Talk:Attack of the Show!

Who keeps deleting the Criticism page?!
Whoever it is...stop it.

there is no point to it. everyone just complains about how they hate the show which is old. yes, AOTS was reformed from the screen savers but they never were attempting to be the screen savers too. The critisism is pointless. Deal with the change somewhere else. Myxomatosis

The very fact that so many people have a problem with what the show has done makes it worth of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry. People who may not have ever watched TSS may watch AOTS, then go online and wonder exactly why some people are so upset. There are "criticism" sections in Wikipedia entries on tons of subjects. This one should stay. Whatever your personal opinions of the criticism, it exists. Lambertman 21:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A criticism section is needed, as there is a LOT of criticism of this show. You can't just have an article lavishly praising something if a huge chunk of its target audience doesn't like it. ShadowMan1od 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He's right, all I ever hear about this show, is blatant criticism. It is not bias to add a criticism page, if the majority seem to dislike the show.71.96.11.37 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not bias, and it is perfectly fine to have a criticism section but you need citations. So far every sentence needs it. You guys have a few days to get some, to reliable sources or it will get deleted. Konman72 09:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the critism section isn't too great but I do definitely have to agree with the first sentance "Opinions of the show are strongly divided. Many fans of The Screen Savers were angered by the change in the show's format from a "traditional" technology show to Attack of the Show's more pop culture based programming." It's definitely true. I've been a fan since the Screen Savers era and when the show started it was tech based but slowly did go to pop-culture. If you compare to where the show started and looked at it now you would definitely see it. You can't cite it because it just happened. What evidence can they bring? As far as the other parts I think they can go. -Myxomatosis 09:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you or I agree with what it says. Hell, it doesn't even matter if it is true, what matters is that it is citable to reliable sources. I am deleting the unsourced sections until citations can be made. Konman72 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you are missing the point. How are you going to cite the first part? You can't just be stubborn about things and do what you want. If thats the case then every sentance should be cited. It's truth. Calm down and work with everyone. I'm trying to meet you half way. It's not all about what you want. -Myxomatosis 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing what I want, I'm following the rules. I actually agree with the whole section, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for it. Every sentence in that section needs citations. If you can't get them then they are not admissable into a Wikipedia entry. Read these, WP:VER, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR and you should understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be stubborn, I am just following the rules/policies set forth for all Wikipedia articles. In the words of Jimmy Wales, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -posted by: Konman72


 * christ. calm down. it's just an article. Love, -Myxomatosis 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly calm. The policies are there, the section violated them, I deleted it and pointed out why here. Nothing to crazy about that. Konman72 05:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

if you think its needs sources so much why dont you just entirely re write the critsm artical with sources, i think everyone will be happy with that.(Esskater11 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, in my opinion, as long as the criticism has its valid sources, there's no reason not to have a criticism section. Even as a fan of the current AotS, I do grieve with the Tech TV niche over their losses and see that they have a valid excuse to express anger towards AotS (No matter how bias that anger may be >.>). Besides, G4's criticisms are almost a complete doppleganger of AotS' common criticisms (The whole show being less technology-oriented, being directed at a male audience, you know, the works). So unless you're being a severely slanted AotS fanboy, I see no reason to cry against a criticism section.

This is one reason i hate citing sources because even if something is BLANTANT KNOWLEDGE but theres no sources u have the freaking retarded source nazi(and yes i compared u to nazis and feel i did nothing wrong) beasicly lets keep writing one as since the stuff is right(i spelled that wrong i think) and i no theres a wikipedia rule that basicly says if u no its true and no sources write it anyway(ForeverDEAD 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

I just happened on this page during an internet search, but as a regular viewer of AOTS I can tell the information on the page is seriously flawed. The "personalities" section should not start with describing a host who hasn't been with the show for almost three years. It makes it seem like Zach Selwyn and Olivia Munn are the hosts and doesn't even mention that Kevin Pereira's been hosting the show with Munn since 2005. Why not just mention up front that Pereira and Munn are the hosts and have been since 2005? I don't have a problem with the history of the show being explained in detail going back to The Screen Savers days, but in its current form the information is near useless.

"So far, Munn and Selwyn have met with mixed reaction from the show's fans." I don't know where this comes from (source?) but speaking for myself as a fan (I've watched the show since 2005 and never watched The Screen Savers) I enjoy both Munn's hosting and Selwyn's segments. Without ratings data or other detailed information I think such a claim should be removed.

63.76.213.5 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)jyoders@sbcglobal.net

possible point to bring up
it should also possibly be brought up that during the transition all but a few of the original people on the show where fired, but I don't have the foggiest on how to make that NPOV. Jtkiefer T - 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to say they were replaced? Identify which people left the screen and what new people came on, this should be verifiable factual information. --Mysidia (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on guys!!! unsigned comment by 68.52.82.120 -- Jtkiefer  T - 04:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the firing should be addressed since it was a big part of the show including the evil that took place with yoshi. We miss you yoshi!!!

Under the the backstage shake ups you need to talk about Jim Downs being replaced by Joshua Brentano and Gavin purcell more info on this is found at the end of Diggnation # 84 which is found here: http://revision3.com/diggnation/2007-02-08

Vandalism Red Alert!
All right, I have reverted all vandalism and even almost painstakingly reverted all of the information back to it's normalcy. I am getting tired of these       s making childish vandalisms in this wiki and replacing the original contents with their puerile opinions like these:

''X-Play is waaaaaaay better than AOTS! :-)

AOTS is the wrost show of all time!''

--Seishirou Sakurazuka 17:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
Did Sarah Lane talk about Wikipedia again.

Great job wikipedians
This entry was been locked since the 9th its the 17th don't you think its time to unlock it. The vandalisms were coming from 3 ips you can just block them you instead of locking it.

Segment list made
Just now I have made a list of segments added in the wiki, and I have made prototype descriptions of them, and I have added Chris Gore's ratings of Buy, Rent or Pass. Please do not revert as these will be a guide to the show. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 16:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Jimmy the Geek even a segment anymore? Insaneassassin247 19:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy that played Jimmy the Geek did a send-off last week, so it's over for him. Page needs to be updated, that's certainly a former segment. A shame. Monty2 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User Made
Someone has to place the User made segment in the segment sections...

Attack of the ... Schedule
If anyone out there has the "Attack of the ....." schedule, it would be good if it could be posted on the main article page, a la:

Attack of the ... Marathon
The last new episode of Attack of the Show! of 2005 was held on December 16, 2005. The hosts announced a schedule for their "best of" segments. The schedule is as such:


 * Attack of the WTF? - December whatever
 * Attack of the Soooo - December whatever

And so on.


 * Schedule is now deleted; all of these episodes have now aired. A schedule section in general is not in the scope of this article.  Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide.  See WP:WWI.  Ned Scotland 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean tvguide.com != wikipedia.com? When did this happen?

Criticism page clean up.
Recently, someone has added a list of common criticisms about this show to the criticism section. In the beginning, it was somewhat bias, but I have taken the liberty of cleaning it up a bit. I think a small list of common criticisms is not a bad idea, so can anyone help?71.96.11.37 22:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the first paragraph was fine detailing that some fans didn't like the show due to the decline in technology content covered but I think the list was a bit overkill (and generally unverifiable). --Inaxdaze 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but some of those criticisms I have seen constantly on AOTS related boards. The list of criticisms was originally shown in a very random/ bias manner, but I rephrased a good amount of them, and added quotations to many of the statements, for I have seen them quoted before. Still, you have a good point. I'll simply restore the former section, and if anyone wants to add some viable info to it, they can.71.96.11.37 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean-up
I decided to do a major over-haul on the article. I tried organizing and removing information that isn't neccisary. The article still contains the major section but they are just cleaned up now. It didn't take as long as I thought too. -Myxomatosis 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Co-host auditions
I think that the audition seciton is not as relevant anymore considering it's been a year and their is a 99% chance that none of the "contestants" will be announced as winner. Does anyone else agree with me that we should remove the section? -Myxomatosis 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

nofeedback
I'm getting no feedback so i'm assuming it's ok. -Myxomatosis 08:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Segment List
I noticed last time that there was a complete list of segments that were there before AOTS started its new set. Now after they got back from E3 and the new set took effect, some of the segments are gone, both former and current. In order for a wii to be effective and accurate, ALL of the segments, including those that are deleted, should be listed. So somebody needs to add the deleted segments there please. --Seishirou Sakurazuka 05:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the section around that time and deleted segments that didn't need to be listed on the article. There were also a lot of segments listed that only happened once or twice. Also there were a lot of skits listed as well which are not segments. I think after a certain period of time old segments probably won't be relevant to the article. -Myxomatosis 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do they even do Live Music Thursday any more? Gopherbassist 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
{| style="width:100%;background:none" ! bgcolor="#abcdef" colspan="2" bgcolor="#abcdef" | Cleanup Co-ordination
 * width=60 bgcolor="#ffdead" |[[Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg|100px]]
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:


 * the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
 * the article has multiple overlapping problems.
 * the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Manual of Style.

You can use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. When there is a consensus that the article is cleaned up please remove the cleanup tag from the article
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |

Discussion
To be honest, I do not know why this was tagged as needing cleanup. I think the information is laid out pretty much as well as could be. I do feel that the History section needs work, but everything else looks fine (and the tables listing the show's features are quite excellent), so I don't think a cleanup tag on the aritcle as a whole is necessary. However, I am not going to simply remove it, as others may disagree with me. -- Kicking222 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * }

I got the botmessage on my Talk Page when I logged in today, and it said that this article needed cleanup. I checked it, thinking someone had shifted the tables all around or made all of the paragraphs single-sentence rambles... But it was essentially the same as it always was: tables in good shape, information about the cast, etc. This might never be a complete article (seeing as it airs 5 nights a week) but I don't think a "Cleanup" tag is necessary in this case. Maybe something more specific is required, but I would support deleting the tag. ColbeagleTheEagle 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Still has the cleanup message, and I don't know why. It's not like the page is getting vandalized; it was put on Semi-Protection on January 26th. Any thoughts on this? The article can never really be "complete", since the show is an ongoing process. ColbeagleTheEagle 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

テレビ番組の攻撃！
Probably not note worthy, but this Japanese writing flashes on the screen for a second during the new intro (actually, quite old now). It translates to "Attack of the Television Show!" -- タキテン 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it flashed 3 times on the old intro and it had the same thing written, It was also on the promo and the basis of the theme for AOTS at the time of it's relaunch. --SU182 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anna David (journalist)
So yeah, I was going to change the Anna David link to the Anna David journalist page, but the page seems to be locked. It is my thing to fix wrong links. Since I cannot, you ought to get to it! Chewbacca1010 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Expected Vandalism 2007/02/08
Incase AOTS mentions 4chan's Random board, this article will most likely be one of "Anonymous"'s targets in backlash. It needs protection.

Gadget pr0n
Why is it not in the segments section? FrogTape 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation is terrible
The way that there are periods. Where there should be other punctuation. Is really annoying. Someone should really clean it up. See. Isn't it annoying. To read something. With excessive periods?

Alex Albrecht guest co-hosted Dec. 4th
http://chrisbegley.blogspot.com/2007/12/alex-albrecht-is-co-hosting-attack-of.html

Shouldn't we add that somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.110.145 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

protection?!?
why is this page STILL protected!?! frogTape: Covered in flies for your enjoyment (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kristin Holt on AOTS
Not only she fill in Olivia Munn on the AOTS since early 2007. She filled for Kevin Pereira on 9/11/07 episode & also been a fill-in anchor of The Feed for Layla Kayleigh since November 27, 2006.68.188.126.78 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Feed
Right Now, Layla Kayleigh is anchor of this segement "The Feed" & Kristin Holt serves as the secondary anchor if Layla is not present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.127.178.158 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix this
The International Brodcast and References Sections are in the Segments chart section. 67.150.120.146 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My Discussion Section
I would like to know where the name "Attack of the Show!" originated. This title has always bothered me, as I find it stupid as fuck.
 * I think the title is cool. But to each person their own. B T C 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Green
What role did Tom Green have on the show? Under the history section, he isn't listed under any category. Ophois (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He was the first guest on the program when it started. He broke a light bulb on the set which started a running gag where he would return and break things. 70.234.227.146 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

co hosting
will people stop putting alison haislip as co host. g4 and olivia munn have not made any official statement on her status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpy1977 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Time periods
I think this should be broken up in to time periods, there is nothing about the hosts of the early days or when they tried changing the format in to a mens program.JanderVK (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Regular guests
Chris Jericho has made three appearances so far, would he be notable to mention as an ongoing guest on the show? How many times do you figure someone should appear for this to happen? DB (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reference links need to be updated but they are "retrieved." How can these be repaired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.120.35 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kevin leaving AOTS
I posted the announcement with the source from G4 site, plus i watched the disappointing episode about it. http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/723569/kevin-pereira-leaving-attack-of-the-show/  --208.66.247.46 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[Agreed... Kevin's final episode was hugely disappointing, for the viewers and most probably especially for Kevin.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.108.60 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

personalities section is confusing
"Personalities" section basically runs like this: Someone who understands the roles of the personalities mentioned above needs to clarify this section. As it is written, it's hard to tell who's hosting with whom and when. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Host Kevin Rose left the network, so:
 * Sarah Lane, who had previously been co-host, became official host alongside Kevin Pereira.
 * Lane continued until she and Brendan Moran got engaged.
 * Olivia Munn replaced Lane alongside Pereira.
 * Zach Selwyn replaced Moran and "started his hosting duties" a week after Munn. (Wait, what? Moran's only mention was as Lane's fiance. And Pereira was still around...)
 * Munn announced she wouldn't be leaving, but only appeared occasionally.
 * After Munn's departure, etc. (fine from there on)

Final "final" episode
G4 removed ATOS from their schedule on 2/8/2013. The final airing (7pm EST)was of the final original episode. The program has been replaced in the schedule by Quantum Leap reruns. X-play reruns continue to be a part of the schedule. 70.234.231.14 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack of the Show!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527174019/http://doorfromhell.com/thelair/?p=1510 to http://doorfromhell.com/thelair/?p=1510

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)