Talk:The Marriage Ref (American TV series)/Archive 1

Interrupting the coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony
As confirmed by independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast picture format
The article currently states that this show broadcasts in 720p, yet, NBC broadcasts in 1080i, if I'm not mistaken. This is a rather nit-picky detail, but can this be confirmed? --Brent Butler contribstalk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed it, as unsourced material. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratings box
Removed it, as unencyclopedic. It is not appropriate to list this info for every single episode. Paragraph/prose form is much better. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should put it up it's very reliable and many other pages have itTheTroubles (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)TheTroubles
 * Not encyclopedic, and not reliable. What about it makes it reliable? I would not expect an encyclopedia article of WP:FA quality to have this unencyclopedic box. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

List of episodes
This does not seem to belong in the main article page about the show itself. Could be perhaps fodder for its own independent List of episodes page. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, would be better for a page called List of episodes of The Marriage Ref. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey smarty pants, before removing something that many find useful, why don't you create the page? What kind of thinking is it? Just remove cause it's the easiest part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.202.38 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unencyclopedic for this page. It might be useful info for a page called List of episodes of The Marriage Ref. But it is not appropriate on this page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guest judges
This is not in any way related to "Production" info, as such, removed it from the Production subsection, and moved it instead to the page List of episodes of The Marriage Ref. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Panel game
The Marriage Ref appears to be the first prime-time panel game in the US in a very long time. Panel games are a popular show format in the UK. I think this is worth noting because, with its low production costs, and the high ratings for The Marriage Ref so far, panel games could become a new UK-imported trend, similar to how reality shows were also adopted from the UK to save money. 67.100.222.70 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources? Cirt (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument toward the end wasn't meant to be included in the article, so I'll just source the first part. Variety said "The resulting half-hour offered a breezy, inexpensive approach to comedy that brought to mind the panel shows of yesteryear." The Wall Street Journal said, "The concept is essentially a re-jiggering of a genre staple of television's halcyon days: the 'panel' game show." That should satisfy the fact that this is is a format that hasn't been on primetime in a while. As for panel games' popularity in the UK, I think the panel game article and its list satisfy that contention. 67.100.222.70 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be synthesis and WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right! Thanks, I learned something. How about just mentioning that it's a panel show, which is a throwback to the early days of television, using the Variety and WSJ quotes? I'd add this myself, but for some reason I don't like registering for sites unless I have to, and there's semi-protection on this article. (Is that protection necessary anymore?) And as a side note, the "reality" genre in the info box should link to [Reality television], not [Reality]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.222.70 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will do some additional research on that. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have since gone ahead and added the two sources suggested above to be included as recommended by . These were Variety magazine, and also The Wall Street Journal. -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Episodes
List of episodes of The Marriage Ref = already linked to in the infobox. No need for a duplicate, separate link in its own separate subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a poorly written article...
...that spends far too much time going on and on about the negative reviews than anything tactful, useful, or factful. It's nice to see Wikipedia has turned into a glorified People magazine gossip site.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest some independent reliable secondary sources in order to add to the article? -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can read and maybe re-read the article and see that not one paragraph goes without a comment on ratings or 'poor reception', ignorant of the topic.207.38.156.111 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Direction of this Article
I think you're a bit obsessed with this article, as in WP:OWN. Maybe you should take a step back and take a break for awhile. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific and actually back up your claims with independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Case closed. I'll be back when less biased minds prevail in creating a more balanced article. However, I may return occasionally to re-add the POV Section tag, as it is clearly applicable. As always, have fun editing, otherwise there's no point! =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making such negative comments addressed at individual contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I regret that you don't like my honest and accurate observation about the section in question, no one like to be told that their contributions need to be more balanced. However, your WP reference above does not apply, as I am not making "negative" comments about you (certainly not any more so than the one you left on *my* page, eh?). My comment are, in actuality, specifically in reference to your additions to the The_Marriage_Ref section and their undue weight. It is, as I have said, excessive and unnecessarily long to the point of being gratuitous and way beyond what is reasonable to communicate the subject. In my opinion, it is clearly POV. I am sure you personally are a nice guy, my comments are certainly not directed at you personally. What's ironic is that I agree with what I perceive your opinion about the show to be: It's crap. None the less, Wikipedia articles should strive to be unbiased, and this one is not, principally because of the additions and edits that you have made to thee The_Marriage_Ref section. Take it or leave it, it's valid input for a Talk Page. =//= Proxy User (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have evidently never learned to not argue with Wiki 'editors' who throw (fake, instantly made-up) 'rules' when they feel violated. I'm 6 times published and can tell you half the stuff I read on here is utter nonsense, non-fact, biased, perverted points of view, and just downright poorly written.  This is basically Clrt's baby, and he evidently has a thing against this show and will not stop with actually 'enforcing' Wiki policy in lieu of letting his own views come to light.207.38.156.111 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he's an "administrator", so he can get away with it. Such is life. Us "little people" just have to accept it and move on. =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I have quickly worked to address specific issues raised above on this page, when editors have suggested independent reliable secondary sources to back up their claims. -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is critical in tone. For example, it exclusively cherry-picks negative reviews in the lead section. A quick check of The New York Times found a positive review and a note about high ratings. It also leads with "it interrupted the Olympics," a complaint among Olympics fans, but not worthy of the first sentence of the article. 67.100.222.70 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article also shows that it was #1 in its new time slot in the advertiser-friendly "money demo" of 18-49 year-olds. It has also ranked among the top episodes on Hulu the day after it has aired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.222.70 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming response from television critics was resoundingly negative. This is as per an aggregate analysis of all of the reviews, both from independent sources Reuters, and The Guardian. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still not a neutral article, because even under "critical response," it ignores all positive critical response, including from The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly, two of the most authoritative sources of reviews in US entertainment. Variety, the leading industry source, also was positive. Additionally, the article omits the show's ratings success in favor of a claim that the premiere episode lost to CBS' "Undercover Boss" in the ratings. It did not air against "Undercover Boss," it aired against "Cold Case" and was #1 in its time slot, 14.5 million to CBS' 9.8 million. Using different time slots creates an unbalanced comparison because it ignores HUT levels. People go to bed, and television use falls markedly at 9:30 to 10 pm. (Note how every network lost viewers between 9 and 10.) In its first episode in its regular time slot, the show was #2 in households and #1 in the determinative 18-49 demo. Also, this article defies convention by using the lead section to quote people who don't like the article's subject. Further, the "critical response" section is the largest section of the article, and, again, is devoted solely to negative response. For these reasons, the article seems to want to influence readers' opinion ("This is a bad show") rather than present a neutral, encyclopedic description of the subject. I still maintain that this article needs NPOV work.
 * For points of comparison, here are three articles for shows that debuted in 2010: Parenthood, The Tonight Show (2010) and Worst Cooks in America. And here are three shows in the "panel game" format: Whose Line Is It Anyway?, I've Got a Secret and To Tell the Truth. You'll see some significant differences between how those articles are written and how this one is. For example, what critics think is never a focus. 67.100.222.70 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, will add some. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. The "Critical Reception" section is excessively long to the point of being gratuitous. It could probably be shortened to one healthy paragraph. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to see sources including The Guardian, Reuters, and Metacritic. All of these sources are confirmation from aggregated analysis of reviews, that the majority of critical reception of this television program has been overwhelmingly negative. Thus, this section is representative of actual coverage. I will, however, add in some additional coverage, as requested above - but that is not a reason to slap a tag onto the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have gone ahead myself, and added material from all three of the sources suggested above by . I have added material to the article from positive review from three sources as suggested above by the IP - these include The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and Variety magazine (all the ones suggested above to be added to the article). Hopefully this addresses above complaints. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This section carries way too much weight. It is too long, to the point of being gratuitous. The essence of the criticisms could be contained in one or two paragraphs. Adding a paragraph for every single reviewer anywhere serves no purpose. =//= Proxy User (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are plenty of other articles, of Featured Article quality, with much longer and more extensive Critical reception subsections. -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other articles are irrelevant, we're not talking about the errors of other articles. The fact is there is "critical response", and that's fine; it's a crap show. But an excusive list of every single negative review by every entertainment reporter serves zero purpose, adds nothing . This is undue weight, it’s clearly gratuitous. It’s unbalanced POV bashing, not an overview of criticism. The section reeks of bias. It should be rewritten in a coherent and less excessive way. =//= Proxy User (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * , please, there is no need for you to use overemphasis as you are doing - with simultaneous use of italics, bold, and underline. It is not undue, as it reflects the weight of the actual sources that are out there. Unless you can show otherwise, with other secondary sources that dispute the facts? -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If such use was not permitted, the options in the tool bar would not be there. =//= Proxy User (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using italics, bold, and Underline, all in the same post, is not conducive to a polite, kind, positive and constructive editing environment. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I removed the tag, as I have since gone ahead and moved the positive critical reception from sources suggested above in this section (The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and Variety magazine) - so that they all have more prominence within the subsection. This was as suggested above by . If others differ, please do not simply make claims or personal opinions but make arguments based on weight as far as coverage - and back up those claims to independent reliable secondary sources - as was politely and kindly done by, above. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is excessive. It had disproportional weight. It goes beyond what is necessary to describe the criticisms. It is gratuities. It show bias and POV. It needs to be edited down to size. =//= Proxy User (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting claims made without any sources to back them up. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." - Can you please present independent reliable secondary sources to back up these personal opinions? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, there are multiple quotes from different sources that all have the same criticism. How many do you need? Is 5 enough? Shall we do a Google search and add in every single one from a Wiki acceptable source? Even if it's 20? Really: How many do you need to communicate to the readers what the criticism are? I get it: It's an overwhelming number. But that doesn't mean that to have a meaningful article they all get included. The number of referenced negative reviews is excessive, unnecessary, and gratuitous, simply not needed to communicate the subject of the section. =//= Proxy User (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, articles take their input as far as what to include, based on the overall coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, and not on the personal opinions of users. This is as per WP:WEIGHT. It appears you wish to change the policy. If you wish to propose changing the policy in order to suit your own personal opinions, then I suggest you bring up your complaints at that policy page's talk page, which is located at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is regarding the systemic bias tag. I don't see a need to create an entirely new topic for it. Metacritic calls reviews of this show "mixed or average," but this article is replete with criticism, as though the criticism is the defining characteristic of the show. Also, while the show isn't single-handedly reviving NBC, it is beating its lead-in (usually '30 Rock') every time it airs, despite there being fewer people watching TV at 10 pm than at 9 pm. The article simply gives the impression that it's a horrible show that will be canceled soon. I think a thorough description of the show, rather than a thorough description of the critics' thoughts, would be more appropriate. 72.244.207.30 (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I changed "Systemic Bias" to "POV." I misunderstood the intent of the "Systemic Bias" tag. 72.244.207.30 (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Examples of addressing issues raised on talk page
It seems that certain users only wish to focus on complaining, when in fact the reality is that when issues have been raised on the talk page that are backed up to suggestions of independent reliable secondary sources - I have promptly worked to address those recommendations. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 03:44, 15 March 2010 = added material suggested on the talk page, from positive reviews, including sources The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and Variety magazine.
 * 2) 20:27, 15 March 2010 = moved the positive critical reception from sources suggested, to give them more prominence.
 * 3) 22:00, 15 March 2010 = added sources suggested on the talk page, including Variety magazine, and also The Wall Street Journal.
 * Interesting, you took me to task for what you call "negative comments addressed at individual contributors" and now this comment above? Hmmm. But clearly you're missing the point. Your clear personal bias against this show (for the most part, your contributions are to the "This Show Sucks" section) combined with your status as an Wiki Administrator, and the WP:OWN of this article has prevented the article from being well balanced. This being so, it is pointless for anyone to try to put some balance to it because you will simply revert it, and eventually ban the user for some period of "cool off" time. The fact is, the "Critical Reception" section continues to be excessive, way beyond what is reasonably necessary to convey the subject. Gratuitous. Undue weight. There's no point in discussing this any more. Goodbye! =//= Proxy User (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When specific suggestions backed up to independent reliable secondary sources have been raised on the talk page, I have repeatedly and promptly attempted to work to address them. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are asking is for me to "refute" the content you have added to the section in question. That's not the issue. My point is that you do *not* need to include every single poor review to establish that there is substantial "critical response". When TWO THIRDS of the page is taken up by such content, it's too much. It goes beyond what is necessary to convey to the reader the nature and volume of the "critical response". It is well within excessive, gratuitous, and constitutes undue weight. Clearly biased. =//= Proxy User (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking you, per WP:WEIGHT, to back up your claims with independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally ignoring what I am saying. Your comment above has nothing to do at all with my point. It is, indeed, so irrelevant, I have to conclude it is a calculated attempt to obfuscate the issue. =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Objections by Proxy User
The repeated addition of the POV tag by is getting disruptive in nature. repeatedly refuses to back up his claims with independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please restrain yourself from personal attacks like the one above. Why is it that any opinion that is in conflict to your WP:OWN is "disruptive"? All I have done here is responsibly and firmly argued my position on the "Critical Reception" section. I've stayed away from personal attacks like "so-and-so is being disruptive"... You’ve been here longer than me, you should be able to accept that not everyone will have the same perspective on an article as you. =//= Proxy User (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again, an example of repeatedly refusing to back up claims with independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of this section is a pointed personal insult at a specific user by a Wikipedia administrator. Apperently, they can punish regular users for such things, but are not required to follow the same rules of politness. =//= Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WEIGHT. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt has done nothing wrong here. Critical reception sections are for information from legit sources, not the individual opinions of wikipedia editors. Stop being so offended by his actions, he is in the right. Sergecross73 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Cirt, you're missing the point (and I think you are aware of this). I do *NOT* suggest that there be no "Critical reception section", which you would know (and probably do know) from actually reading my comments here. Indeed I agree that such a section is more than warranted (which I have indeed made perfectly clear - if you take the time to actually read my comments here). What I am saying is that at a certain point, the purpose of such a section has been met. At a certain point, shoveling on more is excessive, represents bias, is undue weight, and gratuities - in other words clear POV. But I'm not going to win this argument here, so you all go ahead and be as biased as you want, it seems to make you feel superior. =//= Proxy User (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Up and down this talk page, all I see is you ranting on and on about how you're unhappy with the article, without actually contributing anything to it. You continually attack his character. He continually suggests you add to the article with good sources. If you think it's biased, go find some positive sources for it or something. Spend more time on the article and less time bolding/italicizing random words and pretending to end the conversation...Sergecross73 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it that people like you always characterize disagreement as "ranting"? Everyone who disagrees with you is "ranting". Great argument. Indeed typical "argument" - note the quotes around "argument". Good grief. =//= Proxy User (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it you're still arguing instead of working on the article?Sergecross73 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion? No? Thought so. =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is being a bit unfair to Proxy User. His arguments do seem valid and I agree that the article seems to be extremely one sided. When you are the only one who thinks one way and 2+ people disagree with you, your disagreement may sound like ranting. But I don't think that trying to point out a valid flaw in the article is considered a 'rant'. It seems to me that he has made valid points and the critical response section should be changed Accordingly. You claim that he should do it himself but if he did, I am sure that one of you would revert it and post in the talk section about how he probably should have discussed the changes in here before editing the article (as they would likely be fairly substantial). I propose everyone calm down, take a few steps back and look at arguments presented by both sides again. Fact is that the section in question is OVERLY NEGATIVE when in fact there ARE positive reviews which SHOULD be mentioned and are NOT mentioned. My 2 cents  Ra f ael  04:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest some independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What is tis nonsense about sources and what-not? CLEARLY you are misrepresenting or intentionally ignoring what I am actually complaining about. Have I suggested your sources are bad? No, I don't think so. As you very well know, what I have suggested is that the size of the section in question is excessive, far more than is needed to communicate the meaning of the section, so far over the top so as to be gratuitously POV. Cirt, I'm going to say this because your edit history supports it: You are both biased on this subject, and you have serious WP:OWN issues. You should step back and attempt to get some perspective, perhaps edit other articles. You should most defiantly stop misrepresenting my complaint, it's disingenuous. =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, your complaint is noted. You don't like how the article represents the show. You've made that very clear. But if you're unhappy with the article, you should be the one who should make some changes. With sources. Because, if you haven't noticed already, typing long walls of text with random segments bolded hasn't accomplished anything. Sergecross73 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to "certain" editor's wp:own issues, any changes I might make would be reverted. Again, part of my complaint, which I've made clear here. Have you *actually* read my initial comments about this? =//= Proxy User (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See, you're speaking in hypothetical scenarios though, like what he "might" do, or what he "would" do. You can't blame people for things they may or may not do in the future. From what I've gathered, it seemed like you tried to contribute to the "Critical Reception" section, but either didn't use legit sources and/or just wrote your own opinions in, in which your work was rightfully deleted. If you're so fearful of your work being deleted, you could at least do something constructive on the talk pages, like listing off some of the sources that support what you're saying. Because again, your long paragraphs with random formatting isn't getting you anywhere. (It looks immature, like typing in all CAPS, or using no-caps or punctuation does.) Sergecross73 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless for me to try to have a discussion of merits with editors who are not interested in ideas outside their bias. In time, these editors will lose interest, and more balanced minds can clean up the POV. =//= Proxy User (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you've pretty much just admitted that you don't intend on doing anything constructive here presently, I don't believe I'll be addressing you anymore. Sergecross73 (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you've pretty much admitted that you don't intend on doing anything constructive here presently and instead intend on pushing your POV bias, I don't believe I'll be addressing you anymore (good grief!). =//= Proxy User (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The account has been blocked indef, for violating site policies. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hulu Refs
I am removing references to commenters on Hulu again. I can't imagine how comments from random people like "worse than AIDS" has any relevance. People say that about lots of shows. 154.5.203.127 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd Season
So the show was renewed for a second season, but there are shows in it's old timeslot, both for the fall and winter/spring seasons. Any idea when it's coming back? Or maybe it got cancelled before the second season started? If anyone knows, it'd be good to clarify that on the article... Sergecross73  msg me   19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also extremely confused about this issue as well. America's Next Great Restaurant is scheduled to premiere tonight at 8PM EST, which is the same timeslot and night that Marriage Ref is supposedly premiering, and will regularly air Sundays 8PM EST which is again Marriage Ref's supposed regular slot also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Trump
I just came here to check up on the status too, after the season finale for "The Celebrity Apprentice", because I'd heard that Donald Trump and Jerry Seinfeld had a slight fued and Donald Trump referred to Jerry's series here as a "failed series". I came here to see what that meant, only to see now that no one else here knows the answer. Hmm. Oh well. Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he was probably refering to the relatively poor reception and ratings the show has received, which the article touches on. As far as Trump's exact words, it looks like no one's thought that his commentary was notable enough to include in the article. Sergecross73   msg me   14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the reply. Uh, I didn't mean in the article per se, but in this talk page too. I now feel like I'm the only one enjoying the premise of the show. By the way, I enjoy Donald's show when it is on. I think that maybe I wanted to know about the fued itself, if indeed there was a fued. If certain entertainment news shows would stop exagerating everything, that would help. As it is now, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what is really happening and what is mere speculation, or at least for me it is. I'm not used to having conversations in which I speculate endlessly about issues of the day, I only stick with the known facts, if and when I talk, and I don't talk that much anymore. So I'm left with reading material like "Wikipedia", to tell me what's happening now with my favorite TV shows. Thanks again. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any feud, and honestly, if not for wikipedia, I would have been unaware this show was still on. I haven't seen any promo information at all. (Or maybe it has been cancelled or is close to it?) Sergecross73   msg me   12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Season 3
Will there be a third season? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's been announced, but the 1st season struggled with ratings, and if not for wikipedia, I wouldn't know season 2 even existed. (And it's usually not a good sign when a show is moved to A) A weekend night slot or B) a summer series, and this show has done both with season 2.) I wouldn't count on it...but we'll need a source one way or another to put it in the article. Sergecross73   msg me   18:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)