Talk:MythBusters (2007 season)

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

bots show me what's wrong with this edit it and send in results

Trivia[edit]

Why isn't there a space anywhere for trivia? Like how there's a MetaFilter easter egg at the end of one of the recent shows...

Trivia sections aren't needed; Wikipedia is not a colletion of indiscriminate facts.--Drat (Talk) 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but like 99% of TV shows have a section for trivia and useless facts SOMEWHERE
Just because they do, doesn't necessarily mean they should. And even if it works well for most TV shows, it may not work well for this show. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Voice Extinguisher[edit]

Why is it shown as confirmed here, when on the show they have it as busted? The original myth was that a normal human voice could extinguish a flame, which was shown to not happen. ---71.244.36.223 01:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)---[reply]


Episode Numbering[edit]

What happend to episode 72? Why has the "Speed Cameras"-episode got the episode number 73? Should'nt it be 72 instead? Dreamingtree 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We've got the Pirate Special as Special 11 and Episode 71. It is not consistent with previous usage where specials are not assigned a separate episode number. 70.56.23.185 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fixed it by removing Pirate Special from Season 5 and adjusting the numbering, but now it's back and inconsistent again... 203.132.67.187 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki: Episode 70 — "Hindenburg Mystery" Scheduled Airdate: 2007-01-10

But TV.com says -- Next episode: MythBusters: Weapons Special Special Day and Time Part 1 Airs: Monday January 8, 2007


hmmm.

VoltageX 10:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been a lot of problems with the guide data and program descriptions on the Discovery site. "Hand Grenade Hero" which was on the website for a while in December still hasn't shown up. Alanhwiki 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Discovery Store has DVD sets of Season 5. Part One lists the Holiday and Pirate Specials as specials, with the first three episodes. Part Two lists the remaining episodes already broadcast, plus two more that have yet to be screened.

I would suggest that this forms the basis of the 'offical' episode list, therefore Pirates IS a special and should be removed from the Season 5 page. bruzie 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that every new episode is a "special something". But should it be considered as a Special ? I mean they call it a special because it focuses exclusively on a series of myths about the same subject (like baseball or superheroes). I personnaly thinks that the Pirate Special is indeed a special because it's a 2-hour show, whereas recent episodes aren't specials because of their length... --Geoced 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg discussion[edit]

I cant believe that they are now trying to put something like the Hingenburg disaster on trial, I mean this isn't like the rest of there little myths, this has had several serious investigations done on it. --Aaron J Nicoli 01:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not the disaster they are testing. It is instead the cause: Whether or not the aluminium paint and a doping method which were used caused it to go up in flames. Aang-kai 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to discuss the content of the show, go to the fan site. This discussion is for the content of this article.

Hiatus?[edit]

Does anyone know why Mythbusters had such a large gap between its last episode, and those forthcoming? 69.158.158.3 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Myths Episode[edit]

My apologies for posting this twice, but since the Dog Myths episode covers one topic (like the Pirate Myths episode before it) shouldn't it be considered a special.

  • Surely no, because it wasn't presented as one; usually the special episodes start with the narrator saying, "On this special episode of Mythbusters," or they have a blueprint with "X Speical" - neither of which were in that episode. R'win 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah they've done this before. Some episodes are devoted to certain things without being specials.--Marhawkman 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confederate rocket was the only topic in it's epdisode, but it's not a special.Metropod 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood hound myth[edit]

When the Adam and Jamie recapped the bloodhound myth, they called the urban run Plausible.Metropod 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree (in case we need to reach a consensus). Should we also mention that some dogs could be trained to better handle urban enviroments? Ytoabn 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mintos and Diet Coke[edit]

I don't remember watching the Mintos and Diet Coke myth (if you can call it a myth) ever revisited especially in the Wednesday, March 21, 2007 episode. That is why I deleted it from the article page if anyone is wondering. gibsonj338 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 5?[edit]

Why are these episodes called Season 5? There appears to be only a few week's gap (the usual Christmas break) from the Season 4 episodes. Shouldn't these just continue on as part of Season 4? 23skidoo 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the intro for the show you'll see that they have a different opening for the show. This is where we started putting them into season 5 Redekopmark 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 79 and 80[edit]

Just looked on the official site schedual and it says that episode 80 airs May 31 however there is no mention of episode 79 anywhere. So I added the info for 80 and left 79 blank. Redekopmark 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again on the discovery website they have our current episode 80 listed as number 83 so either they're making alot of mistakes or were missing something. anyhelp on solving this would be greatRedekopmark 06:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if episode 79 is the revisit episode on May 16 http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.13056.24704.3913.x&start=40

Here's the info:

MythBusters: More Myths Revisited TV-PG, CC

Myths Revisited offers Jamie and Adam the chance to clear their name! Returning to the most controversial myths, they repeat them to see if their original answer was genuine or bogus.

Btw sorry I don't know all the correct editing technique, feel free to fix my formatting ReelGenius 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that more myths revisited before as well however this is the same name as episode 64 with a very similar discription so I'm guessing that is the episode that they are talking about.

Also since they have renamed the from just being episode numbers to actuall titles now and there is now reference to episodes 80 or 81 i'm going to renumber them so there are no gaps in it like there currently are Redekopmark 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Special, Episode 71[edit]

According to the Discovery Channel homepage, episode 71 was supposed to be the pirate special[1]. The information from that episode seems to be absent. I'd add it, but I never saw that episode. --76.214.195.6 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there because we're calling it a special so if you look at the Special sectction you'll see it there also this page MythBusters episode guide has a list of episodes in brocast order that contains it Redekopmark 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah, haven't all the episodes been numbered? --Marhawkman 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rig Myths, Episode 79[edit]

According to the video on the Discovery Channel Website, the Cyclists Drafting a Big Rig myth, the results were not confirmed, it was plausible. I changed it. If you don't believe me, go to [2], click on Video Search and in the Search text box type in "big rig." Click on the first video which should be "Mythbusters: Big Rig" and at the end of the video it will say, Plausible and not Confirmed.

I was wondering, is the aforementioned episode the first episode in which every single myth shown on air is confirmed? --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the video on the Discovery Channel Website, the cyclists Drafting a Big Rig myth, and at the end they say that this myth is plausible and not comfirmed. I already changed from confirmed to plausible and someone changed it back to confirmed. I will change it back and please don't change it again as plausible is the correct one and not confirmed. -- Gibsonj338 20:45, 14 June 2007 (PST)

I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but didn't they realize people have ridden bicycles in excess of 150mph using the same concept? If a guy can pedal 150mph drafting behind a car, the concept is confirmed. LostCause 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very concept of the show is based on putting myths to the test. There are multiple cases where they cite other studies, but can't come to the same conclusions in their own tests (like the beer-bottle bashing tests—the study they cited stated an empty bottle would inflict more damage, but their own tests showed the full one would). While they probably could have said Confirmed in this case based off the other studies, going by their own tests alone, Plausible is also a valid conclusion. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 14:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 72 — "Speed Cameras"[edit]

The section …cannot take a picture of a car if it is going fast enough. is definitely untrue. The fastest land-based cars are able to drive faster than Mach 1 and while I do not know about shutter speed of those cameras, one can safely assume that they will not be able to take a useful picture.

It is worth noting that most high-speed cars have a software-imposed speed limit of 250 km/h as that is the maximum speed one can go in Germany unless one specifically removes the lock which needs to be documented and means that the insurance rate increases significantly. As the concept of 'a car drives fast, we need picture proof' applies everywhere, I would assume that the limit the majority of manufacturers chooses (as stated above, they must have a limit) is a little bit above 250 M/h which the Top Gear test seems to support.

No idea if and how that should be incorporated into the article, though.

RichiH 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, German TV confirmed that a counter-flash mounted left and right of the licence plate that overexposes the picture does, in fact, work.

RichiH 08:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply, but a later episode did a retest with a dragster, and it was able to go fast enough that the speed camera didn't even register its presence. And this was with the camera's designer actively trying to catch it. As of the episode here, Busted, but the retest was Confirmed, if impractical. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 14:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Guard Dog: female dog -> bitch?[edit]

Minor issue here. Changed female dog to bitch (notice links ;-) ) a few days ago and someone changed it back.

I think bitch is the proper term to use since it is both the primary definition of the word and was the word used to describe that portion of the myth in the show. Perhapts make a link to wiktionary in the page? TheSittingDuck 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Female dog" is a perfectly accurate and adequate phrase that doesn't have the emotional baggage that "bitch" does. I think it should stay as it is. Spejic 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dog" can also be derogatory in some usages. I propose rather than using the entirely appropriate (and inoffensive in this context) "bitch" we use "female of a canine species". Alternately, we can presume that wikipedia is an educational resource and that appropriate words should be used where they apply, and be as succinct as possible, rather than using phrases where a single word exists. I do not approve of avoiding valid terms in this manner. 77.98.223.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball and Superzizing[edit]

The baseball episode was very specifically referred to as a "special" throughout the episode, even going as far as using custom graphics with the text "Mythbusters Baseball Special". I think this should be moved the the specials page.

Also, the "Supersized Special" is labeled as a 2 hour episode, and therefore should be moved to the specials page too.

I would have done it myself, but I don't have enough experience with the wikipedia code to do it.

Season 5 - Ninja Special[edit]

The Ninja Special is currently listed as episode 0508. Shouldn't this be counted as a special instead of a regular episode, and changed from 0508 to special 12? YHVHYHVH 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YHVHYHVH (talk • contribs) 21:28, August 24, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that the Pirate Special should also be removed from this page so that there is only one entry on the article specifically for these special episodes. hitman012 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catching an arrow[edit]

"The artificial hand managed to catch the arrow easily in superhuman speed, but the human strength setting was just not powerful enough to grip the arrow in time."

The Mythbusters forgot one important detail: Why not just set the hand further away from the arrow-firing rig, and anticipate the longer trajectory so it can grip the arrow at human strength? --  Denelson83  09:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they did account for this. The idea is that if they start closing their hand to fast, the arrow will get blocked by the hand. In this sense, it doesn't matter how far they are away from where the arrow is being launched, only when it starts being closed relative to the position of the arrow. --GreekHouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekHouse (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Although they have listed it as "Busted," maybe they should re-list it as "Plausible," in light of this video showing Terry Bryan on Ripley's Believe It Or Not catching 2 arrows (one with his eyes open, one while blindfolded). Ag1999 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few cases where the MythBusters have overturned test results on contradicting external data alone, and none (as far as I know) since very early in the show's run. In any case, the MythBusters did a retest using an actual arrow-catching ninja, and still considered it Busted because the myth specified it being done under battle conditions (and yes, this was the definition from the start); the ninja required specific conditions to successfully catch arrows. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

paper fold myth[edit]

its not "partly busted". because the myth is that u cannot fold a piece of paper more then 7 times(any size & any thickness, as long as its folded in perpendicular halves)
So it is busted XNos 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season subdivision, reference[edit]

Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentos 3?[edit]

Episode 81 lists "Diet Coke & Mentos 3". The only previous episode mentioning mentos on wikipedia is Season 4's episode 57. Where is Mentos 2? TheHYPO (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Heater Explosion[edit]

I remember seeing the "Hot Water Heater Explosion" myth air sometime in 2008. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's entirely possible that you saw that episode for the first time in 2008. After all, I've missed several MythBusters episodes myself, and didn't actually get to see them until months later. The episode's first airing, however, was in late 2007. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Hindenburg thermite[edit]

The "Hindenburg Mystery" episode raises a new mystery - what are the two "secret ingredients" they used to make thermite so user friendly? Note that Wikipedia lacks the television executive's instinct for censorship and already gives a wide range of simpler ways to ignite thermite; we're limiting the question here to what would have an appearance consistent with what is seen in the episode. A weak consensus online[3][4][5] appears to be that they used glycerin and potassium permanganate to create the initial heat to start the thermite reaction. Unfortunately, three forums doesn't add up to one reliable source! Besides, there's some confusion in my mind whether there is any relationship whatsoever between the secret recipe they use to make the thermite self-ignite in a frying pan in the first scene, and the later "secret recipe" that turned squares of fabric into exceptionally good sparklers. Are there any sites commenting on Mythbusters that rise to the level of a reliable source to use in the episode description? (Note that the current version says that it uses only ingredients in the Hindenburg dope, i.e. the aluminum and iron oxide, which I think is wrong in all cases?) Wnt (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Most that could would probably rather not give out the information(for safety reasons).--Marhawkman (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Hour[edit]

The passenger that landed the King Air after the pilot dies was a licensed pilot. While it is certainly more difficult to fly a twin than a single, a less qualified pilot taking over after PIC incapacitation does not fit the tested myth "An untrained civilian can be instructed over the radio to land a plane after the pilot dies."Es330td (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the myth was derived from the event, not testing whether it was possible.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's accurate to what was claimed in the episode (which, if it is, the episode is thus inaccurate), but the article does state "An untrained civilian can be instructed how to successfully land a plane over the radio. This is based on the movie Airplane." In Airplane! the character in question, Ted Striker (Robert Hayes), was neither an untrained pilot nor entirely civilian. He was, in fact, a former Air Force (or Army Air Force -- the movie is unclear and doesn't pay much attention to historical accuracy) pilot who was afraid to fly after experiencing trauma in "the war" (which war isn't specified, though scenes could lend themselves to Vietnam, Korea or even the Pacific front of WWII)72.247.151.10 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply--clips from the movie Airplane! were used to illustrate that myth in the episode. While the myth may not have been based solely on that film, the film was used to show a "successful" version of the myth, even if some of the details in the film didn't quite match the myth. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myth Revolution/Evolution Name Correction?[edit]

As my first ever contribution to Wikipedia, I have tried to correct what I though was a simple error in the title of two episodes of Mythbusters, which is that the 2007 episode "Myth Revolution" is actually called "Myth Evolution", and the equal from 2009 which is called Myth Evolution is in fact called "Myth Evolution 2". However, my edits have been reverted as it is stated "the episode names that you are changing have been checked against the official MythBusters episode guide and confirmed to be correct" and also mention that my changes count as orginal research, and thus are not acceptable. I am now somewhat confused, as having check the Official Episode Guide, the episodes are indeed listed as Myth Revolution and Evolution, but my reason for changing theses names was that having simple recently watched these episodes after downloading them onto my computer, I saw that they are actually called Evolution and Evolution 2 on the blueprint title shots that are used in both episodes. How do I correct these episode names if the Official Episode guide is apparently a more reliable source than the episodes themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter4432 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to work Wikipedia, but I noticed the same mistake. The episode title is 'evolution', not 'revolution'. Right at the start of the episode the announcer says 'On this episode of Mythbusters it's survival of the fittest, as we track down the myths you say got away, for "Myth Evolution"'. The source is wrong.--109.153.13.13 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the official MythBusters episode guide, which is considered to be authoritative. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can the episode guide be considered more authoritative than the actual episodes themselves? I mean, those are the primary sources (http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html), the actual episodes which are under discussion. The episode guide is a secondary source at best. In the first of these episodes, the phrase "Myth Revolution" is never used - both Adam Savage and the narrator refer to it as "Myths Evolution". It is entirely possible that the online Discovery episode guide could be wrong. You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, Wikipedia itself is a prime example of that. Looking at the evidence, we have one website saying it's called 'Myth Revolution', plus other sources that have used this very page as a source for that title. On the other hand, we have the dust jacket of the DVD, several references in the narration and dialogue within the episodes, and the blueprint room title itself all saying 'Myth Evolution' and 'Myth Evolution 2'. I'm not saying Discovery "doesn't know what the episodes are called". I'm just saying that more sources (such as the actual episodes) should be considered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.132.101 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes don't actually state the episode titles. There have been many cases where what we've seen in the episodes has been shown to be completely incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Completely incorrect" based on what information? The Discovery Guide secondary source, as opposed to the episodes as a primary source? You still haven't answered my question. How can an external document be more authoritative than the actual statements made within the episodes? If I go to the episode you've got as 'Myth Revolution', I want you to tell me the time code (minute and second) where the phrase 'Myth Revolution' is actually used. I mean, the episodes are usually named after one of the myths within them - the titles of which are given on the blueprint room title screens. It's highly unlikely that they'd have a title which is never spoken or used in the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.132.101 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the official episode guide, which has always been onsistent, and reliable soures, although these have generally been inonsistent, with different names for the same episode popping up on different reliable sources.
"How can an external document be more authoritative than the actual statements made within the episodes" - You're only assuming that there are "actual statements made within the episodes" and this isn't the case. They never actually state the episode title in the episode. The hand drawings we see do not constitute episode titles. They're not shown in every episode and, as I said, they're often not consistent, or completely inconsistent, with reliable sources. There is a great deal of time from when footage is shot in the U.S. and when the episode is completed in Australia and episode titles can be changed as necessary. This is why we decided to go with the official episode guide for consistency. Fortunately, this is one episode where the official guide and other reliable sources agree with the episode title.[6][7][8] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. In that case, may I make a suggestion? My main reason for bringing this up was because I was looking to watch Myth Revolution, but couldn't find it as it was on the DVD case and menu under 'Myth Evolution'. Could we add a note or something stating that some DVD releases may have it under this alternate designation? Just to avoid confusion when someone is looking to watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.132.101 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Fastball[edit]

The section about the myth of the rising fastball should probably be reworded. As the Wikipedia article on 'fastball' correctly describes, a spinning ball in horizontal flight might be capable of rising, but such motion can not be achieved by baseball pitchers. My objection is that such motion would not 'defy the laws of physics', as the article states, and which I will change, unless that was the wording used in the episode, and other editors think that it should remain for that reason. Michael9422 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode itself, a scientist explained that, in the conditions of a major league ballgame, the spin of a fastball could not produce more than half the baseball's weight in lift, making an actual rising fastball an impossibility. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (Edited by —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 03:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC); clarified wording)[reply]

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MythBusters (2007 season). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MythBusters (2003 season) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MythBusters_(2007_season)&oldid=1204162287"