Talk:Numbers (TV series)/Archive 1

message: Has mathematics ever been used in a way similar to what is portrayed in this series? — B.Bryant 13:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathnet is sorta like this. Using math to solve crime. It was on the PBS TV show Square One. Mathnet was a parody of "Dragnet". They were both set in LA too... --Weyoun6 02:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathnet 

message: I've put the information about the characters in this article as there wasn't enough to warrant them having an article each.  It also makes it easier for someone to find out all about the show on the one  page. I've made redirects to here from the pages in case someone looks up the character not the show. --Chammy Koala 16:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: I like the idea of adding the mathematical concepts used in each episode to the list of synopses. I wonder if there's any way to do this that wouldn't 'uglify' the page too much. Perhaps listing them under a "Related Mathematics:" section after each synopsis? Maybe a seperate list entirely? Any thoughts (The Swami 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like the idea of linking in the mathematical concepts - but this is probably best done in line with the text rather than in specific sections. That way, visitors can see more easily how each concept fits in the with episode. Mike Peel 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the title mentioned by The Swami should be "Related mathematics" according to the Wikipedia convention for titles, in the event that someone would make such a section. If the mathematical exposition were to get lengthy, perhaps it would eventually justify its own set of new pages such as NUMB3RS Episode 1 mathematics, etc. — Teratornis 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Math Concepts

message: I don't want to seem grumpy, but it would be nice if credit were given to my web site Running the NUMB3RS for  some of the character and trivia information listed in this article.  I've added a link in the Fan Site area, but still ... it's wiki etiquette to cite sources used. --LadyShelley 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since many people edit these articles, you may want to take a look at the article history and leave a message on the specific user's Talk page.  If you find that information has been taken from your site, feel free to add citations!  Thanks! AySz88^-^ 18:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have, unfortunately, most of the edits are made by anonymous editors, which means I only have an ISP to go by.  The site is there to be used an referenced, I have no issue with the information being used, just that it needs to be noted where the information came from. --LadyShelley 21:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, there has been a lot of changes to the article since the above was posted.... And, ultimately, *all* the information is derived from the show, so chances are there'd be similarities anyway.  AySz88^-^ 04:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Sources

message: Why does the Numb3r Cruncher list link keep getting deleted?  This is a legit list, it does exist; I've also checked the link and it works.  --LadyShelley 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a repository for links. And adding a link to a group that has 300 members is more ego boosting then anything else. Havok (T/C) 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  While this may be true, there were some good fan run sites listed in the fan section that supplemented the wiki article. (And I don't mean just mine, the SDKG site and the Peter MacNichol site are both fan run sites with good information.)  How do you suggest these sites get listed?  --LadyShelley 23:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, Ok I read the notes for the main site about the actor pages, so we are back to what to do about fan-run sites that do offer legitimate information in compliment to the wiki articles.  --LadyShelley 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is not the links themselves, but more who decides which to keep and which to remove. We can not keep all of them. And yes, many fan sites offer substantial information and are well worth the mention, but again, who decides which one? In most cases it derives from which site is "notable"; in this instance it is more likely that someone will find the website www.numb3rs.org then www.yahoo.com/webpage/long/link/numb3rs_fan_club_wee/  Any thoughts about how to better conform to something like this? Havok (T/C) 00:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I think I see where you're going with this. Basically numbers.org is a repository site, with a few other goodies added on, but it also contains links to the yahoo lists and such there.  Folks read the article here, follow the link to there and will theoretically find other Numb3rs sites that way.  Gotcha.  Thanks for the explanation.  :-)   --LadyShelley 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Only happy to help. ;) Havok (T/C) 00:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan Site Links 

message: Most of the pictures in the article are rather dark. Can anyone brighten them up, or maybe replace them with better ones? Sorry I cannot do this myself. Pelago 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider 2/16 to be "most" but I'll try and get to it. Goofyman 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: i changed the title... to put capital letters in a title is out of... how to say it politically correctly? a logo can appear in the article though... kernitou talk 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to point out that the show's name is officially spelt with capital letters, and hence the use of capitals in the title of the page is justified, however it seems that there is a mix of the use of "NUMB3RS" and "Numb3rs" on the internet (there's even such a variation on the official webpage). Unless someone knows for definite that the title should be all capitals, then we should probably keep it in the 'new' lower case form. Mike Peel 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Going off TV Guide, the show is written in all caps, the series name in the credits is in all caps as well.  I can ask Nick and Cheryl for the official word if it's deemed necessary.  --LadyShelley 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title in capital letters 

message: tv.com has the wrong start date.  According to the upfronts info, Numb3rs is not moving from Friday nights (the 19th is a Tuesday). 
zap2it This is the CBS lineup for fall.  We should remove that Sept 19 date I think.
 --LadyShelley 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season Three

message: I added a reference to the TI/NCTM outreach program based on the show, as a way of citing the usage of the concepts by teachers. My apologies for not saying so in the edit summary.--Braindrain0000 04:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing so. There was an entry for the TI program in the Trivia, but it belongs more in the NUMB3RS and Mathematics section than the trivia section, so I've merged it with your reference. Mike Peel 06:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say the offical page, I really don't think there's a whole lot to add to the stub article.  (It might be worthy of deletion all together, there's just not much really write an article.) --LadyShelley 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The closest 'official' answer to this that I can find is from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), which says that "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article" (see Link titles). As long as we have an article on it, I'd say link to that. If we did not have an article on it, I'd put the link to the website in the External Links section. Mike Peel 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TI Math Initiative Added 

message: Following up from Ladida's edits, I think that it would be best to replace the 'Episodes and DVD releases' section with the content of List of NUMB3RS episodes pretty much as it stands. My reasons for suggesting this are as follows:
* There isn't enough content at the moment to justify two pages
* It would reduce duplication of the same information
* The information at the list page would probably be better suited being on this page
What do y'all think? --Mike Peel 14:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the List of NUMB3RS episodes page isn't actually a list of NUMB3RS episodes (it links to the subpages NUMB3RS (Season 1) and NUMB3RS (Season 2)), I'd go along with this idea.  --ScottAlanHill 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we see a test of this to decide?  My only concern is how it will look with the rest of the article, will it make things too cumbersome and the like.  --LadyShelley 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to merge it to the main article so everyone can see how it looks when it's done. Also, I am going to separate the DVD releases and episodes again because I think it would look better like before. See what you think. Ladida 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not discussing the season synopsis move before reverting. I tend to prefer having a short synopsis of a section with a main article, just to provide an introduction to that main article for the reader (so that they know whether they want to read the full article or not). It also looks a bit better than having an empty section with just a main link in it. Following from this, ideally the synopsis on this page should be different from that on the main page for the season - the latter should be a lot longer if possible. So I guess my answer is: it's up to you, I have no preference either way as it currently stands. Mike Peel 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try working something up.  It may be a couple of weeks, swamped at work at the moment, so if anyone else wants to take a stab feel free.  If not, no worries.  The plan would then be to move the little intros in the episode list pages over to the main article and work out a more detailed summary for the episode sections. I'm thinking a paragraph or two, not a detailed list of everything that heppened each season. (If I did that, why bother watching!  LOL)--LadyShelley 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A month has passed and no comment so I went ahead and merged. Cburnett 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in [[List of NUMB3RS episodes]]? 

message: i changed it again > to put the title "Numb3rs" in capital letters (NUMB3RS) is not convenient
so many tv-series have capital letters titels, like
*Alias should be ALIAS in wikipedia
*Dawson's Creek > > > DAWSON'S CREEK
*Friends > > > FRIENDS
*Grey's Anatomy > > > GREY'S ANATOMY
*Lost > > > LOST
*Six Feet Under > > > SIX FEET UNDER
*Star Trek: The Next Generation > > > STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
what would be ridiculous... and these are a few examples !
so please let the title "Numb3rs" to be coherent, thanks kernitou talk 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The move has been reverted by .  mentioned the last time that this happened (#title in capital letters) that she could obtain the official word on this; I have asked her if she can do this on her talk page to get a final decision on the title of this page. Please do not rename the article, or its sub-articles, again until we either get the official word, or consensus is established on this page. Mike Peel 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have written to Cheryl and Nick for the official word on the title.  I'll let y'all know what the verdict is when I get a reply. --LadyShelley 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: many tv-series have capital letters titels <- but very few have numbers (no, that word joke was not intended) in their words. Darkoneko 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I've heard back ... the bad news is who I spoke to is not a fan of the wiki concept and doesn't want any part of the article.  So I'd say we're back to going off the DVD's and the official site that the "correct" presentation for the title is "NUMB3RS" and that's how it should be in the article. For those who insist "Numb3rs" is easier to type, we could have a redirect. --LadyShelley 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dropping by from the project. I haven't watched the show so I'm "neutral" in that respect. According to the CBS site, when they write the title in article text, it's NUMB3RS. Since this seems significant in respect to the code-breaking aspects of the show, I think it's appropriate to keep the article where it is. The title card alone shouldn't be the indicator; for instnace, Six Feet Under uses mixed capitalization on HBO's site.--Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title in capital letters 

message: Checking pages I noticed the follwoing at the top of the Characters in NUMB3RS section:
"This article or section may need to be cleaned up and rewritten because it describes a work of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please edit it according to the guidelines on writing about fiction, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Editing help is available."
So what exactly does this mean?  Do we need to reincorporate this article back into the main NUMB3RS page (which I think is a very BAD idea).  --LadyShelley 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I added the banner because the Characters of NUMB3RS page is currently written in what that page calls an 'in-universe perspective', rather than the preferred 'out-of-universe perspective'. Mike Peel 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I see the point, it going to take some work to get them out of universe.  The box should probably be on all of the character pages then as I think all of them follow the same style.  --LadyShelley 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters in NUMB3RS article 

message: Pardon my sloppy reference, but I think I recall seeing a past episode 
in which one of the characters attributed the 
lack of a Nobel prize in mathematics
to an affair between Nobel's "wife" and a mathematician. Today during random
Wikipedia browsing I learned 
there is no evidence for that claim.
Does this tidbit warrant mention in the article, and would someone
with access to the episode scripts care to track down the exact line? — Teratornis 17:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recall the reference, but can't point to a specific episode. I get the feeling it was episode 14 in season 2, 'Harvest', but I'm not 100% sure, and I don't have the episode to hand to check. Oddly enough, I was thinking about this recently - but couldn't remember where I'd heard the story from. Thanks for the reminder, and the fact-correction. It is probably worth mentioning as an 'errata' under the episode description if you can find the appropriate episode. Mike Peel 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be an 'erratum' if a character simply mentioned it; characters don't have to be omniscient and might very well believe all sorts of wrong things.  List it under Trivia (or whatever) instead. --ScottAlanHill 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to Nobel shutting out mathematicians because of an affair is from Obsession season two.  I don't think it needs to be added to the article at all though. --LadyShelley 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of a Nobel mathematics prize 

message: i stumbled across this thread on the IMDB board about Numb3rs, aparently theres a real discussion of mathematicians, reagarding those who support the show and those who are against it []
Actually, most of the math (and other tech talk) seems nonsense to me.... But nevermind. Some words actually make sense. --217.232.18.242 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what exactly it is you want to say.  The article already states that one of the consultants for the series does question how the math is used in the context of the show.  What more do you really want to add.  I don't think we need to include Prof Silverberg's entire thesis on how mathematics is not used correctly, that's why there is the citation.--LadyShelley 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I criticize is that the section clearly states that the math is correct. The two posts above mine on this discussion page suggests that I'm not the only one who doubt the authenticity of the math in some episodes. I would like the page to say something like "Much of the mathematics presented in the show is real ..." instead of "the equations on the chalkboards are real, and they are indeed applicable to the situations presented in each show." The section should clearly state that the correctness and applicability of the math is debated. The way it is formulated at the moment seems to suggest that the math actually is correct, but that one consultant is whining. Clearly this is not the case, and I think the page should be modified to reflect this. Imraith-Nimphais 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I'm reading the intent differently, I didn't see it as one consultant whining more like one consultant pointing out the errors.  I think we're going down the same path, it's a matter of the wording that needs to be worked out.  Can you post a complete idea here first of how you think the section should be reworded?  I think the section needs to factually accurate as to how well the mathematics is used, at the same time it shouldn't completely slam the series and/or the creators either. --LadyShelley 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I'm sure it wasn't intensional, but the section is a bit ambiguous. Anyway, I'll post a draft in a few days. Imraith-Nimphais 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: does it really get the math right?

message: I've removed the External links section from the article, as it was just collecting Numbers-related spam. None of the websites that were linked to in it were notable or useful (see WP:EL). In general, if the sites are notable, then they should be discussed and referenced in the body of the article. Please do not add the section back, or recreate it/add external links to the article (excluding references, of course), before discussing it/them here. Mike Peel 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike I'm curious, did you put the TV.com link in the info box?  I'm wondering why this site is considered "official" as it is frankly not very useful information. As for the removal all together, I could argue that some of those sites did offer solid information (having the TV.com link there wasn't an issue as an example.) --LadyShelley 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not too sure what the situation is with the "official" links in the infobox; it's probably worth asking that over at WP:TV. If other sites do offer "solid information", then why can't that information (or rather, the parts of that information which are noteworthy) be integrated into the article and a reference to the website given? Users can then look up these references if they want more info/details. Mike Peel 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry, end of year work catch up so fun.  As for citing sources, it would be great if folks did, but let's face it, they aren't.  I think some form of external links is a good idea, we would need to work out specifications on what are good sites to list and note that in the edit field for the section.  Then it would just be a matter of keeping the area up-to-date.  --LadyShelley 00:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Please verify this edit - editor has many vandalism warnings.  Not sure whether to revert.  Thanks.  Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fine - there have been 50 episodes of NUMB3RS thus far. Mike Peel 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes 

message: What happened to the image of the second season DVD cover? --68.224.247.53 03:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the profile of the person who pulled the image, it looks like he removed it because he thought it wasn't available under fair-use rules. Since it's a promo shot, I don't think it should have been removed.  Anyone have a better idea of how promo shots are used in the wiki? --LadyShelley 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Cover 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
NUMB3RS → Numb3rs — This is a no-brainer, but after looking at the talk page I thought it would be better doing the full request. It doesn't matter if the "official" title uses all capitals, WP:MOSCAP and WP:MOSTM says normal capitalization should be used regardless of what the trademark holder wants, I have no problem with the 3 in the title though. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: k.d. lang is another. --LadyShelley 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have shown a precedent to articles that don't follow the so-called rule, I'm not seeing a need to do this. --LadyShelley 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WAX. Just because other articles violate the rule isn't a reason to let this one to. Those other ones should be moved as well, and if someone nominates them I will support the move. TJ Spyke 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but who is this who arbitrarily decided to rename the article? --LadyShelley 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the discussion above, there were six people giving reasons supporting the move, and two people opposing.  All gave reasons, and there was some discussion.  Then User:Stemonitis, an administrator who was processing requested moves, read the discussion as being in favor of the move, and completed it accordingly.  Which part of that seems arbitrary to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: k.d. lang is another. --LadyShelley 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose - we've been through this before (see the two sections entitled "title in capital letters" above), and the consensus was to keep the name in capitals. I still agree with that decision; the name of the show _is_ in capitals everywhere officially that I've seen, and the "3" looks out of place everywhere that the name isn't in capitals (and the 3 is definitely part of the name). Mike Peel 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: k.d. lang is another. --LadyShelley 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: For those citing the guideline, it has been contested at WT:MOSTM and resulted in no consensus move requests. Please don't turn this into as long a discussion as Talk:XxxHolic#Requested move. –Pomte 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have shown a precedent to articles that don't follow the so-called rule, I'm not seeing a need to do this. --LadyShelley 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WAX. Just because other articles violate the rule isn't a reason to let this one to. Those other ones should be moved as well, and if someone nominates them I will support the move. TJ Spyke 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but who is this who arbitrarily decided to rename the article? --LadyShelley 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the discussion above, there were six people giving reasons supporting the move, and two people opposing.  All gave reasons, and there was some discussion.  Then User:Stemonitis, an administrator who was processing requested moves, read the discussion as being in favor of the move, and completed it accordingly.  Which part of that seems arbitrary to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The intro paragraph states that Charlie "develops formulae to predict the actions of various criminals."   That's not incorrect, but it's only a small fraction of the truth.  He does far more than "develop formulae" and the goals of what he does mathematically are far beyond just "to predict the actions of various criminals".  
I changed this phrase to state that Charlie "uses math to help Don solve crimes for the FBI," -- which does not exclude all the math Charlie does that are far beyond mere formulae, and all the goals he achieves that go far beyond merely "to predict the actions of various criminals."
To whoever changed it back:  Can you please present a reason that this phrase should not be changed to the vastly more accurate "uses math to help Don solve crimes for the FBI" ???  Your Edit summary consists only of the phrase "Season 3".Daqu 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been informed that I myself changed it back.  Sheesh, this is embarrassing. I must have used the History feature in a way that fooled myself.  Aaargh!Daqu 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry gotta a giggle from this, mostly because I've done the same thing! You're not the first and won't be the last I'm sure. --LadyShelley 02:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fine point in intro paragraph

message: In the Production notes section, there is a note that a citation is needed for the information regarding the second season being filmed on a set.  That came from Cheryl Heuton on a forum.  How would that be cited, exactly? --LadyShelley 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the best reference for it, then a  should do the job. Mike Peel 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the citation info, it looks right to me, I'm so template challenged most of the time.  --LadyShelley 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation question

message: I've just removed the "international broadcasters" section. It contained the following table:
:
Country                   	Alternate title/Translation              	TV Network(s)                           	Series Premiere   	Weekly Schedule
Australia                 	                                         	Network Ten                             	August 15 2005    	
Belgium                   	Loi des nombres, La (French title)       	RTL-TVI                                 	September 2006    	
Brazil                    	                                         	Telecine Action                         	August 7 2005     	
Bulgaria                  	                                         	bTV                                     	January 19 2006   	
Canada                    	                                         	Global Television Network               	January 23 2005   	
Denmark                   	                                         	Kanal 5                                 	September 20 2006 	
Finland                   	Num3rot                                  	MTV3                                    	November 24 2006  	
France                    	Numb3rs                                  	M6                                      	April 14 2006     	
Germany                   	Numb3rs – Die Logik des Verbrechens	Pro 7, now on Sat.1                     	September 5 2005  	Thursdays at 10:15 p.m.
Hungary                   	                                         	TV2                                     	May 22 2006       	
India                     	                                         	AXN                                     	                  	
Ireland                   	                                         	Channel 6                               	                  	
Israel                    	("מספ7ים" - Misparim)                    	yesWeekend (Season 1)yesSTARS (Season 2)	October 27, 2005  	
Italy                     	                                         	Rai2                                    	March 5 2006      	
Japan                     	                                         	Fox Crime/Fox                           	2006/2007         	
Malaysia                  	                                         	Season 1 - RTM1, Season 2 - RTM2 and AXN	December 5 2005   	RTM2: Tuesdays Midnight
The Netherlands           	                                         	Veronica                                	August 30 2005    	
New Zealand               	                                         	TV3                                     	July 20 2005      	
Norway                    	                                         	TV2 (Norway)                            	December 21 2006  	
Philippines               	                                         	AXN                                     	                  	
Poland                    	Wzór                                     	TV4                                     	June 28 2006      	
Portugal                  	                                         	TVI                                     	October 19 2006   	
Quebec                    	                                         	Z Tele                                  	January 6 2006    	
Romania                   	                                         	Prima TV                                	2006              	
Russia                    	                                         	TV3                                     	August 18 2006    	
Saudi Arabiaand Arab World	                                         	MBC 4                                   	October 30, 2006  	
Serbia                    	Broj3vi                                  	B92                                     	March 14 2007     	
Slovenia                  	Številke                                 	TV Slovenija 2                          	May 2007          	Thursdays evening
Spain                     	                                         	Antena 3                                	March 7 2006      	
Sweden                    	                                         	TV4                                     	April 29 2006     	
Taiwan                    	                                         	AXN                                     	                  	
Thailand                  	                                         	AXN                                     	                  	
Turkey                    	                                         	Dizimax                                 	2005              	
United Kingdom            	                                         	ITV3                                    	October 5 2005    	
United States             	                                         	CBS Television (Broadcast)              	September 20, 2006	Friday, 8:00pm ET/PT
This has been flagged as requiring references for the last month or so, yet none have been added - and new content has also been added without references being added for that. I have no objections to it going back on the article - so long as it does so with references for each entry. Mike Peel 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of international broadcasters section 

message: I recommend the following text should either be removed or edited, "The season concluded with Colby Granger, (Dylan Bruno), being named as a double agent for China." People who haven't seen the finale, like me, don't want to know this. All i wanted to know was whether there was going to be a 4th season. --Nerox 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 3 Conclusion Spoiler

message: It is a real shame that such a distinguished mathematician and scholar as Charlie Eppes seems unable to pronounce correctly such distinguished mathematicians' names as the following germanic names:
:von Neumann (pronounced incorrectly as "vaughn newman")
:Riemann (pronounced incorrectly as "rye-man"
:Euler (pronounced incorrectly as "you-ler")
:Gauss (pronounced incorrectly as "gawss" (sort of like the english word "gauze" but with an "s" sound rather than a "z" sound at the end)
Maybe Eppes never took a course in German language or travelled to international mathematics meetings where he surely would have learned the correct pronunciations.  At any rate, to a mathematician, hearing these names (and others) pronounced incorrectly is very grating, to say the least. -- Chuck 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mispronunciations by Charlie Eppes