Talk:MythBusters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I'VE SEEN IT

I saw the first episode, with the toilet myth. Very interesting. They actually built a containment chamber for the toilet. Excellent show. ekimdrachir 21:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Specials

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)

Nutrality

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)

American program?

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)

• If you have it on good authority that the production crew is mostly Australian. I don't know that it's really relevant. --Kerowyn 07:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• The show is produced by Beyond productions, the Australian company responsible for Beyond 2000. And we got part of the first season with an Aussie voice-over instead of the US one (and frankly I miss it). A few times I'm sure I've heard Aussie voices from the crew. When they tried to flip the taxi with the exhaust from a jet engine, the staffer on the phone organising things (when the insurance company changed its mind about letting them have a 767) was an Australian, or possibly New Zealander. So there certainly seems to be *some* aussies on the crew. But like you said, it's probably not relevant. Imroy 19:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, Adam said in an interview that they have '30 to 40 people in Australia constantly producing and editing the shows'. Not that relevant, just interesting. Swarve 10:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• The show's concept was thought up by Australian Peter Rees, the show's executive producer. Most of the show's crew are Australian.
  

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)

Myth Results

Perhaps we could cross reference the myths tested with relevant Wikipedia articles? I'm sure we have articles for a great many of these urban legends. Kerowyn 07:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--DooMDrat 08:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to merge the episode list to the myths busted. Seems redundant to have two lists. --BradBeattie 14:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've combined episodes and myths. Still needs work though. Could be made neater I suspect. Some myths are left unattributed.--DooMDrat 15:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Episodes by Season

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)

Shark Week

Does anyone think that something should be mentioned about shark week now that the Mythbusters are hosting. Maybe the myths they busted on shark week should be listed also.--Metal Maniac 22:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ya. I'll do that. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

If he doesn't I'll do it then. I'm in the commercial of the episode right now.

I added a little bit. I don't know a whole lot about shark week, so you can add more. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve

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)

Also, phrasing on many of these myths needs to be redone: too many are in the form of question, rather than statement.

I've done a few, but some that I marked busted may have been plausable. You can check over mine and do the rest. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

There, changed all the questions to myth statements Gfad1 16:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but please be careful, you wiped out a lot of the cleanup I'd done. I've dropped in the spoiler warning on the full version with those myths I can remember the results of in place.Existentializer 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

We need some sort of warning, because it might spoil the show for someone who hasn't seen it. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Spoiler template is already in place.Existentializer 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why have you undone the changes i made yesterday? I changed the phrasing so the list of questions became a list of myths, as discussed above but you have put totally illogical question marks in where none are needed, and you have put more questions in. I am changing the list back to statements. Also i just watched the episode where they replace the fuse with a bullet and it is definately not confirmed, they imply that it is plausible but then decide that the myth is busted. Gfad1 11:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Verylarge, 8/17/05

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)

I don't think each individual myth needs a new page, but a list of mythbusters episodes is reasonable. yes --Ignignot 14:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

killer falling water ballons

A person came in the Hospital yesterday that was knocked Unconscious, an hour later he woke up and I asked what happened? A nd he said "That he was walking down the steet, and all of a suden something hit him. Which got him all wet, Then he fell down and woke up here."

A week later, the same guy came back in and told me that "A bistanderd told him that he saw an water ballon that was falling off of the 10 story building that he was walking by hit him, and that guy called 911; Which saved his life"

Question

How does MythBusters get their ideas?

Mostly from common urban myths and questions from viewers. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if someone adds the word "proven" or "disproven" alongside with each myth on the list? --SunTzu2 13:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Would spoil the show somewhat. I explained the outcome of their attempt on the Alcatraz escape myth on the Alcatraz Island page, but it was relevant. It could also encourage others to list every single myth they put to the test. Besides, some myths would need the scientific explanations given in the show mentioned as well, simply labelling them as proven or disproven would not be sufficient.--DooMDrat 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since it's possible to scientifically disprove something, hardly ever possible to prove something, the language would be misleading. --BartBee 02:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well we could put a Spoiler warning and move all the myths tested to the bottom of the article. We could state the testing of a myth in more ambiguous terms then "proven" or disproved" such as "verified" ,"busted", ect. We could briefly state the result of a test in one sentence. --BerserkerBen 16:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The show's not purely scientifc, since they aren't doing repeated trials of their experiments. And they don't always create a good control group on their show. --Madchester July 7, 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Actually, they do try to make the experiments as scientific as possible, but the limits of TV (specifically time limits) means that they can't show all the extra groundwork or repeat tests they do. --VederJuda 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because a set of experiments are done with scientific methodology does not mean that the myth is proven or disproven. Sometimes a single experiment does not sufficiently bracket the possible variations within the myth. For example, just because running as fast as you can in the rain sometimes keeps you drier doesn't mean that in all cases it will work. Physicists have worked this out in great detail and have mathematical models that agree well with empirical results. Within in the limits of the entertainment show, they did not sufficiently consider important variables, such as wind velocity, which is almost always substantial in a hard rain. Unfortunately, many of my students are left with the impression that if you do a carefully controlled group of experiment, that they are necessarily conclusive relative to a large class of situations expressed by the myth. They usually aren't. What the myth busters prove at best, is that in certain situations with certain substitutions (such as crash-test dummies for humans), the myth is supported or unsupported. Here's another example: http://www.statisticool.com/mythbusters.htm

On the show, they usually label them "busted," "plausible," or "confirmed." Maybe someone could link to a site that lists the myths and their outcomes (and of course tag the link with a spoiler warning)? Win777 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should have talked about the Jaws myths in where it is or label it.

Could you explain further?--DooMDrat 13:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article could use a bit of restructuring, as the table of contents is more than halfway though. --Ignignot 19:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

People, PLEASE!

Spelling. Grammar. We've already been through these things. The myths should be phrased as statements, not questions. Make sure your spelling is right, ESPECIALLY when making links or you just create dead links.

And please, for the love of god, make sure about the confirmation status before entering it! I've had to clean up three false "confirmed" or "busted" mentions after reviewing the episodes in question! Existentializer 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

First guys i think we have all done a really good job in reorganising and rephrasing all the "myths tested" section. I would also like to clarify that in the bullet replacing the car fuse myth on the programme they tested whether it could happen in a normal car, and found this to be impossible. They then tested whether it was possible with higher gauge/capacity wire which would never be found in a car. This was when the bullet penetrated the passenger compartment, therefore the overall conclusion was Busted on this one although they did make the comment that it was "waiting to happen". Gfad1 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, they replaced it with the possible wiring the current could run through if the car were having other electrical problems which may have been the reason the original fuse would have burned out. Never at any point did they replace the wiring with something it could not conceivably have run through. I went back and rewatched the episode to check. The verdict was "Plausible."

Clearly you didn't rewatch the episode as i only saw it the other day and it definately said busted as i remember being suprised that they said busted rather than plausible. Maybe we can let the people at the fansite have the final word. This clearly says MYTH BUSTED [1]Gfad1 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, seriously. What is up with the arguing? -Benhead_07

Seasons

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)

Links to cast/crew

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)

I hadn't seen the link to Lee's sight, and have now removed it. Both Byron's and Lee's sight are listed in the external links section. I felt it was redundant to link in the article, and because I beleive it is faux pas to have external links in an article. Kari Byron was once an article, but it was deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron, then redirected here. Does that clear it up? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, that looks about right. Captainmax

Why are the names Kari and Tory still linked to their respective, yet deleted, pages? They just link back to the main MB page. If we are not going to have pages for them, why do we still have the links? Also, reading over the deletion vote page for Kari, I have to wonder why a random "big-bust" model gets a page (a la Maria Swan) but television personalities like Kari and Tory, who arguably have contributed a bit more to the entertainment industry, are frowned upon?

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)

Other Mythbusters Appearances

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)

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

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

Okay I made the page and added data. PLEASE HELP! :D I am out of time today --Thoughtfix 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comedic Motifs

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)

Chicken Cannon Ignorance.

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)

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)

Notable Quotations

The section is getting too big, or is it just my imagination? :) Maybe we could remove some, like "Aluminium, I love you." and "It doesn't have that stayintheredness"

Yeah I agree, and I've seen it happening before in other articles. So I decided to move it all to Wikiquote already. I do think that it would be nice to keep at most five quotes in the article, a few ones that really capture the spirit of the show. ☢ Kieff | Talk 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

At least keep Adam Savages infamous "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" quote. Most Mythbusters fans would agree it's one of the most memorable quotes from the Series period.

Quote though it may be "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" was Adam quoting a line from a movie (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/dungeonmaster/). It seems strange to not give credit where credit is due, but I notice that the information I added a while back regarding the origin of this quote was promptly wiped from the page. Perhaps it's not appropriate information for the "quotes" section, but not mentioning it's true origin would be akin to attributing "I love it when a plan comes together," to Jamie.

I agree, I arrived at this page because I was searching for exactly that info. But it's in the talk page, not the article.

Hm, the article and quotes are not linked correctly. This pages links to "MythBusters", while the article on wikiquote is actually "Mythbusters". I'd change it, but I don't know how.

Oops, my bad! Thanks for pointing that out. This has been fixed. ☢ Kieff | Talk 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I added back the quotes section with a little warning for editors. I picked 4 quotes, two from Jamie and two from Adam, that I think describe the show well. If you disagree, well, just tell us your opinion over here. ☢ Kieff | Talk 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone check what episode this quote from: "I don't think Jamie is an evil genius. I don't think he's evil nor a genius.", and add it to the Wikiquote? Might have been "Salsa Escape", but I think Adam had aluminum foil around his face.

That was with the Microwave Myths Episode. The Episode where Jamie inadvertantly made a refridgerator that cooled the water with the components of 4 Microwaves instead of superheating water.

Thanks, I remember now.

Can anyone tell me the origin of "Quack, damn you!"?

It's from Episode 8 — "Escape From Alcatraz, Duck Quack, Stud Finder".--Drat (Talk) 00:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Although there is a warning, people are still adding new quotes.

Yep. I changed "Note:" to "#### ATTENTION ####" and moved to the bottom of the quotes. I hope people will notice it that way :| ☢ Kieff | Talk 22:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Flawed experiments?

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)

This can go in the "Revisiting Myths" section I created if you'd like. Should that go under the Format section too? Thoughtfix 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

I agree that many of their experiments appear to be cut short and the team seems to often jump to conclusions without properly disproving other potential explanations. This may be attributable to the fact that it's only a one hour show and also that it's targeted at everyday TV viewers, not trained scientists. I've posted this particular question on the official MythBusters forum. I'll post any appropriate reply here. 71.146.5.255 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

Under "Origin of the show" it used to say:

Of note is that, despite rumours, Jamie and Adam are NOT gay lovers, though it does appear so in numerous episodes.

which I, on basis of NPOV, changed to:

Of note is that, despite rumours, neither Jamie nor Adam are gay—in fact, Jamie has been married for almost 20 years.

which in turn was nuked by Bueller 007 on grounds that it had nothing to do with the origin of the show.

Upon reading the first quote, my reaction was also to just nuke it. However, some quick Googling revealed that it is a quite common rumor that they are gay, in particular in Jamie's case, something I didn't know. (So I guess my gaydar is either broken or working exceedingly well.) This is emphasized by the fact that they often have to answer the question when interviewed, see for example [2] and [3].

In fact, in the first interview, Adam says (jokingly):

And we heard word from Discovery on Saturday, and that what they said was, "These are just the geeks we were looking for!" But apparently among themselves they wondered if they could do a show with a couple of homosexuals from San Francisco.

So putting a sentence along the lines of what was removed by Bueller 007) under "Origin of the show" might not be so far fetched.

One might argue that it would be better to put this information on Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman instead. However, those pages are pretty short at the moment, so putting such a statement there would give the subject undue attention.

I think we must clarify such a common rumor. What do you think?

–- Woseph 18:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject of their sexuality is better addressed in their individual articles. Adam Savage states he has twin sons. I do recall reading that Jamie Hyneman has been married for 20 years, but it's not in the article. --waffle iron 19:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree that it's better to put such information in the individual articles instead. However, as I said above, those articles are pretty short at the moment, and putting in a "By the way, he's not gay!"-statement (or whatever) gives it undue attention. I believe being the father of two (and divorced, as I understand it) and gay is possible, so that information is not sufficient (in the case of Adam). Again, I think we should keep in mind that it is something many wonder about (although I'm not one of them) and the question pops up in interviews. Hence, it's reasonable to assume that our readers want accurate information about the subject. The information about Jamie's marriage is in the first interview linked above. -- Woseph 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned at all. Apart from only being rumoured, who is it doing the rumouring? Ill-informed and silly people who need to get a life! In this day and age it should not matter whether someone is gay or not, it's just a non-notable aspect of their private lives that should not be subject to this constant billing-and-cooing of idiots. We never bother to mention that someone is heterosexual, so why is any other sort of sexuality important? The only time it's worth mentioning is if the people themselves make a deal about it, and that is a key part of their PUBLIC persona. These people who titter behind their hands and spread gossip are very boring, need to drag themselves into the modern age, and not be given legitimacy by having their titterings repeated on Wikipedia! There, rant over... Graham 22:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Jamie and Adam do infact mention this rumor in their book and Im pretty sure that I have seen this mentioned in interviews online. If it's notable enough to be acknoledged and be placed in the official book it should be notable enough for wikipedia. 155.212.229.242

Picture request.

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)

Build Team Status

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)

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)

not to pick but the intro says combined 30 years. At least it said that on yesterdays (tuesday dec 6 06) episode --Xiahou 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of injuries

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)

• • Agreed. Edit how you see fit then.--Cantthinkofausername 10:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. It needs trimming badly. It's gotten way out of hand.--Drat (Talk) 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

What about something along the lines of List of Mythbusters injuries? Personally, I'd like to see such a list compiled (and I think it would be an encyclopedic entry), but a complete list certainly doesn't belong in the main MythBusters article. EVula 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Wasn't there one where Adam was electricuted because he was tricked by the build team? 130.13.102.225 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm.. That's not actually an injury, I don't think.--Vercalos 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was a injury where in the gun backfire myth, where Tory tested the rig for the pigs, and the chain slipped aand hit him in the head, wasn't it? Dvyjones^t·c·e 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think so. If I remember correctly, he was hanging on the chain ("testing it" or something like that), and when the chain slipped, his hands (which were holding on to to the chain)went up and hit him in the head (though I can't remember where on his head that he hit himself). --LuigiManiac | Talk 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The whole section needs reorganising into prose and many of the injuries need to be removed. This isn't supposed to be a listing of random people's favourite injuries.--Drat (Talk) 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of UK/Europe broadcast information

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)

What are the official seasons?

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)

Narration

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)

The articles states:

"One additional broadcasting is in Canada, on Discovery Canada. It is shown almost daily, with no voice overs or any other modifications, and is the same version that is shown in the USA.

British Discovery Channel, which is broadcast over Europe, replaces Robert Lee's narration with their own."

I don't quiet understand this. Robert Lee is credited at the end of every episode, at least on the Nordic version of Discovery. And if the original is without narration, how can this be replaced?

And this: "The German Discovery Channel airs the show every day including voice overs for the characters and the "narrator". The free to air station RTL II also shows it with German voiceovers." Why are there quotation marks around narrator? Perhaps they completely replace the narration with their own? Tskoge 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Scottie Chapman

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)

She is a former member, no-longer on the show.--Drat (Talk) 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

...Yes but former cast still count.Quolnok 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

It would be hard to write about Scottie's involvement in MB and Monster Garage without waffling... kelvSYC 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign broadcasts

Is this extensive information really important?--Drat (Talk) 10:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The list could certainly be reduced since most of the entries simply say it's shown on the Discovery Channel in the respective country. Just say "Myth Busters is show on The Discovery Channel in ..." and list the countries. There goes the bulk of the list right there. Imroy 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Ignignot 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with it.--Drat (Talk) 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reduced version is now incorrect, as the german version neither shows on discovery channel but on RTL2 nor Robin Banks as a narrator but voice over instead. - Actually it is fully dubbed.

And while I'm on it, doesn't "In some countries, the English speech is either subtitled in the relevant language, or the narrator replaced with a person speaking the relevant language" apply to basically _all_ TV/movie exports? Just nuke this useless statement. (It's almost wrong too, as it makes no sense replacing just the narrator.)

This section is getting out of hand again. Was it really even necessary in the first place? How many articles on TV shows actualyl have sections listing what channels it is on in each country?--Drat (Talk) 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's getting beyond a joke. WP:NOT a TV guide.--Drat (Talk) 12:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are no reasonable objections in two days, I'm going to remove the section.--Drat (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythbusters on iTunes

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)

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)

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)

Reply from Jamie

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)

One word (in a sense two): Kick-arse!--Drat (Talk) 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's three more words: No Original Research. Dave420 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Mak (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Let us pat ourselves on the back on occassion.--Vercalos 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well There's Your Problem!

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) 06:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fixed! ---Thoughtfix 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

waste of time headings

>>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)

Good idea - there is some redundancy there. Take a stab at what you think is best. ---Thoughtfix 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the main reasons I redited the article. Nightscream 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many injuries or mishaps listed

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)

It's gotten way out of hand. I've removed some of the additions.--Drat (Talk) 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If the list starts getting way too long, I think a separate article should be created for the Mythbusters' injuries and mishaps; just leave a couple of famous and classic examples on this page and link to the rest in the header. --flip619 (Talk) 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure that injuries on the show are noteworthy enough to merit their own article, but if you guys insist, I would say that only the most memorable and visually dramatic should be left in the main article, like the one where Adam lost some of his hair. Nightscream 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Season 4

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

It's hard to say what is in S4 - the MBs still have a few shows left in S3, IIRC from the MB fan club message board. In either case, if the MBs say it's in S4, then we say it's in S4. kelvSYC 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits & Reverts

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)

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)

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)

The reason it fits under Format is because Format is where the procedures on the show are dicussed. Since Buster is a part of the experiment process, it belongs there. He does not have a personality, is not a person at all, and is not a cast member, IMO. (I don't recall seeing him mentioned in the oogie boogie paragraph.) As far as the colorization, does it really have to match that article? In that other article, it serves a specific purpose for the reader who scans the article vertically. Here, it doesn't really serve any purpose that I can see. What does WP policy or its Manual of Style say about this? Nightscream 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I don't see how the person-ness of an object that is not a person could be in question. As for the paragraph you refer to, that is not the "paranormal paragraph." If you read it, you'll see that it's the paragraph on the LIMITS of what the MythBusters will not or cannot test. They don't do paranormal. They don't put dogs in microwaves. They don't test myths involving the human body if they're too dangerous---hence the mention of Buster. The topic, therefore, is quite clear.

And while we're on the subject of Buster, please stop inserting more and more details into the section on him. I removed some of them becuase the article was WAY too long. We don't need to know that someone in an episode nicknamed him "2.0." We don't need to know exactly which parts of the original dummy are still part of the current one (especially since there are now others). We don't need to know the exact episode in which he was burnt. Let's strike a balance between generalities and some specific details and examples, okay?

As for formatting the conclusions, I recommend boldface. Nightscream 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, an Intro sentence is a fundamental rule of writing a paragraph. I disagree with what you think the paragraph "focuses" on, since you're not supposed to just read the first sentence of a paragraph and then stop there if you want to know what a paragraph is about--you're supposed to read the whole thing--but yes, an Intro is a good idea. Good call. :-) Nightscream 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More sections, not fewer

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)

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)

I can buy the idea of subsections on Buster-Plausible-Confirmed, and on Buster, but beyond that, I don't think there's a need. There should be a middle ground here. I mean, a subsection on the myths they test? A subsection on what they do not test? A subsection on how they test it? C'mon, that's overkill. Nightscream 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Paragraphs can split off the broad strokes of their activities quite well; this doesn't have to be done with entire subsections with headings. The two-step process, for example, is described quite nicely as is. Whether such a thing is mentioned by the narrator or describes something they've "always" done is not the point. That level of detail simply isn't necessary. Similarly, mentioning that the Mythbusters were doing it "The MythBusters" way when Buster was destroyed by explosives is not necessary. A simple mention that he was destroyed in an explosion is sufficient. Similarly, I removed the conclusions from the short list of myths test under Format. The conclusions are not pertinent to that passage, because that passage merely seeks to list some myths. It does not have to give the conclusion, which as it was written, made reading it more clunky, IMO. As for Buster's place in the scheme of things, I personally don't have an opinion on whether he is noteworthy enough to merit his own article, but if you want to create one, I encourage it. That does not mean, however, that he should not be in the main article, as you suggest. Some mention of him would seem to be appropriate. It's just the level of detail that we disagree on somewhat. Nightscream 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I looked through the article today for the first time in several days, and it looks really good, guys. I like the order in which the various sections of Format were changed to, and using a screenshot for the main accompanying image, and moving the Skeptic cover to the Popularity section, for example, is a good choice. Kudos! Nightscream 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Copyrighted" MythBusters

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)

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)

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)

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)

In the absence of a reference, and the fact that fear of "copyright infringement" doesn't appear to make any sense in the context, I've changed it to "trademark infringement". If anyone can provide a source for what the unnamed lawyer actually said, please do so. JRM · Talk 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a joke- one that Good Eats makes frequently.

Wikipedia on Mythbusters?

On tonight's episode, was Grant looking at the Carnot cycle article? --Paul Soth 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Calorimeter (for sure) was show at 18 minutes in. -Ravedave 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Officially noted on Talk:Calorimeter. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode List

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)

On BBC TWO

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)

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)

I've just added a section to the special's page listing these new episodes. --Billpg 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they don't jump between myths, they get to cut out a lot of the repetative parts of the show. The editing is a lot better, with a much better flow. They also use real tracks for the backing music, as opposed to the Discovery Channel's in-house efforts. Personally, I prefer the BBC2 version to the Discovery Channel version, as the repetative nature is somewhat annoying. Dave420 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Another injury

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)

References

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)

Product placement

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)

In a recent rerun, the AOL logo was blocked-out (it had been shown on that episode originally). Apparently their deal with AOL has either expired or was for only only airing of a given episode.--207.230.140.240 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Injury list proposed deletion

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)

Injury list on AFD

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

Significant scientific source?

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)

I think we can safely say they aren't really.--Drat (Talk) 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any sort of criteria that defines scientific significance?--Vercalos 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

In the traditional scientific sense, no, the MBs are not scientifically significant - this is as the constraints of putting this stuff on TV is (as they have described it) too farfetched for the traditional scientist community for consideration (they have stated that their tests would be but one test in a series of many, as per the scientific method). However, they are regarded as a scientific authority when it comes to skepticism or engineering, but largely due to the format of the show and their experience in the field. kelvSYC 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

They will never be scientifically significant as long as they keep using non-SI(metric) units. MH 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, because, everything else being equal, describing something as 2.54 cm long makes it scientific, while saying it's exactly 1 inch makes it just a couple guys messing around on TV. </sarcasm off> That's ridiculous. Metric doesn't make something scientific any more than wearing a white lab coat does. PaulGS 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that MythBusters aims to be a scientific source of data; I think that Discovery's mission for this show is to educate the audience on the scientific process and teach some fundamentals on safe experimentation. Flip619 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, entertain. There's some value, I think, to their experiments, but stuff like blowing up cement trucks is just fun to watch, even though the scientific value there is zero. PaulGS 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The scientific value can't be zero (metric or otherwise) iff it's inspiring people to take science and a scientific perspective more seriously. If they convince just one more brright, geeky kid to go into a science career than a career in manipulating markets for financial gain, then it will have been an experiment of the greatest value.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravydog (talk • contribs)

Spelling

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)

"Buster" section under "Format"

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)

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)

Shouldn't Buster be under "materials and equipment"? Why "format"? Am I missing something? Pengwiin 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I only changed that header to "materials and equipment" last night.--Drat (Talk) 10:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Injury list merged

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)

Origin of the show

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)

Yes, Mythbusters in an entirly Australian show, in the book "Busted" there is a chapter about this confusion, the only American's that work on the show are the hosts, and the show is created by Artarmon and all production apart from filming takes place in downtown Sydney, this should be fixed, oh btw, Discovery actually wanted the show to be advertised as an Australian TV show. 59.167.56.247 06:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Rees was the brains behind an Australian TV series called "Beyond 2000" and it was during the filming of episodes of this series that he came upon the talent of Jamie Hyneman. When he had the idea fo the Mythbustes series, he approached Hyneman to be the host of the show. With characteristic big picture focus, Hyneman saw the he could not host the show himself and suggested Adam Savage - the most exciting SFX person he knew - as co host.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravydog (talk • contribs)

Possible Myth Re-Visit

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)

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)

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

Concrete Glider?

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)

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)

Thanks. I guess maybe it was more work than they expected. 207.215.10.108 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Templatebox

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)

Someone blanked it. I reverted it.--Drat (Talk) 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Science Fair

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)

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)

Quotes

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)

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)

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)

Markers

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)

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)

Stolen idea

Did they steal the idea from a BBC show Hollywood Science? Bigwiggin 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Popularity and influence - speaking tour

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)

DVDs

Can someone add info about the DVDs?

1 Cell phone gas station

Silicone Breasts
CD Rom
Barrel of Bricks
Third Rail
Eel Skin Wallet

2 Buried Alive

Bridge Jump
Cola Myths
Tree Cannon
Breath Test
Lightening Strikes

3 Stinky Car

Racoon Rocket
Alcatraz Escape
Duck Quack
Stud Finder

4 Chicken Gun

Octopus Pregnancy
Killer Washing Machine
Explosive Decompression

Frog Giggin'

Rear Axle

5 Titanic

Goldfish
Trombone
Break Step Bridge
Toothbrush Surprise
Water Skier

6 Buried in Concrete

Daddy Long Legs
Jet Taxi
Ancient Death Ray
Skunk Cleaning
What is bullet-proof?

7 Elevator of Death

Levitation Machine
Quicksand
Appliances in Bath
Exploding Tattoos

8 Ping Pong Rescue

Carried Away
Exploding House
Needle in a Haystack
Talking to Plants

9 Ming Dynasty Astronaut

Free Energy Conspiracy
Fan of Death
Cement Mix-up
Salsa Escape

Exploding Toilet
Who Gets Wetter

10 Ice Bullet

Penny Drops
Microwave Trio
Radio Tooth Fillings

Rocket Car
Pop Rocks & Cola

11 Vacuum Toilet

Biscuit Bullet
Falling Lawyer

Lawn Chair
Poppy Seed Bagel

12 Goldfinger

Scuba Diver
Car Capers
Bullet-proof

Plywood Builder

BOX 1 Speed radar BONUS

Static Cannon

BOX 2 Killer Deck BONUS Exploding Jawbreaker

Boom Lift

BOX 3 Windows Down Vs AirCon BONUS

13 The Brown Note
Chinese Water Torture
Drive Shaft pole Vault
Exploding Latrine

14 Toy Car Race Off

Buttered Toast
Yawning
Cooling A Six Pack
Buster Rebuild
Ancient Electricity

15 Phone In A Thunderstorm

Boat Trailer
Son Of A Gun
Breaking Glass
Vacuum Cleaner
Rolling Stone

BOOK DVD Brace Position

Cell Phone Vs Drunk Driving

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravydog (talk • contribs)

Skeptic podcast on MythBusters quotes Wikipedia

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)

Criticisms section?

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Often used objects section

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

MythBusters outbusted?

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? [[4]] 68.96.255.13 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

First or last names?

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)

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)

CC images

There are some creative commons licensed images here that might be useful for inclusion in the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-10 17:01

Episodes list

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)

Confirmed vs. True

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)

Confused subject (grammar)

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)

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)

Mythbusters Dangerous?

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)

Recent edit-wars

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)

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)

Killer Cable Snap

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)

I agree with your decision. -- Gogo Dodo 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

'Shop 'till you drop' resource question

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)

Found it. On a fan site. Urban Ore, Berkley, Ca. -[[fltchr]] 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Season/Episode annoyances.

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)

i have an idea of a good way to fix that, i'll try and get to it this weekend Redekopmark 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin

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)

I agree. Beyond Television Productions is a very successful Australian Television production company. And this was highlight on ABC's Radio National Program "The Science Show" http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm on 12/04/2008 Stevefrommelbourne (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The show was conceived by Beyond TV and pitched to sell to the biggest possible distributor, Discovery. Beyond cannot create a show for SBS in the first instance because the market in Australia is too small to recover the cost. Discovery don't produce any shows as far as I am aware, they are not configured that way, they are a broadcaster. The country of origin must refer to the creative origin and the original IPs, if I buy a Picasso I don't become the painter; if Disney buys the film "Spirited Away" the origins are still Japan. Ex nihil (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The show stars Americans, takes place in San Francisco and is primarily made by Americans. Although produced by an Australian company (at least in part) no one is going to consider this an Australian show. 75.48.17.179 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Site

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)

• I think it would be a good idea to add a link to that wiki. It seems it's also a good source for the episode numbering (special or not ?) problem... --Geoced 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The wiki has been closed downDe Mattia (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Available in HD?

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)

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)

Also, they're using XDCAM HD, not HDCAM. --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try to integrate "Popularity and Influence"

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)

Reality show?

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)

Mythbusters is a science show. Anyone who calls it a reality show is not being accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?" colouring

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)

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)

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)