Talk:Mystery Science Theater 3000

Splitting off of revival
Given the recently added tag about length, I think it may make sense in the near future to split off the revival as its own article/show, particularly on the news today that for the SDCC panels they are calling this "season 1". If you take that major portion out, everything is still primarily related to the original airing and giving how much attention the revival or anything dealing with it (like the Rifftrax MST3K reunion), we'll have a fresh reception section to work from once this new series airs.

The only thing I would want to hold off on is a name of a new article. We don't have a confirmed air date though I suspect we'll get word of that from the SDCC panels, as I would name that Mystery Science Theater 3000 (201x TV series) (keeping this article right where it is), and I don't want to name it too soon. --M ASEM (t) 00:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * while there is no real consensus on how to treat TV shows in this circumstance, the general consensus amoung the fans is this is a continuation of the orginal run, not a new show. Shows can start from one again. For the sake of comparison purposes we have Doctor Who, which ran in such a fasion. The last season of the original run of WHO in 1989 was Season 26, the first of the new run in 2005 was "Series One".Metropod (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that it would be best to keep this all together, but if we're forced to draw a line, I'm only thinking where the obvious place would be and that would be with the revival as a separate article, even if all involved consider it a continuation. --M ASEM  (t) 04:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The revival is officially being called "Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Return" and the new episodes are being listed as season one, so I think that pushes it towards spinning it off into its own article. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favor of splitting off a second article for the revival. I believe I was actually the one who put the template about length on the top of the article. What I was hoping would happen was for the information in the article to be condensed down, with less notable material deleted. The amount of information in the article currently is excessive. We need to do more generalizing and try to trim down unnecessary paragraphs, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not meant to be a news site, or a constantly-updated source of announcements about any given topic. So in the future, we should try to avoid adding content just because something new about the reboot is announced. In the past, I've seen a trend of people rushing to "update" the article every time something new about the show is revealed. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. This isn't a fansite or a news site. It's an encyclopedia. When adding content, it's important to ask yourself, "is this going to be relevant a year from now? Or two years from now?". Not every bit of MST3K-related info out there deserves to be in this article. Friginator (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We do want to avoid dropping every bit of news about the revival but that said, Wikipedia puts value on the development and reception of produced works like TV shows - this is what remains interesting after the show has long stopped airing - and there's a good wealth of information out there to flesh that out, but surprising not condensed among only a few sources. (Compare this to a series like Lost (TV series). Add that it is recognized as an important TV show, and that's more reason to make sure it is covered well. There probably is proofing of language that can trim down wordiness but from a content side, most of this material is encyclopedically important for cultural articles. --M ASEM  (t) 02:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think something warrants inclusion, by all means, add it. Keeping in mind, of course, that per WP:BURDEN, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Friginator (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The material is verified, it has reliable sources since I know I added much of it. --M ASEM (t) 03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "much of it" is poorly written, unfocused and unnecessary. That's my point. That's why it needs to be shortened. I would expect a person unfamiliar with the show to be baffled by the onslaught of ridiculously-detailed text with an overblown sense of self-importance. If you really think it's all notable, you'd honestly be better off starting a fansite. This isn't Lost. This isn't a show with even a fraction of the notability Lost has. But improvements need to be made. Would you like to explain how a message board post found on wayback machine is a good source? How about a page from an out-of-print book last published two decades ago? Friginator (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will agree there are a few lines that are a bit too much fan-focused - some trimming is appropriate. That said, this is actually considered an important show like Lost by reliable third-party sources. It may never have had the viewership numbers but it affected television significantly as documented. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a published book - even if it is out of print - as a source, that's actually one of the more reliable types of sources compared to most print ones which can change. As long as WP:V is still upheld (that the book can be accessed), then the reference is fine. --M ASEM (t) 04:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do note that I did a preliminary runthrough to remove some of the fan-related fluff and I do plan to go through the changes you had made to see what else can be trimmed down (though not removed). --M ASEM (t) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally in favor of creating a separate article for the Reboot. The new show is nothing like the old one, and many were (and are) disappointed with the outcome.  Lumping it all together here diminishes the original show, article and frankly is too long and confusing. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate page for Netflix Season?
The re-boot of the show on Netflix should probably have a separate page, IMO. The on-screen cast and production details of the two shows are almost entirely different, and having both on this page is confusing.

As far as title: I'm debating between Mystery Science Theater 3000 (2017 series) or Mystery Science Theater 3000 (Netflix series). Any comments? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be worthwhile if there are more seasons on Netflix. We don't have news of that yet. A separate article just for one season would not make sense. --M ASEM (t) 21:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The show has been renewed for another season: . power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mystery Science Theater 3000. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21761730
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824194246/http://tom-servo.home.mindspring.com/special-events_interview_fiveson-schreibman.html to http://tom-servo.home.mindspring.com/special-events_interview_fiveson-schreibman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505142443/http://blog.rifftrax.com/2008/07/10/meat-dave/ to http://blog.rifftrax.com/2008/07/10/meat-dave/

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) 06:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Folk TV
Tried to find sources about the show airing on FOLK TV (saw some episodes on my DVR), but with no luck. Espngeek (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede says "MST3K's original run did not garner high viewership numbers. However, the show's popularity spread through online word-of-mouth." The show was already popular, a flagship of the newly merged Comedy Central in the early 90s, before the internet was a significant cultural phenomenon. Unless there is a reliable source that says otherwise, this claim that "online" word of mouth made it popular is wrong. 50.234.209.250 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Its a combination of the 2015 New York Times article (currently #8) and the Wired Oral History article (#7) that get into how the show wasn't the greatest rating driver at CC compared to other programming but its online cult following helped to keep it going. --M asem (t) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah after I made that edit I came across the Wired article, and was just coming back to revert myself. Thanks. 50.234.209.250 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Creation of category
With the hundreds of movies and shorts riffed on MST3K, maybe a category "Films featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000" could be created? GraydonSnork88 (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I want to say we had one but it was deleted, but I do know from other deletions of categories this is considered a non-defining trait and would be otherwise deleted itself. The episode list effectively serves that purpose. --M asem (t) 13:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. GraydonSnork88 (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

KTMA era
Shouldn't the KTMA era count as a season? I know the show's crew and fandom do not recognize it as such, but listing the series as beginning in 1988 makes it a contradiction otherwise. CR85747 (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

early inspiration article
https://www.wpr.org/origins-mystery-science-theater-3000-rooted-childhood-memories-wisconsin-tv ResultingConstant (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had seen that this last weekend but forgot to tag it for here. M asem (t) 18:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)