Talk:MythBusters (2003 season)

message: This is as a reference for people who are editing sections only and not the entire page (they won't be able to see it). It's referenced to from the source. --hao2lian
NOTE FOR THIS TABLE:
* Busted myths should be marked red
* Confirmed myths should be marked green
* Plausible myths should be marked orange
* Any myths tested with inconclusive results or need to be declared in mixed form (Plausible/Busted) should be marked blue
* Do not leave the note field empty. Add a simple hyphen ("-") to fill the space. Also, always try to fill in any note fields which are empty (the more info, the better).
* Be sure to correctly nest myths which include several different trials (see the example on the cola myth)
* If you'd like to suggest a different format for this list, please do so on the talk page.
:Note: I added a note that states that "True" was used instead of "confirmed" on the first season (at least the episodes I've seen - for instance, I know the microwave ep used "true"). For the sake of consistency, let's refer to confirmed myths as confirmed, to match the other four seasons - but keep the note that says that "true" was used in season 1. If someone can verify when they switched from "true" to "confirmed", that'd be helpful. TenPoundHammer 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for editing the episode table 

message: I think that the big table is quite difficult to read. I'd rather split the single table into separate tables—one for each episode—with the episode title/date/etc as a section header. That way, the tables would have only 3 columns. Also, we might reconsider using the wikitable class on the tables. --Fred Bradstadt 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Go right ahead. I'm going to start dealing with redirects.--Drat (Talk) 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on the conversion tomorrow.--Drat (Talk) 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the table into separate episodes? 

message: It should either all be in present tense, or past tense, not both.
Maeglin 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent tenses 

message: *Before they started testing the myth, they show some old bridge (black and white movie) from something like the 50s, that people attempted to destroy it by putting heavy loads on it - didn't work, air strike - missed, artillery - didn't do the job and finnaly they used explosives. So my question is - what's the name of that bridge and where it was located? if you have more info/pics about it'll be great.--212.25.75.36 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Galloping Gertie". TenPoundHammer 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the bridge in question.  He was talking about the concrete or masonry bridge that took a great deal of effort to demolish, NOT the old Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge, which collapsed due to wind.  I believe they showed the film sometime during the course of the episode, not necessarily at the beginning. --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A question regarding Episode 12 - Breakstep bridge

message: What were the MythBusters trying to prove in this episode? Was it that jet wash could be enough to overturn a car? Or was it that the output of a jet engine was enough to overturn a car? Top Gear were able to verify the latter, but not the former.
One difference between Mythbusters and Top Gear was that Mythbusters used a 737, while Top Gear used a 747.
They also admitted this myth was confirmed and showed the video from Brazil where a taxi cab was blown over. Their only limit as to why it could not be properly reproduced was due to legalities and Insurances reasons. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode where Tori, Kari, and Grant confirm the myth was in Supersized Myths in season 6, NOT the season 1 episode.  The article deals with the verdict in the season 1 episode, which was Plausible in that episode because they could not actually confirm the myth with hard evidence (i.e. in the test, the car did not flip). --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jet wash

message: Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season subdivision, reference 

message: Apart from the episode overview section, nothing in this article has a source. Where are the show results coming from, original research? As this appears to be the case with every article on a season of MythBusters, would this be better brought up in the MythBusters group discussion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.205.190 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The results come from the episodes themselves, which are primary sources so it's not OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results' Sources? 

message: "It is possible to build a super-microwave by aligning four magnetrons around a metal box. 	Busted (unofficially) 	If there is a proper method to build one, the method used in the show is not it. After a glass of water was exposed to the "super microwave"'s magnetrons for thirty seconds, a thermometer found that the temperature of the water had actually dropped by two degrees Fahrenheit(1.1°C)."
IIRC seeing the episode it was quickly clear that they hadn't a clue what they were doing, thus produced a non-working machine, as the results prove. Basic electronic engineering skills make it clear that such a machine can be successfully made.
The result on the page could reflect this more clearly, eg by saying that they failed to get their microwave functional, thus could not reach any valid conclusion.
Tabby (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super microwave 

message: I believe since the pilot episodes are from the year 2003, it would be more logical to include them in the 2003 season list. Why would the pilots be an exception? You cannot just define your own exceptions. You have to stay consistent, which it is not currently. Even if there are long pauses of episodes in a year, on Wikipedia it is still categorized in the same year (for MythBusters, that is). They can still be distinctly marked as a pilot, but the pilot episode page is fairly small. It contains nothing notable enough to separate it from the 2003 season. Also, the list on Discovery's website here (which is used as a reference on both pages) shows them all in the same season, without mentioning pilots or a pilot season. Many other websites also include the pilots with the 2003 season. This includes the Spanish Wikipedia entry. Although the page in other languages does have a pilot season, those are nearly exact copies of the English Wikipedia article. The Spanish one is unique. Even though the episodes were made separately from the 2003 season, this is the case for most breaks in MythBusters. Yet it is still classified in the same season. IMDb also lists the pilot episodes with other 2003 episodes. Also, in this video on YouTube, Jamie mentions that season 5 starts with the Hindenburg episode. That is the first episode of 2007, meaning season 1 is 2003, season 2 is 2004, season 3 is 2005, season 4 is 2006, and season 5 is 2007 (like stated in the video). This means that the pilot season is not separate from the 2003 season (when Jamie stated this). Although the video is not 100% reliable, it supports this case. SAJ (T) 08:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The (confusing) changes made today really don't change anything. The pilots may have aired in 2003 but they were aired before the series started. Strictly speaking they shouldn't even be included but it's common practice to note such episodes, clearly establishing them as having aired outside the series. See, for example, the NCIS backdoor pilots. As I'm sure you realise, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, and what happens on the Spanish Wikipedia is really not relevant to any other Wikipedia. If it were, then the fact that other Wikipedias mimic the English Wikipedia would be justification against a merge, or indeed  for changing the Spanish Wikipedia for consistency. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Perhaps reference could be made here to the popular and hilarious Irish song "Why Paddy's not at work today" (author Pat Cooksey, copyright Celtic Music), in which an Irish building worker encounters a barrel of bricks several times in both directions, leaving him with bruises, broken ribs and other injuries.188.230.248.85 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrel of Bricks