Talk:Veronica Mars/Archive 1

message: Hey everyone. Who all else is editing this page? I'm a big fan, so I'm going to work on this a bit. Just rewrote the summary -- the other one was really hokey -- the spoiler tag was added for safety's sake, but if someone else feels they're not necessary, go ahead and remove it.
Also, is the separate page for Lilly Kane necessary? I'd be inclined to say yes if the character pages were consistent across the board, but they're not now. The information there could be incorporated into the main page with as little information as there is now. RadzynFessenden 00:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's here; Lilly Kane 

message: Added in the list of distributors for the show in various countries. If anyone finds any more, please add them in. Network Ten is scheduled to broadcast at the end of this month; all other channels should already be broadcasting the series. Bradpeczka 01:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributors 

message: I haven't heard anything about how this show is doing this season. The ratings numbers in the article place it lower than the numbers Enterprise got last season, and it was cancelled for it. Is Veronica Mars "on the bubble"? The fact there's been little reference to this show in the media could be good, or it could be bad. 23skidoo 03:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratings seem to hover around 2.6/4 for overnight ratings, which seems to be noticably higher than this site lists for Enterprise's last season (1.3/4 on eyeball average).  It's consitantly 5th for the night in it's time.  I haven't heard anything about it not being renewed, and given it's cost to produce (versus sfx heavy Enterprise) I suspect it's fine.-- Ipstenu 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Though it will remain noticeably for most of January 2006 (according to the show's official website), Veronica Mars doesn't appear to be in danger of cancellation — yet.  According to people at the Television Without Pity show forum, ratings have improved slightly versus last season. — ArkansasTraveler 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of series?

message: Could somebody who knows a little more about markup than I do make a wikitable for the season two ratings section? It's hard to read as is. Dave 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better question is whether we need all this detail, oddly provided for only one season, in this article. Do we plan to expand this to include the ratings for every single show as the series continues? If we feel compelled to include detailed ratings data (which I don't recall in any other TV-show article I'm monitoring), it should probably go with the detailed list of episodes, which may also warrant a move to List of Veronica Mars episodes soon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that. Short and sweet with lots of places to find more info = great. Go for it. Dave 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. It was useful for fans who wanted to follow the ratings when the shadow of cancellation was hanging over the show, but we don't need it on the main page anymore. Bump it to the list of episodes or individual episode summaries. (Vectorferret 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If UPN would quit airing basketball games instead of the scheduled Veronica Mars, the raitings may be higher. Shaun 11:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ratings table is gone, I moved the ratings data for each episode to that episodes own page so it's still accessible. (Vectorferret 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: Per the last episode Alyson Hannigan was in, Aaron is not Trina's biological father. Her bio-dad was the high school principal who Clemmons recently replaced (when Trina's parentage came to light). The relationship between Lynn and Trina is hazier than before, though, as Trina's former foster mother referred to Lynn as Trina's adoptive mother and Trina referred to Lynn as her stepmother. Describing Trina as Logan's half-sister is inaccurate. Dave 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trina 

message: Created yesterday, enjoy! --Madchester 05:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Is it just me or do they border on the overly pretentious? The inclusion of "posing as" is a little too over the top especially when you consider that its a show, not a person or anything else. It doesn't "pose" as something else, it is what it is, to put it simply. Not to mention the lines following it seem to paint it in a semi-POV light. While it is great to favour the show and all it belongs elsewhere and not here in the Wikipedia. 65.145.213.81 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, and I re-wrote the lead paragraph incoporating your ideas. Let me know what you think. - dharmabum 10:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentences 

message: I moved Mrs. Dent to be just a recurring character. She only appeared in 4 episodes of the first season. Though originally intended to have a bigger role, the show changed focus and the character wasn't necessary. If anyone feels like she should be a major character feel free to change it back. Just please document why in this discussion.
:I'll move her back; she's under major characters because, although she was only in those 4 episodes, "Major characters" in a Wiki article usually refers to people who were in the opening cast credits, however briefly (iMDB and most other TV/movie databases do the same thing). - dharmabum 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that might be useful would be to list how many episodes each character has appeared in.  Certainly many recurrers have appeared in considerably more episodes than Mrs. Dent, and I wonder if any have appeared in more episodes than, say, Beaver, or Jackie. john k 07:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly easy to do; several "main cast" members haven't been in quite a few episodes this season - actually, I think everyone has missed episodes except Veronica and her father - and it would require going back through every episode and noting who was and wasn't there. - dharmabum 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb lists the cast of each episode separately. It's a start, at least. Dave 00:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The former/current main character discussion applies just as easily to the navigational box for the series.  I've been doing some tinkering with the concept back in my sandbox.  For those interested, I'd appreciate a look and some feedback. — ArkansasTraveler 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallory Dent as a major character? 

message: From Talk page guidelines:
Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
I believed that the discussion drawing an analogy from VM/KB to a minx was not contributing to article improvement. — Shadowhillway 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original post was inquiring about a review of the show, which seems relevant enough to me for the talk page about the show. - dharmabum 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pertinence of talk page discussion 

message: I'm new here. I just made my first edit, about the supposed renewal for Season Three. I have a question about sources: Is Ausiello reliable enough? If not feel free to edit what I said away. Thanks! featherlane 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I know that Rob Thomas has said that he wants Lamb & Mac as credited cast members for next season.  Someone has already added them.  Is that confirmed?  Its not listed on CW's website
Michael Cox
:Last I heard (about a week ago) Rob Thomas said that he still hadn't signed a deal with Tina Majorino, but wanted her in the cast. Is there a reliable source for this or is just a fan's wishful thinking? - dharmabum 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac & Lamb

message: Although I think the main page should reference the shows history as a UPN show originally, do the sub pages need to? The character pages (and probably others as well) all say it is a UPN show. Next season this won't be true. For example, "Logan Echoll's is a fictional character on the UPN television series Veronica Mars". Does anyone else think the sub pages should be updated along the lines of "Logan Echoll's is a ficitonal character on The CW television series Veronica Mars" as that will become more factual once the new season starts? (Vectorferret 03:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating UPN to The CW 

message: Everyone, please see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. The article should be accurate to the current status of the show. If something happened, and it's relevant (in this case, to each character on the character list), even if it wasn't that way at the start of the show. Since Logan is Veronica's boyfriend right now, it should be listed as such, as should that Trina is adopted, and that Clemmons is the principal. They are currently fact, and as such, should be in the article. There's a spoiler warning, so if people don't want to see it, they can look away. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is that the site also needs to be a reference for newcomers to the show who want to check what's coming. Although the purpose of the article is to be factual and to inform, it also must serve the reader. The character's own pages should include spoilers (with indications) but as soon as the main listing of characters is spoiler ed, it will turn away newcomers to the show from the article who don't want spoilers, and they get no article at all. I havn't reverted anything, but I think we should. (Vectorferret 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Detail can be given in individual pages, but keep the main article's character list to descriptions of characters and not events. HOWEVER, I don't want to know anything about season three's plot details until it airs. In the Comics Wikiproject, I created a spoiler warning for promotional material, because people were compiling and inserting lengthy amounts of detail culled from interviews and sales information long before the issue even saw print. I just think any announcements of the upcoming season (cast, plot, setting, etc) should be put behind a spoiler warning. --Chris Griswold 12:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: There are a number of, shall I say, novel practices being performed with this article. I ask the editors of this article to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines of various subjects before they revert edits that enforce established guidelines.
* The worst offense (IMHO) is a virtual ignorance of case and formatting guidelines. Wikipedia uses sentence case, which capitalizes only the first word and proper nouns, for titles and headings. (If you don't know what a proper noun is, you should probably allow other editors to deal with headings.)
* Headings should be brief. They should not be a wordy summary of everything that is discussed. (Example: "Broadcast Status / History and Ratings" is not only more wordy than necessary, it fails to make obvious that this section includes the link to List of Veronica Mars episodes, which is usually found in something with the word "Episodes" in it. "Episodes and airings" should suffice, as "airings" includes the concept of broadcast history and status and can be expected to mention the ratings of those airings.
* The excessive bolding is an eyesore. It would be even worse if half this bolding weren't being done to headings, for which it is completely redundant, as they are already bolded.
* The tendency to cram everything into spaceless blocks of text should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We aren't saving paper by making the editing text look like an obfuscated C program.
* Do not add headings for information that does not yet exist in reliable sources, like characters for the setting of the as-yet-unaired season 3. WP policy recommends no empty headings without a compelling reason, and there is no compelling reason when there is no sourced information to write about.
* Finally, arguments about article content should be made here on the talk page, not as paragraph-long HTML comments in the text. IF a controversial issue has been addressed here but not adhered to by editors without their own discussions, it is appropriate to put a BRIEF comment in the text, preferably a single sentence stating its purpose and directing editors to the talk page. Example:
*:: 
*: Adding something that looks like article text but for the HTML markup is very confusing to less web-savvy editors and will frequently fail to achieve its purpose by going unnoticed. (It is also inappropriate to say something like "I have done something" in an article, even in a comment, as there is no way to know who "I" is without tedious examination of the article history, and putting one's username in such text would be even less appropriate.)
Please follow WP:MOS and use the talk page as it is intended. If certain editors continue to make changes against WP policy and/or consensus established on this talk page, one can use the request for comment process to pursue sanctions against such uncooperative users. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that edit, dude. I have been editing for a few months, and I recently found this article, which was a bit of an eyesore. You made every change I just assumed I'd have reverted by the existing editors. --Chris Griswold 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I think is that a long time ago, a lot of information got crammed into this article by the shows early fans. No one really checked it for awhile and it just started to build up. And since no one wants to be the one to remove information, it just keeps getting re-organized becoming more and more of a mess. There aren't enough editors here active enough to really worry about getting reverted, which is also why the page has stayed messy so long. There just isn't anyone working on it other than new info getting added on. (Vectorferret 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, being both a VM fan and an editing S.O.B., I'll be happy to trim as I have time. I've just removed the character bolding and more text about stuff that hasn't happened yet. A news report on VM being renewed may be reasonable to add to the article, but such information about expected actors' contract results goes well beyond anything we need to include for now. Let's let the formal credits, a truly relable primary source, provide our data when the show resumes. This is not Veronica's Desktop, after all, but an encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooooh. Looks much nicer now. This is the only wikipedia TV site I look at so I thought the bolding was normal when I last fixed up the characters section. The HTML comment rant was actually my fault, it turned into a stream of conciousness as I wrote it. There was a back and forth battle over spoilers in character text. Of course, not all the characters ever got updated with spoilers anyway, so it was easier to keep it without so I settled on that and no one seems to have disagreed since I explained it there. It should be fine without the comment now as once something has been present for awhile it becomes convention. At the least, I'll make a decent comment later. Oops, forgot to sign this the first time. (Vectorferret 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion has made me enthusiastic to read and work on this entry. Let's do this thing up! --Chris Griswold 07:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please follow WIkipedia practices 

message: Ok, I admit that Kristen Bell and Allison Mack do share a resemblance, but I don't like these Chloe/Veronica comparisons.  Granted, I stopped watching Smallville in season 3, but their personalities seem very different.  Veronica is a jaded girl on the poor side of town.  She is highly intelligent and has great deductive reasoning skills.  Chloe seems intelligent, but nowhere near Veronica's levels.  Also, Chloe's obsession is with journalism.  Veronica took a journalism class because her counselor "recommended" it (read: forced her).
Personally, I hate the entire Comparisions section.  It really seems to me that it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  Unless people can find sources for this section I would think we should just remove it. CaptainGetts 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do it! --Chris Griswold 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a citation?  If so, that would be adequate. --DDG 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chloe Comparisons? 

message: I've just started watching the show, but it seems to me that it contains a large number of references to popular culture, in a manner reminiscent of Buffy. The most obvious example of this is the episode titles, so for example Mars Vs. Mars references the movie Kramer vs. Kramer - and these titles often reflect further references within the episode. Another example would be how the jury scenes in One Angry Veronica recall the movie 12 Angry Men. I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to add a section to each episode on intertextuality (or perhaps something with a less po-faced title)? What do people think? --Cassian 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intertextuality 

message: I'll reproduce the note here:
NOTE: To accommodate newcomers to the series, this list is intended to be free of spoilers of plot details. It is a quick summary only; details and an up-to-date status of each character can be found on their character page when applicable.
I have read the spoilers and practices discussions above. This issue seems to touch on each of them. It seems to me that the NOTE is unencyclopedic and needs to be removed. There is already a comment not visible within the article to refer editors here where they'll find there is a consensus among editors to place character spoilers on specific character pages where they exist. Erechtheus 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Erechtheus, for raising this question. I have removed the explicit note, leaving the appropriate comment. As the latter is in all-caps, it's about as prominent as it should be. Beyond this, we just have to maintain editorial diligence to revert addition of spoilers, just as we would remove or change any other undesirable information added to an article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the NOTE under characters appropriate? 

message: I have added the controversial template, hope this helps. --TheM62Manchester 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: A few episodes of this show have also been aired on CBS in an attempt to build an audience.  Does this fact belong in the article? Rlquall 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many is a few. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four. Two on July 29. One on August 5. One on August 12. Starting at 8:00PM.Debuskjt 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The CBS airings are actually mentioned in the article.  You can find it in the United States section in the fourth paragraph.  It doesn't specify which episodes aired or what days it started and ended, but it does mention this fact. HuskersRule 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBS 

message: Does anyone know what type of cell phone she uses on the show? TJ Spyke 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danger Hiptop (AKA T-Mobile Sidekick). - Debuskjt 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Phone