisements over there as oppose to on Showtime in the US). Since the series is well-received, the positive critical attention should be more fleshed out, and the boycotts might make for another section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.102.129 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section limited 

message: I propose that List of awards and nominations received by Californication be merged into this article for the simple reason that there is not enough content in the article to warrant its own article. Moreover, there is plenty of room in this main Californication episode.
121.209.235.20 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of awards/nominations 

message: I recently heard that Madeline Zima will not return for the full season. Heir character is on a cross-country tour for "her" novel. Saemikneu (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 

message: I was just reading the article (just recently became a fan) and some suggestions occurred to me after reading the Season 3 summary.  I considered making the edits myself, but being a recent fan, I don't think I have enough information. I thought someone whose watched the season(s) more than once (who perhaps owns the DVDs and has read more reference-able supporting material like interviews and such) might take a stab:
* The season 3 summary seems overly detailed/focused on the events of the last episode, making up more than half of the section.  Contrast this to the season 2 summary that seems to summarize the events of the season more evenly.
* The season 3 summary seems focused on Hank and doesn't summarize the events surround the other main characters.  Contrast this to the season 2 summary that seems more well-balanced with respect to the plot lines of the other characters. [The season 1 summary also seems to omit the events around the other characters.]
* The season 3 summary isn't replicated on the List of episodes pages like the other seasons' summaries.
71.171.84.234 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Is Karen supposed to have an accent?  If not, she really needs to work on it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.17.169 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last episode of Season 3 

message: "On January 14, 2011, the show was renewed for a fifth season.[2][3]"
That's not true, and neither of the referenced links prove otherwise. Last episode of the fourth season, I think pretty much wraps everything up for the entire series. I don't think there will be a fifth season at all.
Mr. Leinad (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth season claim 

message: I've noticed in episode 5 of season 1, at the interview for a radiostation, that the interviewer introduced Hank as the author of "South of Heaven", "Season in the Abyss" and "God hates us all"; these are all 3 albums from thrash-metal band Slayer. I'd like to add it but I'm afraid to mess the page up. Jeanskizor (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a citation for that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  the interviewer??? That was Henry Rollins! 199.83.223.64 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I was unclear. What I meant is a reference wherein someone notes that the names of Hank's novels being the same as being Slayer album titles. Without a citation, it is seen as you taking two different pieces of information and drawing a connection between the two. We don't allow that, as we ourselves are not citable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Slayer references

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Californication (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325094259/http://www.ereader.com/ebooks/b94706/?si=59 to http://www.ereader.com/ebooks/b94706/?si=59
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Californication (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205013256/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i811727a8754c8b9b181786690625d396 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i811727a8754c8b9b181786690625d396
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5m2lEZqVv to http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081223204340/http://www.broadcastingcable.com:80/article/CA6623201.html to http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6623201.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Californication (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715055109/http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/showtime-releases-premiere-dates-for-3-series.html to http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/showtime-releases-premiere-dates-for-3-series.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104052401/http://www.californicationtvsoundtrack.com/ to http://californicationtvsoundtrack.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104052401/http://www.californicationtvsoundtrack.com/ to http://californicationtvsoundtrack.com/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130202084743/http://www.sho.com/site/californication/schedule.sho to http://www.sho.com/site/californication/schedule.sho
*Added  tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-23/living/tf.tv.guys.to.avoid_1_cbt-mad-men-tv
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified