Talk:The Ocean Walker

message: When the narrator says there was three houses of parliment, was that supposed to be a joke? or did the writters actually goof an think there were three houses in parliment instead of two?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.237.75 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a joke but this article does not correct their mistake either. Instead it seeks to justify the error by stating that the House of Lords is composed of two bodies (Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual). It's membership does not discount the fact that it is a single house and the Westminster system is called bicameral for a reason. (Bi meaning 2). Therefore I am going to correct this error.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Queen can hardly be considered a 'House' of Parliament. Although I admit that she is a part of Parliament. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houses of Parliament  goof 

message: :Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.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 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg

message: :Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.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 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg

message: I've started a discussion at the Project Talk page regarding the appropriateness of the "notes" on this page, though it may apply to other AD-related articles as well. My removal of them was reverted because it was felt by the reverting editor that I was making this page inconsistent with other AD article pages. Personally I feel the notes are WP:TRIVIA and that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS scenario. If I don't hear anything back (which seems possible due to low activity levels) I'll try again at some point, I suppose. Honestly I'm not even sure this episode merits an article...there's no sourcing establishing that the episode is in any way notable, and simply being an episode of a television show isn't sufficient. Doniago (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. The reason that Arrested is such a well-regarded program is its density, and the self-referential nature of the show. Not only are the references (many of which have been recently deleted, I'm noticing) the lifeblood of the show, but they are what makes these particular wikipedia articles on them valuable. This is not "unsourced fancruft" as someone said, but rather part of the tapestry of the program itself. If a separate List of recurring jokes in Arrested Development article needs to start, then so be it, but given a lot of the minutiae I've seen on Wiki for other fanboy-heavy wikis, to remove them with no other reference to them renders Wikipedia little more than a link farm for this purpose. Bill shannon (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notes"