Talk:Arrested Development/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Mockumentary.

A mockumentary is done so that the viewer can't tell it isn't a real documentary, there are moments and jokes in Arrested Development that do that, but for the most part it uses a documentary style, but doesn't pretend to be real. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To put things simply, a mockumentary is a fictitious documentary. Every mockumentary is shot like a documentary, but is completely fictitious. AD is shot like a documentary, but because it is entirely fictitious, it is a mockumentary. Both terms are accurate, but mockumentary is more accurate. --TM 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with TheMidnighters (TM). Can we stop editing this until there is some sort of consensus? It's seems like a rather minor issue that could be easily solved with a bit of dialogue. Broooooooce (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a major difference between a mockumentary (a fake documentary) and a something that is sort of filmed in a doumentary style. The basic conceit of a mockumentary is that this really is a documentary. There are a couple of jokes in the show (cameras being banned from the court, missing footage), however, for the most part the cameras don't "exist", do you really think that people would let the camera into the room when they are having sex, breaking into an office, hiding in a attic. If you think that Arrested Development is a mockumentary, you don't understand what a mockumentary is. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a valid point. I find myself back on the fence on which would be better. I decided to look around online to see which other sites may have used the term mock/documentary as a descriptor, and I found this: http://www.mutantreviewers.com/arrdev.html, which calls it a psuedo documentary, and then goes on to say it is filmed in a documentary style. Then this: http://www.boxxet.com/Arrested_Development/Clark_and_Michael_Best_New_CBS_Show_Not_On_TV.10bbsq.d which calls it a mockumentary/documentary, and then this- (nevermind, link is blacklisted--probably spyware or something) says that it has a mockumentary feel similar to that of This is Spinal Tap. Given all of this, I now prefer "Pseudo Documentary." Can we agree on this? It really is rather small and I don't want to see an edit war break out over a word that most people won't think twice about when reading the article anyway. Broooooooce (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To further illuminate my preference, let me note that AD lacks the little one on one interviews with cast members that are a staple of documentary/mockumentary film making (A Mighty Wind, Sicko, The Office, etc, etc, the list goes on forever) so I take a bit of issue with it being classified without qualification as either. Why not Pseudo-Mockumentary you ask? From my brief time searching on Google, more sources leaned toward comparing it with documentary style film making than with mockumentary. That's my take on it at least. Broooooooce (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd vote for pseudo-documentary or, preferably, simply state that the show sometimes incorporates devices used in documentaries (archival footage, reference to cameras, etc.). --TM 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! Is that cool with you, Duggy? Broooooooce (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we wouldn't refer to shows such as The Office, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, or 10 Items or Less as mockumentaries, would we? That being the case, I think "documentary-style" can do just fine. Umzingeli (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the paragraph, calling it neither a mock or a doc. I did say it incorporated documentary style aspects, the reason I didn't say mockumentary style was because they share the same aspects when filming, and documentaries came first; a mocumentary is shot in documentary style, but a documentary is not shot in mocumentary style, if that makes sense. Broooooooce (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm happy with the changes. I had been thinking about the to-camera thing, it's interesting that mockumentaries all seem to do it when not all documentaries have to-camera pieces. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Producers

Does anyone know who the third season producers were? IMDb doesn't have a complete listing so I thought I'd look here but I note there is no crew section in this article.--88.108.242.173 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Guests section

I just removed a lot of entries from this section as it was basically becoming a list of all secondary characters, regardless of the actor's "celebrity" status. I can see that the issue of who is a celebrity versus who isn't isn't something that can be determined objectively but I think most, if not all removals were warranted. However, many entries or removals could still be borderline. Any thoughts? --TM 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well my edit was reverted without discussion, so I guess I'll try to justify it further. Currently, the celebrities include Michale Bartel [1], Bronwen Masters [2], Abraham Higginbotham [3], B.W. Gonzalez [4] and Justin Lee [5]. I'm not trying to be a dick but if we want a section to list every single secondary and minor character credit then can we just rename the section? Having it say "Celebrity Guests" is kind of inaccurate. Besides, we already have an entire list for all the recurring and minor characters, which states who portayed them, in addition to an IMDb link for those interested in an entire cast listing. Is it really encyclopedic to note in the "Celebrity Guests" section that Abraham Higginbotham played "Gary the Office Hand"? --TM 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Rather than wrestle with a criteria, why not just rename the section. I find the links to the minor characters to be of use and would like to see them remain. Broooooooce (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So you actually want to list every character ever on the show in the main article? --TM 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't find the current list to be excessive and speaking from a functionality standpoint, I've often followed those links and I rather like having them. Broooooooce (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Functionality is not the same as your personal preference and browsing history. From an actually functional standpoint, we already have various methods for people to see who played who which I've already listed. That function is already served, and if you want to list all minor characters you can list them on (gasp!) the character list. That makes sense, doesn't it? List characters on the character list? You still haven't provided any rationale other than "I use them and I like them". --TM 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the title to Notable guest. I feel the article benefits more from having this information that it would from excluding it. The fact that I find it handy to have that information in that spot actually does make it more functional for me and I fail to see how excluding it would improve the article now that the title is more accurate. Broooooooce (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Notable is still inaccurate, but I can see this is pointless. --TM 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to seek a third opinion. I'm not adamant about my opinion and am more than willing to entertain better options, I just like having the information within the article. Broooooooce (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A link

For the feature film section.[6] –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

redundancy

Isn't "television comedy sitcom" redundant? Sitcom is short for "situational comedy" so the first sentence of the article says "television comedy situational comedy."68.81.157.99 (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Want to just remove "comedy"? --TM 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

"Arrested Development: The Documentary Project" should at least be mentioned here, if not spun off into another page. However, seeing as the only information on it at the moment is that it is in production and features interviews with the cast and crew, we may want to refrain until we at least have a perposed release date. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bluth Company

is a real estate development firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.103.188 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

I thought the Greer quotes showed the old dame was a little confused by the series, thinking "its on a boat", that Americans "don't watch it" -- millions of us did -- and simply not having any cohesive criticism beyond "court jester stuff from the evil empire" (!). Can't we find a more incisive criticism of the show? I'm sure one exists. The Greer criticism is so weak it looks like an intentionally included straw man argument, as if to say no reasonable person could dislike the show. I'd like to believe that, but it is true? 98.246.184.50 (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I always felt that way too. ("'Six Feet Under' set on a boat."?) I've removed it before but I was reverted for NPOV or something. The problem is there aren't that many negative critical reviews, and the only one we have is from somehow who apparently wasn't watching the show. --TM 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is she even a professional film critic? I've always thought she was a just a bitchy feminist who had her say because she was a journalist. Doesn't really make her notable for inclusion as a film critic. Her article has no evidence of it, as far as i can see. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
She sort of is a critic, but professional? I don't think so, she's no Ebert. But her review was not really relevant. The series was so highly acclaimed that searching out one review to get some false balance adds nothing. That she also didn't seem to grasp the basic concept of the program didn't really help her cause. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 'a critic', of just about everything but film! lol. It should be removed and replaced with a few other negative comments in notable publications, if they can be found. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I KNEW there'd been a negative comment at some point, and was worried bias had seen it removed. Greer is indeed quite an accomplished writer and academic. However I recall the comment now and agree it demonstrated she is not familiar with the show, certainly not familiar enough to be so scathing.Mongoletsi (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tense?

Asking the question since another user appears to disagree with me. What is the justification behind using the present tense to describe a television program that is no longer in production and no longer airing new episodes? Vidor 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TENSE. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's talking about a show 'coming alive' when you write about the events and stories in it. I have no problem with "Uncle Oscar is George Bluth's twin brother" and the like. I don't think that implies that a television program that manifestly is no longer in production should be referred to in the present tense. What with it actually being over and all. If it IS meant to imply that we should refer to a show no longer running as if it is actually still running, well, that's quite bizarre.Vidor 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree WP:TENSE doesn't necessarily read that programs no longer in production should be referred to in the present tense, it seems that other "exemplary articles" listed in the fiction Manual of Style are pretty consistently written this way. There aren't any other examples of a not-currently-in-production television series that's written this way, but there are two examples of not-currently-in-production series (of some sort): The Adventures of Tintin and Red vs. Blue. (The fiction MoS doesn't seem to explicitly address this point itself.) There are also some other current FAs about not-currently-in-production television series written this way: Cheers and Firefly (TV series). --Iknowyourider (t c) 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fictional article tenses. Iknowyourider (t c) 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it doesn't make sense to use the present tense in phrases like 'the show is filmed in...' when referring to a show that is no longer in production, and hence other phrases should follow.Liquidcow —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) here's an idea- we put it in past tense because the show is no longer in production, and because %99.9 of functioning human beings will refer to it that way. how does that sound, Vidor? 71.60.151.41 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, just because it isn't in production doesn't mean it ceased being a show and became something else, which is what past tense implies. Even if a lot of people would refer to it in the past tense that doesn't make it correct. It is a show, saying it was is simply incorrect. --TM 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made here. There are two types of situations to concern ourselves with: (1) events within the show; and (2) events outside of the show. Events within the show are things like "GOB often says, 'I've made a huge mistake.'" Events outside of the show are things like "Arrested Development aired on Fox." Events within the show typically remain present tense regardless of the show's broadcast schedule. However, events outside the show proper take whatever tense would normally be taken when talking about a factual event: The show aired on Fox before cancellation. KyleGoetz (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception by living comedy legends?

Has anyone been able to find any comments about the show by living comedy legends, like Jerry Seinfeld and the Monty Python stars? 66.41.253.22 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie

I just read in Relevant (basically a Christian SPIN) that Michael Cera, the final holdout, finally signed and agreed to do the movie.Masternachos (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

With the movie now in production and supposedly going to start filming in 2010, would it be possible to start a new page for it? Both Cera and Arnett have said that filming will start in 2010. I've seen many movies that have pages years before they are released, and considering that this movie is highly anticipated (even if by a small minority) it seems that a separate page would be useful (such as to keep track of changes better). I know there was some talk of this a few years back, what do people think? 129.133.206.180 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Logo Change

I noticed that the logo was replaced on January 10th, but the logo that is now up there looks more like a recreation of the original. Maybe I'm wrong and it's something directly from FOX, but I'm just not completely sure it's accurate, especially after seeing the talk page of the user who changed the logo: User_talk:Plateofshrimp AriX (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are going for a recreation, they have a nice SVG version at the German Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/e/e3/Arrested_Development.svg AriX (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This show does not use a single-camera setup

The main page incorrectly states that Arrested Development uses a single-camera setup. In fact, the show uses a multiple-camera setup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.235.140 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it uses a single-camera setup (as evident by its Emmy nomination for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing). Single-camera setups can use additional cameras and still technically be "single-camera" (Arrested uses 2 usually, although 3 were used in the pilot episode, according to the commentary on the first disc of season 1.). Check out the pages for single-camera and multi-camera setups for a better explanation 129.133.206.180 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Despite the name, "single-camera setup" often utilizes 2, 3, or more cameras. Pagen HD (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no movie.

The movie is not happening. If you want Wikipeia to be inaccurate, fine, but you make the site look stupid. Using 6 month old "references" as your source is absurd. There is NO credible sources to the statements that are currently on the Arrested Development page rearding the movie. Off the cuff remarks from former cast members who have ADMITTED in the past to purposely lying about hte movie is all you have. And the movie is not in ANY state. No script being written, etc. So to put on the page that it will be filming in 2010 is absurd.

Wikipedia should not be a place for pathetic fanboys to vent and live in a fantasy world delusion. It should be about facts, and the FACT is, there will never be an Arrested Development movie. the ONLY hope it had was if Michael Cera's career hadn' comee crashing to a halt in 2009, but it did. His name on the marquee now means box office bust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.123.4 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit, it does seem like parts of the article are a little more optimistics than some of the sources, but to say that there definitely won't be a movie seems to be even more wrong. A number of reliable sources claim there is still the possibility for it. But for right now, reliable sources from this year out-rank your personal opinion here on wikipedia, unless you'd like to provide some sources of your own. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a movie .. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901469/ .. http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/07/16/will-arnett-mitch-hurwitz-confirm-arrested-development-movie-gq/. I mean this is the internet, we do have information available. Cant people uses keyword searches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.30.126 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you, judging from your link and the original guy's post, I don't think the source you just posted existed yet at the time of his post. Regardless, he's just being overly negative about the movie ever coming out. Reliable sources trump his person opinion, so it doesn't really matter. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Talking about RS is just making fools, the cast are taking the piss, it's an in joke....that they've made it in newspapers doesn't make it any less bullshit. 92.21.200.78 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

what the heck is 'taking the piss'? is that some sort of English 'Chavie' slang, please refrain from provinchial slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.226.66 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you have sourcing to back up your claims, then? Doniago (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking me to prove a negative? It's been 6 years....how long does that section stay there, saying 'the movies coming...script is being written'? I know scripts can be slow, but it's been 'half done' since '07....not that anyone has seen it, or knows anything about it, or any funding has been secured....or the actors aren't getting too old for the roles they had...
That's a serious question btw, how long does that section continue to exist in the event that a film continues not to be made?92.21.195.147 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say it stays there at least until there is reliably sourced information to indicate that a movie will not be made. How many years was it until a sequel to TRON was released? There's no deadline here...how is the article harmed by including this information? Doniago (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
An article is obviously harmed by including inaccurate information...while the 'they said this and this and this about a movie' is technically true, you know what I mean. TRON is a freaky exception...this isn't a sequel in the die hard 4/rambo 9 kinda way, this is a tv show that wanted to become a movie....I think damn near everyone in tv would like to make a movie, but it's not a realistic assumption that they'll succeed. I don't think waiting for a 'cancelled' source is going to work....the movie only exists as (at most, and IMO probably not even) a half written script...there's no way in which it could be cancelled, assuming writer guy doesn't come out and say 'I've changed my mind I don't want to make a movie'....which doesn't seem likely, it's very possible that there will never be a source...again, it's the proving negative thing. Perhaps a suitable solution would be to trim down the section to the most authoritative& recent statements, and put it in past tense. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

The critical reception section needs some work. First, it mostly consists entirely of quotes and does not follow WP:QUOTE. Second, it only mentions positive reviews, which makes the implication that no critics ever had anything negative to say about the show, which I'm sure is not true. While it is clear that there have been mostly positive reviews, some negative or neutral ones need to be included to adhere to WP:NPOV. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If the response is overwhelmingly positive you don't need to go searching for negative reviews to 'balance' it. 92.21.200.78 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sources

tracy's cause of death

Michael's late wife is at least implied to have died of ovarian cancer. In S3ep7 ("Prison Break In"), there is a flashback to the TBA debacle, with the Bluths discussing what cause to promote with their fundraiser. George Sr. reads the submitted causes, including ovarian cancer, after which he says, "Gee, I wonder who that was" (for episode transcript, see <http://the-op.com/transcript/307>). I believe that it is inaccurate for the article to say "His wife, Tracy, died, though the cause of death is never given" (in lead paragraph of "Characters" section). If no one objects, I will edit the article to reflect this in a week or two. --Nbc7 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a definitive statement... Doniago (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

--NBC7 is right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.113.80 (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Fourth season

Mitch Hurwitz said at the New Yorker Fest that they will do a fourth season. I don't do wikipedia edits due to wiki-nazi's. So one of you go find that info and add it.

  • Incoming sources:
Wow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Expectations should probably be managed in terms of this potential fourth season. New additions to the article in regards of this should be written as there is plans for another season, not that it will happen and that's been confirmed the series will return. It's one thing for the creator to say he's doing it, it's another thing for it to actually come to fruition. There's still tons of behind-the-scenes and production things to happen first. Hopefully some of the other editors for this article will agree. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)/GA1

The Meaning of the Title

What does "Arrested Development" mean?--98.196.234.69 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrested Development. Doniago (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't see the disambiguation page. And thank you.--98.196.234.69 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome! Doniago (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a double entendre. Naturally, it alludes to the state of the Bluth family, but it also refers to the arrest and imprisonment of George Sr. in the pilot episode – they even had a newspaper headline that read "Arrested Developer". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Hi there. I don't think there's actually a limit on how much uncited material can be removed without consensus, so I'm hoping there's some other reason why all the uncited original research I pulled has been restored. If there are particular sections of it that are sufficiently cited, then I don't object to restoring those, but adding 15,000 bytes of material without adding any new citations seems to fall short of WP standards. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You must show a reasonable amount of effort to cite it yourself. For a change, I'm not going to do it this time. I'm sure this can be done, as in many cases I've done this over my time on Wikipedia. It should never be this easy to just take away the hard work of other editors. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's also not original research if there are multiple primary sources for the cited content i.e. the series itself, and its episodes, in this case. It's not as if these are the mindless ramblings of one editor. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 17:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, especially when it's presented in a non-interpretative way that can be well understood from watching the material. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe I'm required to show any effort to cite it myself. However, I'll go ahead and say that I spent three days looking for sources, and came up empty. Either way, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for material that you restore.
I also disagree with the premise that any hard work has been removed. It looks to me like people have been coming in and randomly adding tidbits here and there about their favorite episodes, jokes and devices without any effort to consider their notability or verifiability. Research is hard work; typing is easy.
And while I'm at it, I'll disagree with the claim that having multiple primary sources is sufficient for the bulk of the material that was pulled. If we're talking about primary sources to back up claims that a specific event happened in a specific episode, I don't think anyone's going to object. But if we're going to say that event X was a reference to character Y's role in movie Z, you're probably going to need a reliable source, unless Ron Howard actually gives a voice-over making that connection explicit. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
So... if it bothers you that much, the proper thing to do is tag the problematic material and initiate a discussion, not just delete half the article... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be conflating "the proper thing to do" with what you wish had happened. Actual proper things to do include citing new material with a an inline citation and taking down contentious uncited material.
Either way, we've got a discussion going now. I'm listening. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that you removed those sections of the article, so it isn't like that section is being restored against consensus: it was your choice, primarily, yes? It seems you removed those entire sections on their own rather than specific sentences or claims that you objected to. A citation could have been added and other editors could have added references. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 08:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me reiterate perhaps in more analogous terms: you bulldozed through entire neighborhoods without looking through each one for contentious houses. Notices are granted prior to actions being taken ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 08:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I can see why it would look that way, especially to editors who may feel some attachment to the article, either because they are fans of the show or because they were the ones who added the unsourced material.
However, I think that if you take a more careful look at the state of the article, you should be able to see that I did, in fact, remove material that fails WP:V and WP:OR. Everything I pulled lacked a reliable source, but I did not simply go plowing through removing everything without a source. I went through and pulled out the items that appeared unverifiable. Therefore, plotlines were left intact, character descriptions were left intact. Awards, etc., were left intact.
What was yanked was all material that appears to have been added by fanboy editors who came along and noticed that their personal favorite gag from the show was not mentioned.
Whatever you think about my edits, I guess I'm still confused about why you think this material should remain up despite failing WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OR. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned twice already, Wikipedia allows us to cite episodes, and the proper way to do it is use the {{cite episode}} template. Right now I don't have the time to properly do it myself, but I'll try in a few days when I have a decent internet connection. Until then, you can put a {{wikify}} tag to attract the attention of editors. You really seem to forget that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand this is a collaborative effort. That requires people to find problems and it requires people to fix problems. Sometimes, the same person will do both. Other times (this time), different people do different parts.
Cite episode doesn't really solve the major problem here, which is the abundance of original research. Unless the episode explicitly says, for instance, that "eerie, foreboding music is played to foreshadow disasters such as the loss of Buster's hand and the collapse of the floor of the model house in Season 2," then I don't see how you justify retaining that sentence -- or the dozens of others in the same vein -- in the absence of a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but it's pretty annoying to have an editor place, literally, hundreds of citation needed tags on the article and expect other editors to clean up the article and do all the work. You're essentially saying "hey, here's a giant mess that needs to be cleaned up, you do it while I watch". It's pretty rude. I'd like to think you're actually going to contribute and add references as I just. I'm assuming you're a fan of this show (otherwise why would you care about this article), so you should be able to assist. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
None taken. I find it equally annoying when fanboys clutter up pages with their favorite notable guests and mentions of every joke they think is funny, and also when editors insist that such unencyclopedic nonsense stay on the page.
My method for dealing with that is to delete the offending material, per WP:V. Strangely, that has some editors' panties in a bunch. Given their enthusiasm for the possibility of adding cite tags, I assumed they were ready to go with references. Seeing now that they are not, I'm even more confused by their tacit insistence that WP:V and WP:OR do not apply to this page.
I would gladly add references, but I sincerely cannot find any WP:RS to cite all the claims that plot line X is a reference to event Y in real life. That's why I deleted those passages to begin with. I'm kind of between a rock and hard place here, getting called out on one hand for deleting unverifiable material and for requesting citations on the other. What other options are there? — Bdb484 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep saying $#!+ like "fanboys" and "gets their panties in a bunch". I'm done talking to @$$holes. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I would just prefer to state that if one were to peruse the vast gamut of information regarding the series, in terms of its critical reception, which has not waned for years, you would be able to find verifiable information, and a lot of what you claim to be "original research" certainly is not so. I have been working on several media-related articles and literature-related articles on Wikipedia and what constitutes original research and what constitutes verifiable, important information, that which is of merit, is separate, entirely - you can definitely tell the difference. And if you really want to help with the article, then you should be willing and able to help add references, search these reserves of critical responses, and add them to the article - otherwise, it just seems to me that you simply want to remove sections of the article that you don't want to be included. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. The "Critical reception" portion of the article is not really a concern, as Drovethrughosts was already helpful enough to add citations to everything there.
The more problematic portions are concentrated under "Themes and other characteristics," which, as I've said previously, appears to be a compilation of editors' favorite gags and references. I haven't seen any reliable sources that would be appropriate as citations for that material. If you have, I hope you'll point them out, or even just add inline citations yourself.
However, it's becoming apparent to me that no such citations are forthcoming. In their absence, perhaps you'd be gracious enough to instead help me understand why WP:CITE doesn't apply to this material. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to read my post, I was not speaking about the "critical reception" section of the article in a formulaic sense, but the exact kind of statements that you had claimed were a "compilation of editors' favorite gags and references" - the exact same statements would have been verifiable by the vast gamut of critical reception, the critical reservoirs, that serve as such important references on any literature or media-based article on Wikipedia. To elucidate, I mean, look at the hundreds of articles writers online and in-print have written in regards to the series and you will find that these aren't simply the claims of a few. It seems that you already have some preconceived conceptualizations of these statements, and it does not seem to be a neutral stance at all. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to give a simple example of how this is not at all original research and how simple and easy it is for someone, with good faith and good intentions, to add references in regards to the article: here is a verifiable reference of Mitch Hurwitz talking about the Buster's hand reference that you had thought to be "original research". All we need here is good faith, as this is a collaborative project, as someone earlier mentioned. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've watched this twice and I haven't heard anything that supports what this article says about Buster's hand. If you could give me quote or a time reference, that would be more helpful.

Also, if you could help me understand why WP:CITE doesn't apply to this material, that would also be helpful. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem like you care about verifiability if you ignore obvious references and much of the points that I have made. Please desist with this edit-warring. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The article says that eerie, foreboding music is used to foreshadow the loss of Buster's hand. The video says that the hand chair was used to foreshadow the loss of Buster's hand. Am I missing something? — Bdb484 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I should also note that I appreciate your observations that WP needs to be treated as a collaborative project. I get that, and I've made efforts to find material that backs up the contested content, and I've reviewed the material you provided, as well, but none of it seems to meet the standards for verification. So I don't think we can just rely on the project's collaborative nature as an excuse to let unverified material remain up in perpetuity.
That said, it sounds like you and Hearfourmewesique are at the point where you've agreed to disagree. I imagine that won't help to move us forward, as another edit to remove the uncited material would only be met with another revert. I've requested a WP:3O, so I'm hopeful that we can get a fresh set of eyes on this in the next 24 hours or so. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Chiming in to say that I'm inclined to in general terms agree with your interpretation, though in my opinion in cases where there are large masses of material that need citing it is often preferable to tag the section itself, or perhaps the article, rather than tagging every specific instance of a problem. If the section/article has already been tagged long-term, moving the information here may be preferable to removing it entirely if it's likely to be contentious. That being said, there is also no prohibition against removing unsourced material without tagging it first, nor are editors under any requirement to attempt to find sources before engaging in removal. From my skimming of the conversation it appears some editors may be confusing what is required with what might be considered best practice, or possibly more courteous. Regards. Doniago (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, this discussion wouldn't qualify for 3O as more than two editors have already participated. Other avenues for requesting additional opinions are available if desired. Doniago (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Did a quick review of the article. Tagged the Themes section for OR and the Music section for having no references that I could easily locate. I don't tend to actually act on such problems for at least a couple of months, so editors have some time to address these issues, but the problems are obvious, and as noted in earlier threads have already negatively impacted this article. Doniago (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out. I agree that using the section tags makes more sense. I added a couple more and think we have everything covered now.
Now that we know we have some editors with their eyes on the article, I'm hopeful that the tags will attract enough attention to get this material cited in the next month or so. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Narration?

Are you sure it's Ron Howard because James Arnold Taylor has stepped in for him in several media projects including this series 70.242.143.126 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source saying that, you should definitely add it. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I asked James on this one and he told me he has been Ron's voice double on many projects including this series 70.242.143.126 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This is directly from his FaceBook for fans and I quote "Can you really do an imitation of Ron Howard?" James said, "Yep. I was his double for several projects from cartoons to the show Arrested Development. JAT" 70.242.143.126 (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course I won't know til Ron himself answers my question on his FaceBook wall Matthew Cantrell (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think his Facebook page would count as a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Is anyone actually working on rounding up references for all the uncited original research? It's been sitting there tagged for a while, and it sounded like there were a few people who expected the references to be found very quickly.

It's been an incredibly long time since these issues were first raised, but it doesn't seem like anyone actually thinks the content is valuable enough to bother bringing it up to WP standards. I'd rather see it all cited and preserved, but if there aren't any good-faith efforts being made to do that, I don't mind cleaning it out instead. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research, Pt. 2

Whereas: The last paragraph of material under "Characters," the entirety of "Notable guests," the entirety of "Themes and other characteristics," and the entirety of "Music" are lacking reliable sources;

Whereas: Assertions about these characters, the notability of guest stars, and analysis of thematic elements and soundtrack usage constitute original research;

Whereas: All of the aforementioned material has been challenged and therefore must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source, pursuant to WP:V;

Whereas: The problems with this page forced it to be delisted from featured article status;

Whereas: The problems with this page resulted in its failure to reach even the much lower good article standard;

Whereas: It has been five years since these objections were first raised and editors monitoring this page pledged to address these problems;

Whereas: It has been three years since these objections to this material were renewed;

Whereas: It has been 50 days since these objections this material were rerenewed;

Whereas: It has been 20 days since these objections were rererenewed;

Whereas: The solicitation of a third opinion yielded an agreement on the problematic nature of the aforementioned content;

Whereas: No efforts appear to have been made to bring this material into compliance with WP:V;

Whereas: WP:AGF requires that we assume this failure is due to the nonexistence of reliable sources for this material, and not due to a lack of initiative on the part of fellow Wikipedians;

Whereas: Unverifiable material should not be retained on the encyclopedia; and

Whereas: Those who wish to retain this material have failed to meet the burden of proof required to do so; it is therefore

Resolved: That the offending material should be stricken from the page.

All in favor, please signal by removing the offending material. All opposed, please signal by adding citations to reliable sources. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts. The paragraph regarding the recurring character should not be removed, there's nothing wrong it. A section regarding actors who appear in the show is not original research. I understand if this article was under a GA or FA review, they might want some references in there, but this article is not under review. Some goes for the plot section, references aren't really needed as the episode serves as the references. If it were under review, we'd need episode references, but since it's not, I don't see the problem. The massive list of notable guests is fine to go, as any notable recurring characters can be listed in the paragraph itself. I will be readding (although making some copyediting adjustments) to the recurring characters paragraph. Eventually, I'll try and salvage some worthy information from the themes and other characteristics section, with references, as there's definitely some noteworthy content there. What was there was a bit excessive and fancrufty (and while essentially all true) is pretty impossible to find sources for that are not blogs. The music section, especially the other music subsection would be, again, impossible to find sources for, and is mostly excessive information. Some small portions from the main music section could possibly get readded later. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The plot section was left unscathed, as it generally seems verifiable (although I'm not a fan of using the episodes as citations). The recurring characters section may or may not be original research, but it was certainly uncited and objected to on numerous occasions, so I hope you'll include inline cites before restoring any of it. They are required regardless of FA or GA status.
I salute your efforts in tracking down citations for the themes section, as they seem to have eluded most editors for some time. If they're out there, though, it would be great to get this stuff back into the article, because that's what really makes the show worth talking about, in my opinion. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite the protests, I am going to again remove the uncited material about recurring characters. We have been waiting for sources for more than five years on this. If you are going to restore it without citations, please do us the courtesy of explaining why this material is an exception to WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:BURDEN. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FLC for Awards list

List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development is currently a Featured List candidate. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development/archive1. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)/GA2

They set a date for season 4.

I don't know if we can source official facebook pages or not. Either way, here it is: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=241134189366427&set=a.241134182699761.1073741825.213663452113501&type=1&theater

And while it may not be neutral, holy hell yes.

Punkonjunk (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect/Requested move

This is discussed on the talk page of arrested development (and the discussions are now archived here) but I thought it would be appropriate to bring it up here. "Arrested development" and "arrested development" redirect to that page, which talks about a seemingly non-notable medical term. I'm under the impression that the television show is the primary topic, but I don't know how to make a request see about having those search terms redirect to the Arrested Development page. Any thoughts? A wild Rattata (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Emmy nominations

The lead section should cover the most important aspects of the article subject. Three Emmy nominations certainly fit that category. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's happened recently doesn't mean we just dump all that info into the lead for no reason. Its three nominations for the fourth season is not notable for the lead for the entire series article. Why not mention every single nomination for the previous seasons then there as well? It makes no sense. The second paragraph (in the lead) already mentions its award nominations, it doesn't need to go beyond that. I do believe it is a case of WP:RECENT, how is more notable that Netlfix submitted it a nominee and didn't get nominated than the fact that the series actually won that award during its original run, or that Bateman is nominated for season 4, but was also nominated several times previously. It does not need to be in the lead at all. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not more notable, but it is as notable, considering the numerous differences between the original run and the fourth season. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
But being 'not' nominated for something does not belong in the lede. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not the main point of the sentence, that is a side note inside the main statement, included to highlight the nominations. This is writing 101. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It still doesn't belong there, maybe somewhere, but not the lead of the entire series article. No other singular nominations are mentioned in the lead, that is covered by it saying "the series has received widespread critical acclaim, including six Primetime Emmy Awards and one Golden Globe Award". That's what the lead is for, a basic overview of the entire article, not mentioning it recently got nominated for 3 Emmys. That paragraph is acceptable for the season 4 article, but not the main article. Again, this information is not being deleted from the article, it's properly located in the Accolades subsection, along with all the award wins/nominations. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

New source about executive influence

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrested Development (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrested Development Season 4 Remix: Fateful Consequences

Should we add an additional section in the Episodes section for the season 4 remix, or should we encompass it within season 4? Christopher-Moreno1 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that it's actually out on Netflix, should it replace the original season 4 listings? The old episodes have been moved to the "trailers and more" section of the show, so it certainly does seem like the producers intend to replace the old season 4 with this new cut. PapaMichael (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It definitely shouldn't replace the original release, but a second episode table could be created within the season 4 article (I plan on doing that soon). The only problem is possible episode summaries, which would be redundant of the original. If summaries were to be added, they would have to be really concise, because the original episode summaries are fairly lengthy. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A second table for the remix episodes is fine, but we absolutely should not have episode summaries for these. It's the same material, split across eps in a different manner. At most, a <100 word/1 sentence summary, which should reflect the original release summaries, would be allowed. But it should be on the S4 page for both tables; this is not a new season. --Masem (t) 13:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Music

There used to be a section of this article for music. IMHO, important topic. It was genius just in the cueing, but also so much original work from David Schwartz. If nothing else, the infobox should note Schwartz as musical director or whatever title the infobox uses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrested_Development/Archive_4&oldid=1195359777"