Talk:MythBusters/Archive 1

message: I may be missing them, but the specials don't seem to be listed on the episode list. The shopping special, the buster special, the bloopers special, and a couple of others. Can someone add them? Howabout1 02:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specials 

message: I wanted to discuss the nutrality tag before removing it. The parts that were NPOVed needed to be, but in general this is a NPOV article. Howabout1 22:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrality 

message: All the on-screen cast are American, that's true. But I'm certain a good deal of the crew are Australian. Is it a co-production and if so should that be mentioned? --Cprhodesact 06:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first season on SBS had an Australian announcer, who simply re-recorded the original voice over. After the first season I guess SBS didn't see the point in re-doing something when a lot of Australians didn't see the difference, or even prefered the American voiceover - which had always been used on Australia's Discovery channel's broadcasts - the first time Australians had the oportunity seen the show.
This says that a Beyond International executive came up with the idea, and Savage and Hyneman auditioned for an unrelated project before being offered presenters role. I think Beyond and Australia definitely deserve some mention. --203.52.130.138 23:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American program? 

message: Does anyone know of an authoritative source for which episodes fall within which season?  I find no mention of seasons, per se, on the official website.  Yet, I suspect that some of the episodes listed as 'Season Two' actually are within the third season. --Lucien 22:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes by Season 

message: In addition to the myths they've busted, I think we should include a listing - confirmed/implausible/busted - of the final status of each myth. I'll try to do the ones I can remember, can someone fill in the rest?Existentializer 16:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to improve 

message: The episode guide should probably be on its own page, but that doesn't leave much in the article. I'll put it to a yes/no votes. Should the MythBusters episode guide be its own page? I vote yes. Addaone 21:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have another suggestion. We don't need to list all of the myths, so why not just trim down the section. If people don't like that idea, I vote yes. Howabout1 Talk to me! 21:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Just watching episode 6 of Mythbusters (Lightning with tongue piercings, tree cannon, breathalyzer), I made a separate page for this episode seeing as the main MythBusters page is becoming very large (And will become increasingly larger when the next season comes around). I am unsure if you guys like this idea. Enzo Aquarius 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verylarge, 8/17/05 

message: One of the wikipedia admins decided to propose the Season 4 page for deletion. Please take part in Talk:MythBusters_episodes:_Season_4 and let's see if we can get that straigtened out. ---Thoughtfix 07:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: Okay, so the links to the Build Team members keep getting deleted. That makes sense, since they've been deemed not notable enough for an article.
Earlier today, a link was created to karibyron.com, then quickly reverted. I don't understand why this was so, given that a similar external link (to Robert Lee's page, in the first paragraph) remains on the page.
Is this consistent? Neither Lee nor Byron have Wikipedia articles, and both have external promotional sites - why should one be favoured over the other? - Captainmax 01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone changed the layout of the names, and deleted my comment asking that people discuss the issue here before linking the names. Someone later linked the names. I will delink, and add back the comment. The thing is, there is very little you could write about them. If you can find info that makes for a better article than "Kari Byron is an artist living in San Francisco, and is on MythBusters", try recreating the article. As for the model you linked to, someone created that only a few weeks ago, and it looks quite POV. It will likely be cleaned up or deleted before long.--Drat (Talk) 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it. EVula 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it to Mythbusters/Additional_Cast and will start populating that page soon. --Thoughtfix 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I made the page and added data. PLEASE HELP! :D I am out of time today --Thoughtfix 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to a proper page name, List of MythBusters cast members, with some changes as appropriate. I also added a link to the MythBusters template.--Drat (Talk) 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The information needs to be cited to a reliable source, otherwise it is original analysis.--Drat (Talk) 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to cast/crew 

message: I agree that Kari, Tori, and Grant should have their own full pages because they're active and recurring cast roles with their own histories and contributions. However, there should be a seperate   Mythbusters/Additional_Cast page that should include:
==== Former and Honorary Mythbusters ====
*Scottie Chapman
*Christine Chamberlain
*Heather Joseph-Witham (Folklorist)
*Robert Lee (Narrator)
*Buster
====Guests====
*Eric Gates (Rocketry expert / JATO car, Swing 360, Confederate rocket revisit)
*Frank Doyle (Retired FBI agent and explosives expert / Concrete dynamite)
*Jim Long (Pro Archer / Split arrow revisit)
*Caddilac Ben (2 episodes)
*etc.
*etc.
What do you all think? That should help pacify the "Don't delete Scottie" crowd and give others some well deserved credit. Can we get some votes on this one or get it started? --Thoughtfix 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. EVula 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it to Mythbusters/Additional_Cast and will start populating that page soon. --Thoughtfix 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I made the page and added data. PLEASE HELP! :D I am out of time today --Thoughtfix 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to a proper page name, List of MythBusters cast members, with some changes as appropriate. I also added a link to the MythBusters template.--Drat (Talk) 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The information needs to be cited to a reliable source, otherwise it is original analysis.--Drat (Talk) 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Mythbusters Appearances 

message: *Eric Gates (Rocketry expert / JATO car, Swing 360, Confederate rocket revisit)
*Frank Doyle (Retired FBI agent and explosives expert / Concrete dynamite)
*Jim Long (Pro Archer / Split arrow revisit)
*Caddilac Ben (2 episodes)
*etc.
*etc.
What do you all think? That should help pacify the "Don't delete Scottie" crowd and give others some well deserved credit. Can we get some votes on this one or get it started? --Thoughtfix 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. EVula 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it to Mythbusters/Additional_Cast and will start populating that page soon. --Thoughtfix 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I made the page and added data. PLEASE HELP! :D I am out of time today --Thoughtfix 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to a proper page name, List of MythBusters cast members, with some changes as appropriate. I also added a link to the MythBusters template.--Drat (Talk) 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guests

message: This is an important part of the viewer experience, and the comedic techniques/motifs are worthy of comment.  Whereas the stated purpose of this wiki is to be comprehensive, the more detailed the information the better.  The addition of the Comedic MOtifs section was a good idea, and I thought the edits done to the original were spot on.  I think deletion of information should always be avoided in favor of improving the accuracy of the passage written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.132.88 (talk) 11:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:The information needs to be cited to a reliable source, otherwise it is original analysis.--Drat (Talk) 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedic Motifs 

message: firstly i can't spell ignorance. but I was watching the chicken cannon episode, the first one that is. and I noticed that they said for a second that this "myth" originated from canada. well being a canadian I know that this is no myth. it's a sketch comedy bit called the chicken cannon news. It's of the political humor show, the royal candian air farce. in the show they will take some politician or celebrity usually canadian and fill a cannon with food and common house hold items. for instance when bc premiere Gordon Campbell was arrested for drunk driving in maui. they would put a martini in the cannon and say "because he likes the sauce" and then put in cheesewiz and say"you know you want it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Farce
*No, it isn't a myth. There does exist a similar device which is used to test impact resistance of airplane windshields. It was less of a myth-busting episode and more of a "let's see if we can do this" episode. Kerowyn 09:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The myth had nothing to do with whether or not a "chicken cannon" exists or existed, it is known that such devices exist; they were testing if frozen chickens did more damage than thawed chickens. There are several variations of the myth, all of them start with some company or military wanting to test their aircraft against bird strikes, so they go to another company or country's military; the Royal Canadian Air Force (not "Farce") or NASA are popular sources, and borrow their chicken gun. They use it, only to find the chickens are destroying the test planes; when they ask for help, the response was to "thaw your chickens". The "Air Farce" crew patterned their chicken gun on the concept, with the obvious intent on hilarity.  -- VederJuda 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken Cannon Ignorance. 

message: I've read a few cases of flawed or incomplete experiments that they've done.  Is anyone working on compiling these?
Check out the Epsiodes link at the bottom. --Cantthinkofausername 07:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen them accused of being a bit brief and not thoroughly testing a hypothesis.--86.20.223.168 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed experiments? 

message: I think a good addition to the article would be a picture from Cement Removal, of Adam holding the truck fragment. Put it next to the bit about that particular myth, in the Vehicles section.--Drat(Talk) 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture request. 

message: On recent episodes, the current build team (Grant, Kari and Tory) are listed alongside Adam and Jamie in the intro (Who are the Mythbusters? segment) and now the narrator says they have a combined "50 years" of experience. The entry should change to reflect this, I think.
--Smylere Snape 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was watching the credits for that episode and Adam and Jamie are credited as hosts and the other three are 'builders' or something very similar. It's nice that they got added to the featured cast. --waffle iron 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build Team Status 

message: Is a list of injuries really encyclopedic?  I think it would be more appropriate to mention that sometimes in the course of experiments people get hurt and give a few examples.  This isn't supposed to be a fan site, it is an encyclopedia entry. --Ignignot 14:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed. It needs trimming badly. It's gotten way out of hand.--Drat (Talk) 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I edited out a buncha of them, and kept some of the noteable ones. Definately keep the "Am I missing an eyebrow" incident. --Cantthinkofausername 09:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm editing out the part about poision oak, as it's not really an injury, it was part of the myth Slimdavey 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt it would be a good idea. It would be probably be considered a list of indiscriminate information, if the current list couldn't already be considered so. We would have to justify the importance of such information, and when it comes down to it, it does seem like fanpage material.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument could be made that injuries are a normal part of the show, and tracking them wouldn't quite count as "indiscriminate information." I'm not personally making that argument, I'm just throwing it out there. EVula 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of injuries 

message: Now I noticed that the information about the UK/European version of the show has been deleted. Why is this necessary? I can see that the paragraphs about the Australian and the German versions are still here. Therefore, I think that the information should be returned (maybe with changes). --Megara 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of UK/Europe broadcast information 

message: What are the official seasons?  Discovery channel seems to be billing the new epsiodes since this January 2006 as the start of a new season, but that is not how the shows are broken up in the articles here.  Also, the Discovery Channel store is selling a "Season 2" MythBusters set that features 13 episodes, but according to the articles here season 2 actually has many more episodes.
What is up with this inconsistency?  Can anyone help make some sense of this?
- It is now common practice to break up a season into two pieces, with a "mid-season break" in between. Networks are actually now marketing DVD's in the half season variety to maximize profits. Another good example of this is Battlestar Galactica, which released the first half of season 2 in December titled "Battlestar Galactica: Season 2.0." The second half is titled "Season 2.5."
: I took the poll on the Mythbusters website, and it says that episodes 1-24 is season 1, and 25-49 is season 2.  That means we're just starting season 3 right now. flip619 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC-8)
We go by production seasons (that is, according to the production company).  The way the episodes are arranged is according to the MBs themselves.  Discovery usually repackages them into different airing seasons because of the number of episodes (this is also how it's done with, say, Futurama), which may vary locale by locale (so while it's season three in Canada, it could be season five elsewhere, even if they are referring to the same episode - recall that in Archimedes Death Ray, Jamie refers to the Ancient Death Ray as being in season 2, and according to Discovery, it's in season 1.  kelvSYC 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the official seasons? 

message: The article claims Robert Lee is an American who replaced the previous Australian narrator. Actually Robert Lee is also an Australian, but he speaks with an American accent.
http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/html/narrator.html
Not sure how to fix this.
Carl Kenner 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Discovery Channel is probably showing the US version (I guess translated?). But here, In Bulgaria, we get the UK version narrated by Robin Banks (also included in the credits) with subtitles, and Robert Lee's name is never mentioned. As far as I know, the original version IS narrated (by R. Lee); the above statement just tries to explain that in Canada R. Lee's narration is not modified by any means. I have no idea why "narrator" is in quotation marks, however, it may mean that it is the ROLE "narrator" in the series. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Myth busted... It turns out that I somehow managed to confuse Robin Banks with Robert Lee. The person credited as narrator in the end credits as shown on Discovery Nordic is Robin Banks. Tskoge 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narration 

message: Scottie Chapman is also a Build Team and should therefore also stand in the Mythbuster box.
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/meet_main.html?clik=fanmain_leftnav --MKM 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is a former member, no-longer on the show.--Drat (Talk) 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Yes but former cast still count.Quolnok 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if someone can write more than a couple sentences without having to "waffle", go for it. Otherwise, you may as well just put a very small bit in this article.--Drat (Talk) 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottie Chapman 

message: Discovery added three shows to the iTMS, and Mythbusters was one of them. With only six episodes, it is still in its infancy, but I hope this will grow. While I think it should be noted in the article, I'm not entirely sure where it should go (or when it was officially added), and I'm on my way out the door. So, this is more of an "FYI" sort of thing for other editors, I suppose. EVula 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be interesting to add. Kinda makes me wish I got a full-sized iPod instead of my nano - with Homestar Runner on there too. --Thoughtfix 06:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry, I was one of the idiots who plopped down 400 for my 60gb video.  The video features of the "iPod video" are completely laughable. Though I do love the storage space, I use it for backing up all my user account files, lol --mboverload@ 06:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythbusters on iTunes 

message: The Hyneman himself replied to an Email I sent him about some information I was seeking for this article. An exerpt: The Wikipedia breakdown of the show seems very well done to me; the best explanation of the show I have seen. There are a few discrepancies but it's good. Good work, people! --Thoughtfix 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One word (in a sense two): Kick-arse!--Drat (Talk) 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's three more words: No Original Research. Dave420 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Mak (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Let us pat ourselves on the back on occassion.--Vercalos 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew somebody would come along with the NOR stuff, despite not even being research for the article! Cool to hear from Jamie about the article, good job guys.Tigermave 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply from Jamie 

message: I've seen this show up in quotes then get reverted. I've seen it show up in various sections then get reverted. The specific way of saying it and the repeated appearances of it in the shows may dignify a common theme (similar to "traditional Mythbusters fashion") but it may be just too cheesy for it's own Wikipedia mention. Thoughts? ---Thoughtfix 06:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's really worth mentioning it. By the way, please start new discussions on the botom of the page, instead of hidden among the others.--Drat (Talk) 06:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! ---Thoughtfix 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well There's Your Problem! 

message: >>Traditional MythBusters fashion
>>Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?
Both of these sections have subheadings, but are totally and thoroughly explained in the article only a few pargraphs above. They really don't need to be repeated. I suggest that these sections should be deleted, or the original mentions should be deleted or shortened with a (see below)  TheHYPO 04:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - there is some redundancy there. Take a stab at what you think is best. ---Thoughtfix 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  waste of time headings 

message: Can we get a clean-up of this? As the series progresses, this section will undoubtably dominate the article. --Thoughtfix 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gotten way out of hand. I've removed some of the additions.--Drat (Talk) 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's getting beyond a joke. It's getting time to split it or kill it (as fancruft). I, granted with some regret, am in favour of the second option.--Drat (Talk) 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed getting to long, but I added Tory's bike mishap as it has been sourced in MB/TV show sites as one of the most memorable scenes (or scenes of mishap), behind the Adam's lip/vacuum mishap. I'm in favour of splitting it off rather than scrapping it. -Dvandersluis 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This mishap was deleted, but I've readded it as, as I mentioned above, it is one of the favourite mishap scenes to fans. –Dvandersluis 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we create the actual article, what exactly should we name it and which accidents should be left on the main page? Flip619 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many injuries or mishaps listed 

message: Anyone know when season 4 will start? -Ravedave 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 

message: Buster.  Please stop sticking Buster into the Cast section.  It's an inanimate object, guys.  A prop.  Not a member of the cast.  Use of Buster belongs either under Format, or in its own section.  I opted for the former.
Retesting old myths.  There is no reason to insist upon the wording "The MythBusters are not above..."  It is only necessary to mention that they re-test old myths when criticisms of the experiments are made, or when new info is provided.  Phrasing like "not above" is superfluous.
Confirmed/Plausible/Busted.  Please stop reverting this paragraph.  "Deemed" is far more formal and encyclopedic than "call it." Nightscream 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: Buster, yes it's an inanimate object, but I don't think it really fits under Format; I personally don't think having a subsection under Cast is a problem in this case... –Dvandersluis 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Buster is inanimate, but the MythBusters seem to have given him a sort of "unwilling volunteer" personality, making Buster a pseudo-person, and therefore a Cast member.  I had also reworded the C/P/B paragraph to bring each designation to the front, placing all the more complex qualifications at the end. I re-split the Format section by topic, so that two different things aren't placed in the same paragraph (like mentioning Buster under the "oogie-boogie myths").  Finally, I colorized C/P/B it its topic sentence to match the convention used in Wikipedia's MB episode synopses. Flip619 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I see it, Buster's person-ness is in question, so I think his section should not be moved around until we can get a better consensus.  He is mentioned in the paranormal paragraph: "Paranormal ideas...the MythBusters use their crash test dummy, 'Buster'...myths that are not likely to be explored...".  Because paranormal concepts and hazardous restrictions are placed within the same paragraph, it is unclear what the topic of that paragraph actually is.  The WPMoS recommends against colorizing text, especially red-green (a color-blind acessibility issue), unless it contributes to the article or aids the reader.  I opted to colorize the text because it was the convention used in the WP MB episode synopses articles, which might help the reader know what to look for.  (I did not choose the colorization convention used in the synopses.)  I believe that the C/P/B designations should be emphasized in some way, since the whole point of the show is to bust, find plausible, or confirm urban legends.  If the colors do seem to present a problem, I have no conflict italicizing the designations instead, but I think that they should be emphasized in the article somehow, so that they aren't lost in the rest of the text.  Flip619 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For me, it does not seem clear that the limits paragraph focuses on the limits of the MB's experimentation parameters, especially since the paragraph starts with "Paranormal ideas...".  A good intro sentence can fix this, but I think it would be better to keep similar ideas together, not have what they test on Buster or ballistic gelatin in the middle of what they refuse to test at all.  Also, as I understand it, Adam and Jamie do not have the final say on what gets cut into the aired show - that's the job of the Discovery Channel editors - they just get myths to test and DSC films, edits, and airs it; I've taken out Adam and Jamie in the first Format paragraph to make sure we're not introducing possibly false information.  Flip619 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits & Reverts 

message: With all this clean-up and combining of the "History and Format" section, it's become more difficult to read. I thought this article was MUCH better when we had more sub-sections of "format." Specifically: "Traditional Mythbusters Fashion" which described 1: replicating the myth then 2: replicating the results. It's still in there, but buried. Anyone else with me on that one?
:Agreed. –Dvandersluis 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: the Format section reads like an essay (and not a very good one at that), and it would be clearer to split History and Format into something like History, then Format with subsections, including: what they test (and not test), how they test it, and how they designate conclusions. Flip619 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What I meant was to split the Format into its fundemental queries: What? How? and Why?;  What they test, How they test it, and Why they test it (to bust, find plausible, or confirm myths).  Subsectioning the What and How parts makes this distinction clearer (we've already sectioned off Why). I had named the How "Traditional Mythbusters Fashion" (I believe this is a quote from the narrator) because it refers to the two-step process by which the MBs have always tested myths: replicate the original myth as described; and if that fails, expand the parameters until the original's outcome is duplicated.  The What part can stay as the section introduction.  Also, since we seem to have so much information on Buster, and since we can't find an agreeable place to put his section, we should probably give him his own article, or place all his information back into the List of MythBusters cast members.  That way, Buster won't be placed in the main article, but the information on him is not lost either. Flip619 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. Rereading the article, it does seem that What and How are mixed, and it doesn't look like there is an easy way to separate them.  Although I would prefer to subsection off How, it is also fine the way it is presently.  I thought that the conclusions to the short list of Whats made the section awkward as well.  I like how you left in the question mark links =)  Also, if we create the Buster the crash test dummy article, what details should be left in here?   Flip619 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep how Buster is used in this article, and on Busters own article, flesh out his history, his rebuild, etc, etc.--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sections, not fewer 

message: :Although no MythBusters appeared on the program, a 2005 episode of Good Eats titled Myth Smashers tested cooking-related myths in MythBusters fashion.  As portrayed on the episode, host Alton Brown wanted to use the term "Culinary MythBusters" - but his lawyer would not allow it because of copyright infringement.  (Later in the episode, he called a myth "busted" anyway before stopping himself.)
You can't copyright a title. I don't know if you can copyright a show format and if that might have been the problem. Conceivably trademark is meant here—presumably MythBusters is a trademark. Without any references, though, it's hard to tell. Anyone? JRM · Talk 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that being a valid argument. You can mention a show all you want, but when you use a derivative name, it could be crossing the line. EVula 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So If I casually say "Oh, are you gonna be a Mythbuster?" to my friend, will the Discovery Channel will come to my house and sue the pants off of me because I violated a trademark??--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but they might if you created something (a good, service, or media) and called it "MythBusters" or something similar. But it depends on how prominently you use "MythBusters" and to what degree your use "dilutes" their tradmark. You should read up on what a trademark is and what they're about. --Imroy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Copyrighted" MythBusters 

message: On tonight's episode, was Grant looking at the Carnot cycle article? --Paul Soth 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calorimeter (for sure) was show at 18 minutes in. -Ravedave 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia on Mythbusters? 

message: What the fuck happened to the wonderful semi-comprehensive episode list article, which had the episodes, myths tested, and results? I know it was moved because a lot of the redirects say they used to point there, but I can't even find what title it was at when deleted, so I can't look at the AfD.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.209.197 (talk • contribs) .
:Nevermind, I see now, it was split up and is linked from the infobox. Still, I think there need to be more prominent links from withing the article. Actually, List of MythBusters episodes should be a list of the season articles, and MythBusters episodes should redirect there, not here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.209.197 (talk • contribs) .
::There's no need for an article just to list four others when the template at the bottom of each article links to all seasons anyway.--Drat (Talk) 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode List 

message: This show has, until now, only been broadcasted on The Discovery Channel (UK version - available on Satellite and Cable) in the UK. I saw it listed in the 1930-2000 slot on BBC TWO tonight (Thursday). Does anyone know what they are doing to change the format of the show to compress it into the half hour slot? Is it worth mentioning in the article? --Oldak Quill 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The show has been completely reedited with a new narrator, new style and a new feel. The whole show is less Adam and Jamie co-ordinated and the narrator is now more important - Adam and Jamie are just seen performing experiments and whatnot. All scenes now have backing music and, judging by the narrator's style, it is more focused at kids and teenagers. The show deals with with three myths (the first dealt with pennies dropping off the Empire State Building, whether it is worth running or walking in the rain and exploding toilet), completing one before starting the next (unlike the original show which deals with two myths simultaneously). It is alot faster paced with alot of the research and jokes cut out (which I suppose is necessary to fit three myths into half an hour). --Oldak Quill 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a section to the special's page listing these new episodes. --Billpg 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On BBC TWO 

message: In the episode where they are testing the exploding jaw breakers,one of the female cast members is burned by the goo(it hits her face).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashmole (talk • contribs) .
:That's already in the List of Injuries article.--Drat (Talk) 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another injury 

message: I personally think that MythBusters has a good article, but Good Articles all have one thing in common: a comprehensive list of references.  I started placing in citations a couple of weeks back, and was kinda hoping that other editors would notice the glaring lack of sources and help contribute with referencing.  It would be nice to know where some of the information in this article came from (at least ones that are not in the episodes themselves), especially in the "Popularity and influence" section.  MB has an adequate article as it stands, but we should strive to make it better.  Flip619 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think the article should mention that while most brand names are removed/blocked out on MythBusters, the AOL logo is always shown. WP 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product placement 

message: I have put List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters up for proposed deletion. See my reasons there and discuss on the talk page.--Drat (Talk) 08:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury list proposed deletion 

message: I've moved it to AFD. Please discuss there.--Drat (Talk) 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury list on AFD 

message: Is MythBusters a scientifically significant source?  Another member deleted a large amount of content from Chinese Water Torture claiming that MythBusters wasn't scientifically significant.  I've reverted the edit until we can get some sort of discussion, and consensus on the matter.--Vercalos 07:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can safely say they aren't really.--Drat (Talk) 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any sort of criteria that defines scientific significance?--Vercalos 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get into a big fight with MythBusters fans, but they really are not a scientifically significant source. They are not peer reviewed, their experiments are not replicated by other scientists, they don't publish papers. Sometimes their methods are simply silly. If you watch the episode about fecal coliform bacteria, you can see that the person they brought in to test for the bacteria was very skeptical of their methods (even I could have told them that touching the toothbrushes every day was going to significantly skew their results). MythBusters is scientifically informed entertainment, little more. See Science for more on why this show doesn't really qualify. Mak (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just loathe to remove their information from the Chinese Water Torture, as it's more than half the content of the article.--Vercalos 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant scientific source? 

message: A minor peeve of mine is incorrect spelling and grammar usage, usually of the word "MythBusters".  These mis-capitalizations happen most often when someone adds information to one of the sections in the peripheral pages.  So when editing pages, please mind correct grammar:
* For the show itself: MythBusters
* For the people on the show: MythBusters
Flip619 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is the "Buster" section under the "Format" section? It's not like Buster is part of the format of the show; the contents of the section certainly don't explain anything about the format of the show, instead explaining what Buster is. I considered just moving that section to under the "Cast" section, but I don't really know if Buster is considered a cast member, and there's certainly more detail about Buster than Adam and Jamie on this page (though there's no separate page for Buster). Would it make more sense to have a separate top-level section for Buster, instead of shoehorning the section into places it doesn't quite fit? —LrdChaos (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved Buster's section from the "Format" section into the "Cast" section. I still don't know that it's the best place for it, but it's a lot better than the "Format" section, I think. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Buster be under "materials and equipment"? Why "format"? Am I missing something? Pengwiin 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only changed that header to "materials and equipment" last night.--Drat (Talk) 10:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Buster" section under "Format" 

message: I merged the most significant entries from the list into this article. The list should be converted into prose and written in a more encyclopedic fashion. I'm sure many media sources have made mention of this aspect of the show and would be useful sources.--Drat (Talk) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury list merged 

message: Contrary to popular opinion, and this article it seems, the idea of Mythbusters is actually from Australia. Only the hosts, location, and some of the crew members in San Francisco are American. So to say it is a US show on the Discovery Channel is not entirely accurate. The concept of the show was thought up by Peter Rees, who works for Australian television production company Beyond. All editing, post-production, and voice overs are done in their Sydney offices. The show has a much larger audience per capita there than in the US, and is aired around the world on many different channels.
Just thought that was worth considering.
EpHESUS 10:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the show 

message: Hello, I was watching the Mythbusters episode where they debunked the pops rocks/soda myth in which eating pop rocks and drinking soda at the same time will kill you however I recently saw one of those mentos/soda eruptions on the internet and it made me wonder. Is it possible that the mentos/soda reaction could be interpreted as a mondern day version of the pop rocks/soda  myth, that consuming soda and eating mentos could potenially result in a fatal reaction thus proving the myth? I believe that this idea is worthy of a possible re-visit of the myth in question, please let me know what you think. - RVDDP2501 14:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post it on the forum.  I do know that certain candies cause sodas to foam up rapidly(look up Pepsi and Mentos).  It would probably give you severe gas, and might cause injury to your stomach if you find yourself unable to burp, but little else.--Vercalos 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: where can I find the forum, I'm unfamiliar with that? - RVDDP2501 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Myth Re-Visit 

message: A week ago, I remember seeing advertisements for an episode where the Mythbusters try to see if it is possible to make a concrete glider fly.  Then all of a sudden they replace the add with one simply advertising "new episodes of Mythbusters".  The episode actually aired was one revisiting scuba tanks.  What happened to the concrete glider episode? 207.215.10.108 19:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the order of episodes listed at MythBusters (season 4), the concrete glider episode will air after a "Myths Revisted" episode and a week off. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I guess maybe it was more work than they expected. 207.215.10.108 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete Glider? 

message: What happened to it? It's hard to navigate between the various pages without the box at the bottom with the links.--Marhawkman 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone blanked it. I reverted it.--Drat (Talk) 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templatebox 

message: I need a realy good science fair idea !!!! I need to win first place ! It cant have water or real animals . Please give me a realy good idea !!! I'm in 7th grade. I need something that can beat 12th graders !!! thanks ! w/b --216.78.68.136 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that's really not what this page is for. This page is for discussing what should be in the article, and how it should be presented. Thanks, Mak (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fair 

message: The quotes are just taken from the intro. They seem worthless and unnecessary, and I'd like to see them removed from the article. Evan Reyes 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all of them. Besides those quotes in the intro were specifically chosen for that use because they were memorable. So I must disagree. --Marhawkman 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing it's one of the most often reverted sections of the article, refering to Wikiquote is the best solution versus everyone editing their own "personal favorites" and trying to make it work.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: What kind of silver markers they use on the blue paper? Sometimes it looks like the Silver Permanent ones by Sharpie but other times they use bigger ones. The Sharpie ones don't last very long...
http://www.sharpie.com/sanford/consumer/sharpie/img/pic_sharpiescience.jpg
Those are the small ones they use.
--Plankton5005 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pilot and Zebra also make silver markers in varying sizes, though I don't know about the availability of such Japanese brands in the US (they're quite common in Europe). --Zilog Jones 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markers 

message: Did they steal the idea from a BBC show Hollywood Science? Bigwiggin 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MythBusters doesn't deal with only myths that come from movies. In fact, wasn't it several seasons before they started attacking movie-based myths? --Imroy 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  There are like two episodes that specifically deal with movie urban legends(namely Jaws special and the Mega Movie Myths special), most of the rest just deal with miscellianeous urban legends, some of which have shown up in movies.  There may have been some concepts borrowed from the Hollywood Science show, but in general the two shows are different(at least from what I can tell, having never seen an episode of Hollywood Science).--Vercalos 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen idea 

message: Please, do we need to add every speaking engagement separately that they have done this year, every single college that they appear at? Can't we just make a general note about the speaking tour and be done with it? -- Pawl 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity and influence - speaking tour 

message: Now Skeptic has an official podcast, and in this edition where they interview Adam, Jamie, and Kari, the Wikipedia article on the third season is quoted word-for-word (in particular, the results of Five-Second Rule and the Who Gets Wetter revisit).  kelvSYC 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeptic podcast on MythBusters quotes Wikipedia 

message: Do you think that there could be a "Criticisms" section on the show?  I know there's been plenty of criticism of the show in the past particularly about its un-scientific-ness, such as a small sample size (at least it appears so due to editing), using solely ballistics gel in experiments (which, while it is a good emulator of human flesh, does not portray characteristics like bone), and possible methods they haven't tried.  Though they usually revisit myths that have been poorly tested, do you still think there should be a Criticisms section? Taylor 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be perfectly welcome, so long as it can be cited to reliable sources. Forums posts, 95% of blogs, random editor's opinions, etc. are right out.--Drat (Talk) 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The problem with "Criticism" sections is that they're usually a dump of original research and hate comments. — Kieff 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll scout around the internet some time for reliable sources.  I know what's reliable and what's not, but you still need to be careful nowadays with all the Internet's pseudo-science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.119.103 (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the obvious problems with the show is that the hosts will declare a myth "busted" simply becasue they can't reproduce it. This leads the viewers to discounting the myth, even when other documented cases of the event exist or the phenomenon has been studied by others. -- Mikeblas 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like, for example, the archimedes 'death ray' experiment where they declared the myth 'busted', meaning that they couldn't get the boat to burn with their death ray... even though they also couldn't get it to burn very well after trying to douse it in gasoline and manually set it on fire? (Meaning, according to their logic, 'butane lighters cannot be used to start fires: as illustrated by the fact that they can't ignite asbestos.') Unfortunately, I don't think any reliable sources take them (or their methods) serious enough to bother scientifically disproving all of their mistakes, so I doubt there'll ever be a decent 'criticisms' section written. Bladestorm 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section? 

message: This section should be converted to proper prose and integrated to reduce redundancy.--Drat (Talk) 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Often used objects section 

message: This refers in particular to the 'Archimedes' Death Ray' episode, but should there be an article section for the points when people have proven possible things which the 'busters have deemed impossible? [] 68.96.255.13 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If and only if the sources are reliable and the information concerns the MythBusters, such as pointing out where they went wrong. In other words, you can't cite an article about the myth (that doesn't mention the MythBusters experiment), and use that info to point out where the MythBusters went wrong, as that would be original research.--Drat (Talk) 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MythBusters outbusted? 

message: A recent edit changed the names of the cast from their first names to their last. I'm sure this is part of Wikipedia policy, but it's now more difficult to follow. The cast are always referred to by their first names (Adam, Jamie, Tory, Kari, Grant, etc) and that's probably what most viewers know them by. Could we make an exception for this article and change back to using their first names? --Imroy 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have made one of the changes you're refering to. I was reading the article the other day, and most places except where I made the name changes (in Mishaps), last names were used. (I definitely could have missed some though, as I was watching MythBusters at the time) I figured for consistency within the article, the last names should be used there. If you're thinking of a global change, then my little edit doesn't make a significant difference. Perhaps if we link the name's of non-hosts (ie not Jamie & Adam) to their page, then we can help the readers who aren't certain who's who. --Zuejay 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First or last names? 

message: I recently added an Episodes header to the article (see this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MythBusters&oldid=109992539) because while there is the navbox for them at the bottom it's non-obvious to the casual reader. It's standard practice for most TV shows to have a header for the episodes, even if it is just a link to "List of whatever episodes".
I've been to the MythBusters article several times and wasn't able to find the episode list at a quick glance so had to go to google with "mythbusters site:wikipedia.org" to find them the first time, and I'd be surprised if there aren't many others who did the same.
So while yes, it is redundant information, I think it is a good idea, what do you guys think? CPUKiller 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes list 

message: I added a note that mentions that in the first season, "Confirmed" was called "True". I distinctly remember seeing some of the early episodes - for instance, the microwave tests - and I distinctly recall Adam saying "Myth absolutely true" about the myth of water exploding in a microwave. TenPoundHammer 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed vs. True 

message: Savage, who had worked with Hyneman in commercials and on Robot Wars, was approached by Hyneman to help co-host the show because Hyneman felt he was not dynamic enough to host the show on his own.
OK, who is "he"? The subject of this sentence is ambiguous. The way it's phrased, it could mean either Hyneman or Savage is not dynamic enough, etc, etc...needs to be clarified. Peter1968 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it could perhaps be worded better, it's obvious that it's supposed to be Hyneman.--Drat (Talk) 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused subject (grammar) 

message: :Because the emphasis is on visual spectacle, mishaps and injuries have occurred
:Due to the nature and methods of MythBusters, several injuries, mishaps, and close calls have happened over the course of the show
Seems to be a bit of bias there. On the show it's quite clear that they take many safety precautions. Reub2000 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythbusters Dangerous? 

message: As the editor who first introduced the issue, I feel that I should offer my apologies; however, I still think that we should have some reference to Mr Knight's involvement (or lack of it) with the show's origin when the dust has settled.  The facts are spelled out with the comprehensiveness for which the Chancery Division has long been renowned in the law report, and I'm sure that something neutral and accurate can be included eventually. Tevildo 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that.  Most shows and celebrities have had a variety of lawsuits filed against them.  Unless the suit receives significant attention from media or other third parties, I think we can leave it out. -Chunky Rice 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit-wars 

message: The article suggests that the Killer Cable Snap busting by the MythBusters is wrong due to the recent amusement-park accident. But it's so completely irrelevant, I don't think it even belongs in the article at all. Firstly, the myth was cutting through the abdomen, not the ankles. They didn't argue that a cable couldn't cut off some body part. Second, the myth was about Killer Cable SNAPS, not Killer Cable Being-Drug-Through-A-Cable-By-A-Huge-Effing-Roller-Coaster-Car. Cables have been used for cutting forever, just not usually cutting people. Hell, they used a cable to cut a pig in half in the show, by just putting extreme pressure on it without snapping it, which is exactly what happened on the roller coaster. I'm going to "be bold in editing" and just remove it, then somebody can post here why I'm horribly wrong. --GregorR 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your decision. -- Gogo Dodo 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer Cable Snap 

message: Does anyone know the name of the warehouse that they shop at with the eclectic assortement of items? -fltchr 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Shop 'till you drop' resource question 

message: There seems to be absolutely no continuity on wikipedia between the all-ep list and the season lists as to airdates for some eps, episode numbers, and other things, which is pretty annoying. can anyone clean it up to more concensus between articles? TheHYPO 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season/Episode annoyances. 

message: As the show is produced by an Australian company (Beyond Television Productions) I feel the country of origin should be changed and this fact noted in the article -- Tsuite T/C 02:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this logic. I have no qualm with the fact that Beyond is Australian. However, the problem with your analogy is that not only was the show commissioned by Discovery (USA), but Beyond chose to locate production of the show in the US, starring a US cast, for a US market. I believe it's a definition issue of what "country of origin" is intended to mean in this infobox, and I don't think any of wikipedia's TV guidelines or projects actually define it. Perhaps a compromise of having both flags might be a solution? TheHYPO (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking both flags at most should be shown for the fact it's produced and post-produced in Australia (not sure how much they write) but it was (first) made for the Discovery Channel an American Channel, company, set in American city, has an American Cast. EX: Ricky Gervais is English, there are many versions of The Office (US, UK, French, German) which all credit him as the creator but the Country of origin remains to the place it's in.  Warmachine021 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was contacted by researchers at Beyonds' Sydney office who wanted to consult me about a story in the first series, this indicates to me that the planning and scripting is/was Australian
Benvenuto (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country of Origin 

message: They just launched an official wiki site here: http://mythbusters-wiki.discovery.com/ This is pretty groundbreaking for fans, but I didn't want to stick a link at the bottom like a spammer without discussing it first. Thoughts? Should this be mentioned? There's a lot of activity going on over there. --BMan 10:52, 22 Aug 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki has been closed downDe Mattia (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Site 

message: I see a text at the beginning of the show that says "This Program Also Available in HD", yet I can't find a single spot on the Discovery HD Theater schedule that indicates an airing on that channel... But I do know that they are producing in HD due to the fact of HDV cameras on set. It is logical to assume there are also HDCAM cameras on set as well. --Jack Zhang 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's shown on Discovery Channel HD at the same time as the SD broadcast on the regular channel.  It is not shown on HD Theater that I know of. KC0ZHQ (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, they're using XDCAM HD, not HDCAM. --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Available in HD? 

message: User:293.xx.xxx.xx: Your edits to Mythbusters has been reverted for now. You did leave in your edit summary that no attempt to integrate this section has been made. This may be true, but I believe that this section of the article was rather important. I will try to integrate this section somehow into the rest of the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please try to integrate "Popularity and Influence" 

message: For a while now, I've been trying to wrap my mind around how Mythbusters could be considered a "reality show". Sure, it's unscripted and stuff like that, but before there were other reality shows, they never called anything that had the same format which Mythbusters uses a reality show. Don't most reality shows have some element of competition in them? Mythbusters rarely has this (except when Jamie and Adam do build competitions, which Jamie hates). And reality shows are usually drawn out over weeks and weeks and focus more on the (usually very boring) interactions of (usally very boring) people during those weeks and "voting off" people, all usually while isolated on like, a desert island or in a house or mansion or something. I'm not sure if Mythbusters fits this genre. This is just my thoughts. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong (I probably am). Nick Warren 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mythbusters is a science show. Anyone who calls it a reality show is not being accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality is (no pun intended) that MyBu is a not a reality show. But it's not because it's not comptetitive. It's because it's not reality. It's paid actors reading scripts much of the time, usually with the instruction and direction of a director and/or producer. Reality is generally defined by a cast who are not acting, in a show which captures their normal experiences, not scripted experiences. Sometimes they are competitive (Survivor), and sometimes they aren't (The Surreal Life). But as far as it is claimed, directors and producers don't say "hey, stand over there and tell Bob about the fire you just made" on reality shows. As well, typically in a reality show, the regular people are isolated from the crew. Contestants on Survivor can't discuss the show with the producers on how it should go. The cast of Mythbusters do. TheHYPO (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a vague memory that Grant used a phrase like "science-based reality show". Unfortunately, I don't remember which episode it was in - I was surprised, as I felt Mythbusters didn't fit the reality category, but he used such a phrase. Autarch (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality show? 

message: I added colour coding (Busted , Plausible, and  Confirmed) to the sections explaining busted, plausible or confirmed to make it more consistent with sections like the list of episodes and earlier in the article, where colour coding is used. I hope nobody minds --DFRussia 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about the colouring, but I thought I'd question the definitions for plausible vs. confirmed again. There seem to be inconsistant uses of these terms, especially lately. eg: the team seems satisfied that the real elephant was scared of real mice, yet only rated it plausible. However, without actually shooting any real fish, they rated fish in a barrel confirmed. Similarly, the dolphin's presense scaring away sharks - was rated plausible, when it seemed definatively proven. Beating the speed camera via 300mph rocket car was confirmed, and not plausible (as something that could happen but under extreme circumstances). It was also confirmed that superhero's can change into costumes in a phone booth, while ignoring the fact that it took them quite some time to do it (my assumption is there was no recorded cases of superheros doing so to confirm the myth) - why not just plausible? Why is handheld climbing winch only plausible vs. confirmed? They shot a gun in an over, and blew up a keg in a fire... why was one confirmed and the other plausible? TheHYPO (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually explain this on one of the Behind the Scenes videos on the Discovery website.  For example, the elephant one, they had good results, but they could not do them in the completely proper environment (An elephant in the wild, different colored mice) so that one could only be plausible.  The fish one they did with pure science, and they did use a dead (But very complete and raw) fish.  Plus, we all know about compression waves in water.  The dolphin one they called plausible because they didn't have a real dolphin to try it with.  They confirmed that high speed could beat the speed camera, but it would be almost impossible for someone driving down the road as a normal person to do.  (Unless you have a street legal car that can do 300 MPH)  The website has many other explanations. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?" colouring