Talk:Veronica Mars/Archive 2

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

Frank Hilbert??

There's a quote in the article's summary from Frank Hilbert, supposedly The CW chairman, saying that nothing is set about the cancellation. The given source is TV Guide (presumably the paper version, which has exclusive content that is not publically given on their site).

Because a Google Search for << "Frank Hilbert" "The CW" >> only yields two results (both of which are a Wikipedia article--the other of which is the main article on the network, and the reference was removed by someone who seemed annoyed at Veronica Mars for being a good show), I'm assuming the guy does not exist. Am I wrong? While I'd love to believe this bit of info, at least until June 15th, I'm afraid it's a bad joke at fans expense. What is your take? Can anybody verify this? 87.231.174.160 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely spotted! I think you're correct in assuming it's just vandalism. Spent 15 mins tracking down where it came from, and here is the edit in question; by a user with just 3 edits in total, the other two of which sound somewhat suspect too. I have removed it. Thanks. :) AllynJ 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that (and for having the patience to track the edit!). *sigh* Would it be terrible if I pretented to myself that it was real information? 87.231.174.160 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oddities like that interest me, finding out where specific information came from and such. Hehe. I don't know, I'm still hopefuly of a mid-season return, myself. :p AllynJ 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

09er

So, 09er redirects here, but there's no explanation of the term. Can we include this? I would, but I'm not sure I understand the root of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be included, because it's important to the class distinctions in the show, but I don't have full info. The gist is that Neptune is divided into two or more zip codes; the one ending in "...09" is the realm of the "haves", home to the rich, powerful and famous; and the other ones are where the "have nots" live. This is further illustrated by the types of homes the characters live in: the Kanes, Echolls, Casablancases, etal., all "'09ers", live in palatial homes with extensively landscaped grounds (Duncan and Logan later live in a luxury hotel suite); the Fennells, MacKenzies and Navarros live in lower middle class tract homes; the Marses live in a residential motel. Canonblack 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Goof?

In the second season, I found that in the scene titles they refer to the Fitzpatricks as the "Fitzgeralds." Is this a goof or an oversight on my part? BlueStarz 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a goof as the same thing is on my S2 DVD scene titles, which either means the writers had changed the name from Fitzgeralds to Fitzpatricks before filming the episodes and the change didn't get to the DVD production team when they were getting things ready for the DVDs(which is really stupid anyway as there would've been lots of time between the change and getting information ready for the DVD to indicate that there was a change in the name) or someone on the DVD production team really goofed-up when typing the information in for the scene titles and no one fact-checked the information for accuracy. Either way the team didn't do their job and making sure the information on the S2 DVDs were accurate before sending it to the plant for pressing. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's my take how the goof happened.--HuskersRule 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up! (Not sure whether or not to put it into an article or where though as of yet because it might be regarded as just random, inconsequential trivia.) BlueStarz 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PCHer ???

Does PCH really stand for Pacific Coast Highway in the show? Is it a common abbreviation in California? The reason I asked is that I was under the impression that it stood for Peurto Rican/Cuban/Hispanic. Which goes along with the makeup of the gang. Ksheka 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The PCH is a major highway in California where the PCHers ride. The show also uses the acronym PCH several times to refer to the road itself (and not just the gang). They have never actually said the gang and the road acronyms mean the same thing, but it's a reasonably logical assumption. The road exists in the show and the real world. Pacific_Coast_Highway_(US). Vectorferret 14:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers in article

I've reverted a recent change and inserted the {{spoiler}} tag - Wikipedia is not censored, and has to be factually correct, spoilers are to be expected and readers are forewrned with the tag and in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer in big bold letters "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" - and hence unless a rationale can be provided to offer misleading information spoilers are not disallowed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt, what do you think about changing the section to be both spoiler free (as seems to be the preferred in the Spoiler discussion above) and yet completely accurate? We could change Weevil in particular to "Local delinquent regularly suspected in various crimes". CaptainGetts 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd liek to see this discussion.. i cannot see one with a consensus saying to keep teh article spoielr free. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone point to a policy which suggests that wikipedia should be spoiler-free? Given that just about every article on a movie or book is a complete spoiler, giving away the entire plot, why on earth should we avoid spoilers for events that have already happened on TV shows, material which is specifically designed to be aired at a given time? Every new episode of Veronica Mars spoils the plot of the first two seasons. This simply isn't the case with books and movies (except that new books or movies in a series presumably spoil the older ones). If anything, we should be less worried about spoilers for TV shows. john k 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There isn't one. Though I generally support the idea that unimportant spoilers should be contained in character articles and left out of the main article, essential information should still be contained here in favor of accuracy. Just add the spoiler warning. - Debuskjt 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have read this full thread before making any changes, and I apologize--but I'd like to reregister an objection to the specific spoilers here. After a certain point they make the article less useful rather than more, as people who prefer not to be spoiled on major, season-long plot threads can't use it for basic information.Epenthesis 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While there's clearly a place for spoilers, I think people should be able to look at the sentence-long character descriptions on the main page without fear of having the season-long mysteries spoiled--particularly as even the brief season synopses are carefully worded to avoid giving too much away. I just redacted a lot of details from those; they're still available on plenty of other pages for those who want them.Epenthesis 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with User:Matthew for a) removing the spoiler warning and b) keeping the "spoilers" in. WP:SPOILER's points are not part of an essay and as such this article should definitely adhere to the policy (in fact, it has to if it ever wants to progress beyond B class). I fail to see how they make an article "less useful" - this is an article about a TV show, the plot is the entire basis of the show. Removing parts of the plot because they are deemed spoilers is decidedly unhelpful towards creating an encyclopaedic entry on a TV show.
I can see why you would want to, don't get me wrong; but this is an encyclopaedia, not a dedicated TV site. The job is to convey verified information in the most encyclopaedic manner possible, not to try and prevent people from finding out the plot.
"Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality."
If it can be avoided without detriment to the article, sure, it may be worthwhile; but in this case I fail to see a single bonus point to doing so.
Furthermore,
"Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article."
There has not been a consensus developed here as of yet; the template should not be placed on the article, just yet at least.
"Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (TV shows aired in the last three months, movies released in the past six months, or books released in the past year). Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary."
Bearing in mind that VM was on hiatus three months ago, a minority of the content on this page adheres to the above point of WP:SPOILER. I see no reason to include spoiler warnings, personally. AllynJ 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Critics

Is it possible to have a balanced "reception section"? This definitely lacks in an otherwise very thorough article. It reads a bit like a fan page, and that puts the credibility of the rest in jeopardy.--SidiLemine 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Do you have some negative criticism of the show to add? - Debuskjt 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I probably would have one or two.... No, just kidding. I don't know much about the series, but the article looks so good it's a shame it's unbalanced as to reception. I'll see if I can find some. --SidiLemine 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it has any negative response because it is such a well recieved show, i've never seen any negative reviews my self, but if you can find them and cite them from a vetifiable source.. then sure. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess there's no denying that. Actually, I would be so amazed if this show happened not to have any negative response, that I would advise a separate section just to note it.--SidiLemine 14:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New Category?

I'm new to Wikipedia but I love how complete the information is on Veronica Mars. One thing I think would be nice is if there was a section that had places VM was referenced. The only reason I'm saying this is because in an episode of The OC, Marissa says to Summer something like, "Way to go Veronica Mars, looks like you solved the mystery of the week." I just don't know what exactly to call the category, or how to do it.66.181.233.93 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're looking for is a "References in popular culture" subheading, not a category (categories on Wikipedia are a way to link related articles). The problem with that is determining what is WP:NOTABLE, and what is Wikipedia:Listcruft. And has there been enough cultural reference to include in an encyclopedia entry? - Debuskjt 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Including The O.C. reference, to my knowledge, there has been four: George Michael on Arrested Development mentioned watching the show(it was bleeped out, but you could read his lips and the caption telling why was an obvious reference to the show) on the series finale, characters were shown on an episode, I think, from the current season of The Sopranos watching VM, and VM was on a billboard that Quagmire crashed through while flying a plane on a recent episode of Family Guy. I'm not sure if that qualifies as enough information to warrant a separate section on the main article or if there is any more that I don't know about, but there are those cultural references if anyone was wondering.--HuskersRule 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Meaning of the 09ers

The main article lists "She is ostracized by "the 09ers"(referring to the zip code of Beverly Hills, where most wealthy and popular students originate)", while the article on Neptune, CA lists 09er as coming from the zip code of Balboa county - 90909. This makes alot more sense, since (as anyone who watched TV in the early 90's can tell you) 90210 is the zip for Beverly Hills.

I agree; the fictional zip code 90909 is assigned to those who live in Balboa county in Neptune. BlueStarz 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not quite right. The 90909 ZIP code only applies to the affluent section of Balboa county. In general, Counties in the US contain many different ZIP codes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.116.45 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I thought the term 09ers refered to the year their trustfunds were available to them. When the show started they were teens so at 2009, they would turn 21 and got to have their trustfunds.

Not sure where you got that, but it wasn't from the show. It was explicitly stated in (at least) the first episode that it's the zip code. PurplePlatypus 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical opinion

These "critical" opinions seem to be cherry picked to be overwhelmingly biased towards this television program JayKeaton 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Find some negative ones then instead of complaining, I haven't seen any negative opinions of VM to be honest though. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not familier with the subject matter. Find them yourself JayKeaton 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, folks. Let's not be rude. I'm sure there are criticisms, and I'm rather sure that VM's unsatisfactory early ratings have been commented on in many places. Matthew is right that those who see a problem are the most likely to do the work to solve it, but Jay's suggestion that there isn't any meaningful criticism is well taken. In the interests of presenting a robust picture of the series from an encyclopedic view, we should consider scaring up some of those critiques. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but I have genuinley never seen a negative review of VM, aside form viewers posting on forums and whatnot. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with the editor who wants this unknown criticism included. Telling the active editors to just "find them" because it must exist is asinine. You either have something to contribute or you don't. The fact is, VM is generally very well liked and almost always included in the latest list of good TV that no one is watching. The poor ratings are already commented on in the article. - Debuskjt 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is someone who admits to being "not familiar with the subject matter" doing alleging bias with no actual evidence? I don't think that that should be taken too seriously.

External links section

I do not like the external links section. It only consists of generic links: Creator, studio, channel, IMDB and a promotional MySpace. These do not contain much information. Compare this for example to http://www.marsinvestigations.net/ which has a wealth of information including episode descriptions much more detailed than those here and Gimmicks like quotes, cultural references and a list of the clues which does not contain spoilers if you choose your last seen episode in a drop down box. I think this is quite astonishing and much more preferable to a studio or IMDB site which does not contain many noteworthy information. I think the links should be checked for quality, those which are not interesting should be removed, even if they are official. Good fan sites should be included if they add to the content presented here. --84.178.91.214 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:External links before removing standard links or adding fan websites. Not everything that is interesting to fans (of which I am one!) is necessarily an appropriate external link for this encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that http://www.marsinvestigations.net/ should be added to the list. This is the most thorough and comprehensive fan site I've ever seen and the quality is amazing. It has got tons of information on each and every episode (summary, cultural references, transcript of the most important conversations, list of music etc.) and every character, an extensive timeline, etc. What this fan site does not tell you about VM is not worth knowing. It has far exceeded what should be considered necessary to be included in the external links section of an encyclopedia entry on VM. Actually I almost think they deserve a Wikipedia entry of their own! Forteller 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SAVE VERONICA MARS

Hey this website is trying to ensure that Veronica Mars sticks around for a 4th season. Please join the fight!!!!

http://www.saveveronicamars.tv/

Repost the web address anywhere relevent you can think of :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.42.111 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Citing sources

I've updated some of the referencing in this article because it fell (and still falls) short in three areas:

  • Some editors mistakenly believe that the URL is supposed to be the label of an external link, creating oddities like [http:/www.news.com/item/542325225 http:/www.news.com/item/542325225]. Not only is this pointless repetition, it also has a tendency to screw up display of citations in Reference sections because browsers can't split absurdly long text strings, so left-side link labels bleed over the right-side ones.
  • Many editors (including the above ones) leave out critical information in the citation, like article or webpage titles, publications dates, and access dates. Many external links become broken over time for many reasons, rendering the "source" invalid. When people try to fix these problems, they have to figure out some other way than the URL to get the information, but a lack of title or dates frequently makes this impossible. If one is lucky, one can use the Internet Archive to dig up an old copy, but this often fails (as it did when I tried to find a Veitch blog citation).
  • The ref/references system is designed to allow multiple uses of the same citation, but one must give a name to the citation for it to work. It is a very good habit to always name your references (e.g., <ref name="Veitch-2007-1204"> ... </ref>), so that editors may reuse it with a simple empty element (e.g., <ref name="Veitch-2007-1204"/>) elsewhere in the article.

In short, one should use the {{cite}} templates, filling out at least the author name, URL, title, work, publisher, date, and access date infomation whenever possible, and name those references! It also doesn't hurt to include some non-printing whitespace (as I've done) to provide some edit-mode formatting to make it easier for editors to spot and understand the references. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies!!!

I did not mean to blank the page here, I think I mistakenly selected the whole page when I was trying to remove this one sentence in there I felt was not appropriate. I am so sorry, and will be more careful next time!Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Debasement Tapes - Name That Guest Star

Can someone please tell me the actress's name who played the fan (the one who turned out to be a teacher)? I would appreciate it!!

May 12 2007

Suzanne Cryer played Professor Grace Schaffer, according to marsinvestigations.net. BlueStarz 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed Suzanne Cryer, who is probably most famous as George's "yada yada" girlfriend on Seinfeld. dharmabum 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!  :)

Cancelled. :|

Seems the lowest common denominator mentality of television is cemented: CW's fall sched was announced, and VM has been cancelled, officially according to HollywoodReporter.com, and "...while nothing's official, people familiar with the situation said "Mars" was, indeed, canceled" according to Variety. I don't trust HR enough to put it in the article yet, but they're not exactly a rumour grindhouse and Variety is about as good as entertainment news sources get, so it will probably be attributable in the next couple days, although expect a bit of a fight until then with people adding it without sources. Total shame. dharmabum 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy being falsely accused of vandalism. The show was cancelled, and its final episode will air on May 22. 69.181.156.67 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not officially canceled but that's the most likely outcome. Let's hope the fan campaigns work. 64.229.184.56 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Eonline from 5/17 says it's canceled. another site, veronicamarstv.net, cites the same source (eonline's Kristin Veitch) and says it was announced (by the CW) at a press conference. vmz 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


if i remember correctly the final axe blow wont be taken to the show until 15 June because thats when Dawn Ostroff HAS to decide whether to renew it or not but its not exactly looking good for the show (I havent found the source from where i heard that bit sadly)

Critically acclaimed bit in lead

I removed the bit in the lead that says "critically acclaimed" again. It's a clear case of a peacock term. Someone added it again, using the article itself as a source which is not a proper citation. As per the guidelines regarding these terms - "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.". --Jtalledo (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Critically acclaimed" is not necessarily a peacock term, although it's a common peacock addition; it's an unsourced claim. I fully agree that such a statement should be very well-sourced (ie. to a "Rotten Tomatoes"-style consesus source, or at least a critical review which credibly summarizes critical consensus, rather than individual reviews) if included in the lead, though. dharmabum 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up templates

I re-added the laundry list template and added the {{Quotefarm}} template as well. The international airings list should be prose. The reception section is almost entirely comprised of lists and quotes. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the actors?

Why does this article not mention who starred in this show? Catchpole 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tv guide

I removed the international tv guide section but it was reverted. Why should this section stay? Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Also this information has been removed from other similar articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of House (TV series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of Lost. Note, it was deleted there, not merged to the parent article. Garion96 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your citing article deletions... that doesn't equate to consensus not to include text within articles. The information doesn't seem to be "TV Guide" to me (although it should probably be condensed), it's encyclopaedic information -- which I personally found to be useful. It doesn't seem indiscriminate information to me. Anyway I've reverted you, seek consensus to remove it. Matthew 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Brazil: The third season airs on TNT on Saturdays at 03:00 pm and the first season airs on SBT on Tuesdays at 01:30 am.
Greece: The first season is currently shown on Star Channel on Sundays.
Latin America: The third season is currently running on TNT Latin America on Saturdays at 3:00 pm.
Middle East: The third season is currently airing on Orbit on Wednesdays at 10:00 pm.

Sure looks like a tv guide to me. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Garion96 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Matthew [I hope we can still be friends], but I respectfully disagree. Why is it needed to have this in the article in the first place? To me, it's very cluttered, not to mention completely un-cited, so that information could be false, and frankly, it does seem like a TV guide..Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I opened discussion here for all TV articles..Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Okay, so I think it's pretty obvious the Characters section needs tidying up. There's no way that we need to list all the recurring characters on the main page of the article; we should move them to a separate list. List of characters in Veronica Mars would be the page name, following the naming convention for such articles. How should we do it, though? Just recurring characters? All characters? If just recurring, then the page name would probably be List of recurring characters in Veronica Mars: this is what is done for The O.C. (see: here).
On a similar note, should Ms. Dent be moved if we choose to do just recurring characters? I appreciate that she was in the title sequence for the entire first season, but it doesn't change the fact she only appeared in 4 episodes: certainly much fewer than Aaron Echolls or Kendall Casablancas, who also happen to be much more central to the plot; can we move her whilst remaining objective? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. AllynJ 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack Question

For track "04.I Turn My Camera On - Spoon" i got told that they used the version by Rock Kills Kid in the episode, is this true or not? Peachey88 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the one used is the original by Spoon. After listening to the version by Rock Kills Kid off their Myspace, it definitely is not that one.--HuskersRule 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Utter scrap

As a european I think this series makes no sense. Based on just 3 episodes one can tell it has nothing common with the Maltese Falcon and the Big Sleep, in fact it is an insult to write Bogart's name in the same article this piece of junk appears in. Someone please correct that!

A high school story in which a bus and an airplane are bombed? Get a life! Being arrogant does not make a series funny and its cynism is nothing genuine so it is not the revival of film noir, it is filmmaker's prostitution.

I think it hows wikipedia is very off-beat that such detail is afforded to this TV series when so many encyclopaedically significant topics remain unaddresses.

All in all, I can't grasp why it took three seasons to cancel this shit from TV? 81.0.68.145 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I shan't air my opinion on the show itself as, as it states at the top of the page:
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Veronica Mars article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
To address one or two of the points you've made, however: the comparison to Bogart is a direct quote; it is used simply to air how the show has been received by critics. Removing it would be bizarre, in my eyes, and I don't see any reason to do so except WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I don't understand how on earth story arcs can be described as "arrogant". Completely lost there. Your other points in this paragraph are pure opinion.
If you have a problem that such topics are unaddressed, do something about it! Make an account, and write encyclopaedic articles on those you feel need filling in. Wikipedia is far from perfect in terms of its content, and it can only be addressed by people helping out.
Last paragraph, again, pure opinion; no need for me to address it. AllynJ 20:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Books?

Two books, The Case Files of Veronica Mars: Books One and Two were advertised at some point to be written by Rob Thomas and released on June 1, 2007. Obviously, they didn't come out and there has been no further news (that I can find). Does anybody know what happened? Thanks BlueStarz 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VeronicaMarsSoundtrack.jpg

Image:VeronicaMarsSoundtrack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg

Image:VeronicaMarsSeason3DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Archived

I just archived everything up to the fair use messages onto /Archive 2 Peachey88 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Is there going to be another soundtrack for season 3 since there was one for seasons 1 and 2?? Peachey88 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Character

Could someone please add a character page on Veronica Mars as there is no point in the characters being listed here, and also so there aren't spoilers in the means of characters (Wikirocks2 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

"Was a" vs. "is" in the lead-in

As opposed to opening ground for an edit war -

The show is cancelled. It's been publicly mentioned as having been so. Referring to it in the present tense as if it were a show that were actually being brought back into production seems unrealistic.

A reasoning I bring up behind changing "is" to "was a" is shown with a program on the same network that has also seen recent cancellation - Gilmore Girls. The lead-in paragraph refers to it in the past tense. So, to User: Rvb strongbad or anyone else, what's the reasoning behind reverting the wording? --TheMonkofDestiny 02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing as with, say, a movie. What happens if it's only available on DVD - not showed on TV or the cinema or whatever else. Would you still say was? ("Star Wars IV was a movie...") No, because there are copies available on distributed mediums you still use 'is'. The same is true for TV Shows, even after they've been cancelled, short of every copy of it in existence being destroyed: because copies of it still exist, it still 'is'. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Character list

Instead of having such a big list shouldn't we just have the main characters on the main articles and the rest on a separate page/article (eg: List of Veronica Mars Characters) Peachey88 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please!!! Be my guest! I think this page really needs that and is overcrowded! I would do it, but I don't know how.... :( (Wikirocks2 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Reception and awards

I have remerged the content at Veronica Mars reception and awards which was the subject of an uncontested prod. This material is probably better pruned and kept in the main series page, rather than hiving off into a separate article which does not stand alone well. Espresso Addict 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea for navigation template

my idea/suggestion to make it easier to read but its a tad complex atm.

Main page: Template_talk:Vmarsnav § Listed_Characters

Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 09:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

geography

Has the county containing Neptune ever been named? —Tamfang 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Balboa County Which is also fictional

I think someone copied this page for a TV wikia page

http://tv.wikia.com/wiki/Veronica_Mars.

One of my friends spotted it. I don't know if you can do anything about it. But isn't that plagiarizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because of the license that Wikipedia (and all wikimedia projects) is released under. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 10:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I was just wondewring thats all

Past-tense, or present-tense

  • The first sentence starts with "Veronica Mars is a critically acclaimed..."
  • The third sentence starts with "The show starred Kristen Bell..."

Either the show is still running, and it should all be present tense, or it is no longer running and it should be past tense. A well formed article can't mix up tenses in the first three sentences like that. Considering the show has completed it's run, it's appropriate to say that it "...was a critically acclaimed..." Themindset (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It should all be past present tense. This has been covered before and the consensus was since copies of the show still exist, on DVD and so on, the show therefore exists, therefore it still is. See just up the page, here for several links to community consensus on this. Agreed it should all be changed, though, yes, but it should definitely be present tense. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit: I'm a numpty, I meant present tense. Whoops... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't just be past tense because it isn't getting recorded anymore, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_4#Was_vs._Is. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not checking consensus (didn't know where to find the discussions). Themindset (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It was inculded in the previous discussion on this page which hasn't been archived yet. Talk:Veronica_Mars#.22Was_a.22_vs._.22is.22_in_the_lead-in. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 08:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards

I made tables for the awards, but I don't know how to make them all the same size. Could someone please fix them? Thanks. * ₩іκіRocкs/Love$ounds ♥ talκ 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up a bit. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA quick-fail

Thank you for nominating this article for Good article status. Unfortunately, it meets the quick fail criteria because of the three cleanup banners and the {{fact}} tags throughout the text. Other issues which would hold this article back from GA status is that much of it is unreferenced (the first few seasons in the Plot summary, for example), it has stub-sections of fewer than five lines long (Cancellation, Future possibilities) and contains lists which need to be converted into prose (see WP:PROSELINE for guidance). The critical reception section in particular needs a complete rewrite. Best of luck with improving the article and please feel free to renominate it once you have addressed the issues and feel it meets the Good article criteria. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer on my talkpage. Regards, скоморохъ 13:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neptune Noir

Why is there no mention of the book Neptune Noir on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you havn't put it there yet. I havn't read the book, was it good? - Schrandit (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fandom conventions

Could someone add something to the sections on Cruise to Mars and Breakout Beyond to demonstrate their relevance to Veronica Mars the television show? They look like nothing more than advertisements. Townlake (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan Campaigns

I have a message saying my information entered may be deleted because I may no be able to use the references I have listed. The message tells me to come and discuss it here If I believe the references should be allowed.

It is the last entry in the Fan Campaigns section about Neptune Rising, and the references I used were from 'Copywrite, Ink' which I do believe is a well known and reliable source. Is someone able to help me with this?

Thankyou

Tarzan057 (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tarzan057 2nd June 08


Sorry, One more thing, I could change the references from Copywrite, Ink to The SaveVeronicaMars.TV website as that has all the information listed on that too and that site has already been used as reference here before. Would that be preferable?

Thanks again

Tarzan057 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tarzan057

Look at WP:RS, specifically as it related to blogs. I'm not sure which you added, but several of those are to blogs written by and for fans. It would be better to see major/recognized media outlet coverage of the fan campaigns. I added the tag to highlight the deficiency--the standard language indicates that anyone can remove poorly sourced statements, but I don't have any intention to start deleting anything. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the very speedy reply. :o) Ok, I completely understand about not having blogs up by fans, the link I had was to Copywrite , Ink, which is in no way related to the Veronica Mars fan campaign at all. I did read about wikipedias's verifying and citation, and I still believe the Copywrite, ink article should be OK, although I completely understand the hesitancy in using blogs. Can I give you the link so you can check it out so I know if I shouldn't be using it for sure.

http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2007/09/making-grade-veronica-mars.html http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

Sorry If I am coming across as dumb, I have never posted on Wikipedia before.

Tarzan057 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tarzan057

You do not come across as dumb. Feel free to ask any questions, and Welcome to Wikipedia! :-)
So, I looked at Copywriteink, and it appears to be solely under the editorship of one person. That essentially makes it a self-published source. Therein lies the problem--guidelines may evolve in the future, but tend to look less favorably on such. With regards to current events, I've found that other editors tend to be more tolerant of such sources when they are used in combination with traditional media. So, I don't think they have to be removed, but if you could conjure up a link or two to ET, Hollywood Reporter, or USA Today that validates what's being said, it will help establish notability for the fan campaign under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Thankyou so much for the help, I will start looking for other sources that are better.

Thankyou :o)

Tarzan057 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Tarzan057

Mass clean-up

As you may have noticed, I have gone through the article and deleted a lot of junk. Don't panic, I have been working on the page on my sandbox, and will copy it here soon. In the meantime, please don't revert my edits. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm... why delete stuff now, if your sandbox version is not yet ready for prime time? Seems likely to panic people for no good reason. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, anyways I finished. I hope to nominate it for GA soon, but it needs a bit more work. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think the season summaries are indeed the biggest outstanding issue. The season summaries basically just set up the season. Per WP:SPOILER, the article should cover the entire season, but per WP:PLOT, not in excessive detail. I'm going to work on the later sections of the article, but we definitely need to come back to these. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I purposely gave the summaries a feel of setting up the season, however if you think that this will hold it back from being a GA, I see no reason why we could not expand them. I followed the example of Lost (TV series), which is a FA. The summaries are very short, and although each season has an individual page, the pages give no detail on plot. Whatdya think? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No harm with taking it forward as is and seeing what happens. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on putting in non-US DVD release dates? There was a fair amount of that added to the previous version--leaving it out will give a US-centric view of the show. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that it would be very relevant, but if it is required, I can dig up some refs. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, American shows on an English language Wikipedia do draw non-US viewers, bigtime. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue: All the awards are sourced to IMDB. That's not going to fly at GA if the reviewer is paying attention. I'd start hunting for other sources for all of them now. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, another user told me that the award sections of IMDB are filled out by paid editors. Now I don't know if that's the truth, but if it is, I guess the IMDB refs are enough. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
We can see, but it wouldn't hurt to go through the archives at WP:RS/N looking for a definitive answer to the question of whether IMDB is considered a reliable source for awards data. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of the reviews do not contain enough info to find the review or fill out a citation template. We need to track those down, or excise them from the text. I see the Kevin Smith bit is gone but in the to-do list. That would be another great thing to add in if it can be RS'ed. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find the ones you're talking about. I found a link for one review, but I think the rest are fine. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What Next?

OK, I'm back. Let me know what you would like to see reviewed/copyedited next. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking of nominating the article for GA status soon. The "Impact" section is done. Maybe the "casting" section needs a quick copyedit? The references in the "casting" section are not considered too reliable, but they are all interviews, so I think they are alright. DVD release section needs refs; I actually couldn't find any. The "plot" section, as mentioned before", needs some more work. I'm thinking if we work together, and list all the things that we think must be included in each season summary, we could get them done pretty quick. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have access to EBSCOhost right now, and I should get access to ProQuest again on Tuesday. EBSCOhost lists 109 articles that mention VM, including several that I see listed here already. Since it takes forEVER to get a GA review, I'll go ahead and nom it now. Hopefully, since I've been doing GA reviews pretty frequently, someone will pick it up faster as a quid pro quo. :-) There's no rule that says you have to be FINISHED with an article before listing it for GA. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, good idea. So, right now I'm looking for dvd refs. What should we do about the plot section? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Without doing major surgery, we can only do so much. I copyedited what's there again, and it seems like it's getting there. As you said before, let's see what our GA reviewer wants to see from that section. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the plot section is good for now. The only thing we need now is references for the Region 2 DVD release dates. Can you have a go? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Done, although a release date for the first season in either Spain or Portugal would be great. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Veronica Mars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvements:

  • The image in the infobox needs a detailed Non-free use rationale.
    • OK, I stole and adapted the NFUR from Lost. Does that work? Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I fixed the cast picture from season 3, too. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Cancellation and future", the FBI concept is mentioned before it is explained. A reader who does not already have knowledge of the concept might be confused by that.
    • Good catch. Rearranged. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Lilly be mentioned in the "Cast and characters"? You could extend the second sentence like so: "Kristen Bell portrayed the titular Veronica Mars, a high school junior and skilled private detective trying to solve the mystery of her murdered best friend Lilly Kane"...or something to that effect. That would make the next sentence make sense, too. Duncan is mentioned as Lilly's brother without informing the reader of who she is.
    • Actually, a better solution would be to move "Season synopses" to before "Production". Then everything is fully explained right off the bat.
      • Moved per your suggestion. Going to go through the article to see if that introduces any new problemns. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very well done article. Great work! The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • So... I think that addresses everything. Can you check it out and let me know if my edits meet your criteria, and let me know what else might need to be done? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • All the changes look good. Great work! Pass. Nikki311 01:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Drive to FA!

I'm starting this as a heading for discussion of feedback and issues raised at the first (unsuccessful) FA nomination, with an explicit goal of resolving them and bringing the article up to FA quality before a renomination. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens asked me to take a look at this one so here I am. So for a start the RS issues from the FAC need resolving. All of the sources Ealdgyth pointed out need to have their reliability verified (I commented wrt the third one in my oppose). You made a start by citing SELFPUP, but you need to say how it meets the criteria there (not just state that it does). Doing that now (or else deciding that the sources are unreliable (:()) would be a good start as it's awkward having to remove sources after you've finished an article. Giggy (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are the questioned references:
I was under the impression that awards on IMDb were not user edited, however I may be wrong. Also, I think the whedonesque ref can be crossed off. The site has its own Wikipedia page, thanks to Jclemens, and it has been established that it is indeed run by Whedon. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I can show you where the LA Times quotes another post by 'joss' on Whedonesque.com and attributes it to Joss Whedon--Specifically, on the topic of him parting ways with the Wonder Woman movie. As it turns out, it was Joss' post on Whedonesque.com which first piqued my interest in VM. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Then point to it, and that ref will be fine. I'm not sure on IMDb; you might want to ask the films wikiproject, they should know the official status. Giggy (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

As of right now, there are...

  • 268 references to Veronica Mars in ProQuest, a proprietary news source database.
  • 112 in EBSCOHost, another such database (at least, the parts to which I have access)
  • 12,900 listed in Google News
  • 735 listed in Google Books

Even assuming overlaps, dead links, and false positives, we have a ton of references with which we should be able to work. The first two, EBSCOhost and Proquest, have the best proportion of reliable sources, but they're also proprietary, which I have access to through my local college. We may need to lose some of the fan interviews, but my gut feel is it will be an overall positive thing. I think the best course of action is to start working to substantiate each assertion attributed to these, by an additional (i.e., replacement) sourcing to a reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to find alternate refs for the casting section, however the interview given by Josh Kramon (the music guy) is irreplaceable. There is some additional information on his site: http://www.joshkramon.com/bio.htm, which can be used to show that what the mi.net ref says is true. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If the fansite conducted the interview then the source is fine (but, if you can find the same information then use it from the more reliable overall source...if not, then it is acceptable so long as the fansite is conducting the interview and not paraphrasing some interview the actor gave someone else).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, here's some good info for filming: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20040321-9999-news_1mi21film.html.

Sourcing for Awards

Boy, this sucks. Most awards don't seem to care much about adequately documenting winners, let alone nominees:

  • The best source I've found for the Teen choice awards 2006 is en francais: http://www.serieslive.com/news.php?n=2698. Most of the rest of the sources... stink.
  • The Saturn awards have a few things listed, non systematically, at Saturnawards.org. Problem is, they don't contain enough to list without synthesizing sources.
  • The television critics association award I've been unable to source well.

More later. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why IMDb was so great. I have also tried to references for the 2006 Teen Choice Awards, but it seems not even they have an account of who won. If we can't find a better source, I say we just leave the IMDb ref. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So... Giggy, any advice on these? Should we 1) Give up on FA (probably not) 2) Go again and state IMDb is the best source for whatever we can't otherwise verify, or 3) trim the awards down to what we can find other RS'ing for? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My advice would be to first get someone in the know to definitely say if you can or can't use IMDb. French sources are fine if you can't find anything in English (though the same RS rules apply). If the awards ceremony was on TV you could possibly cite it that way ({{cite episode}} or similar) if you can't find a web page. And I take it there's nothing in any of the news databases you have access to in regards to awards? (That surprises me slightly...) Giggy (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked here. Probably best to find alternate refs. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, lots of the entertainment magazines seem to not be indexed in the business and academic collections. I was surprised at my lack of success sourcing the awards from ProQuest and EBSCOHost, actually. There are lots of passing mentions in NYT, etc, but none of the big, RS papers seem to reprint the post-awards press releases listing date, time, categories, nominees, and winners. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The Saturn Awards are really confusing me. Should we list them under the year they were presented, or for the year they were for, e.g. the Saturn Awards for 2004 were held in 2005. So, do we list the award under 2004 or 2005? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's one big problem with the stupid Saturn Awards website--it doesn't give dates! It just says "32nd annual" and equally unehelpful things that we have to WP:SYNTH to have any hope of them being useful. I think IMDb listed them in the year for which they were awarded, that is, the year before they were awarded. I believe that's standard with most major awards, such as the Academy Awards. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
One good thing is that the Wikipedia page, Saturn Award, tells us which year the 32nd annual is for. Actually, IMDb is the other way around, they put it on the year of the award presentation. I will now change it to the year if was for. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That may itself be challenged--Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. And with good reason, too, I imagine. All the Saturn Award pages seem woefully underreferenced. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I removed the IMDb references, so know we know which awards need references. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I would (personally) put them as whatever you guys can agree on; I think the year they are awarded for is the better way to do it. Don't get WP:SYNTH stand in your way if you're clearly making the article better by ignoring it. But then, I'm somewhat rebellious in my use of IAR. Giggy (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and that is the way I have done it. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Heh, that's why we've invited you here, Giggy. Given how anal FAC reviewers are on some things, I'm probably too hesitant to deviate from the rules... even though IAR is one of them! :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost done. All we need now is a ref for the 2006 Teen Choice Awards. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Stauts update: Both Cornucopia and I have been working pretty heavily on FLC for List of Veronica Mars episodes, so that's why there's been a bit of a pause here. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal arcs or not?

The bit about the format of the show is confused: it first says that the structure is a mystery of the week, plus a season long arc. It then says that the show moved to weekly mysteries, with short story arcs, negating the earlier info. I’ve not seen the series so I don’t know the details to fix it, but as it, is contradictory.Jock123 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The first two seasons consist of season-long mystery arcs along with weekly mysteries. While the third season was broken up and consisted of two shorter mystery arcs (9 and 6 episodes respectively) with the final 5 episodes being standalone mysteries. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think what you have put here is better and more accurate than what is in the article (I can’t say that it is true, of course, but as a layman, it makes more sense than what is there). Thanks!79.67.148.152 (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No negative criticism?

Aside from saying Season 3 was 'disappointing', there isn't one bad thing said about the show. That's questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.124.108 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find some sourced criticism, feel free to add it. Unfortunately, like many other "critically acclaimed" shows, it appears to have died mostly from a dwindling audience and poor ratings, rather than any specific failings noted in reviews. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Filming

I just finished watching Season One. The last two episodes of Season One look totally different than the rest of the show. The light is different. The actors are all wearing way more make up. I think it's a different camera or filter. It's really jarring. I was hoping that someone would have some insight on why the change happened at the end of the season. If you're watching them on DVD it is really bizarre, really striking. Anyone know what happens there? They made a big directorial shift there and someone must have asked this question before out there. It's so strange.BradyDale (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veronica_Mars/Archive_2&oldid=1141559656"