Talk:Scorpion (TV series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Scorpion (TV series) was copied or moved into List of Scorpion episodes with this edit on 14 August 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Scorpion (TV series) was copied or moved into List of Scorpion episodes with this edit on 22 September 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Is the use of bad science in the series trivial for its Public Reception or sould it be mentioned ?[edit]

The part of the Wiki article about reception of the TV series Scorpion in my opinion lacked one of the core reasons for its mixed reception: its bad science. Am I wrong to believe this, and is this really something trivial?

Here are the top review of the series on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3514324/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

Here is Gizmodo's review of the show https://gizmodo.com/scorpion-returns-to-bring-us-more-of-the-worst-tech-plo-1732464504

And the NSTA's article on how to respond on the show. http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=60166 Notice that there are also some earlier discussion about on similar topics on this talk page.

What is the best form how to address it if it isn't trivial ? Otter3 (talk)

It has bad science. And? How does this help the reader further understand the development of the series? It doesn't. For started, IMDb is not a reliable source, see WP:CITINGIMDB. Yes, something can be added to the Reception section about a few critic's view on the science, but it does not need a separate article.

What has been added is an unencyclopedic entry that breaks the article into something unable to be read. "This angered and continues to anger lot of viewers with a science background" And? What are their credentials? How do they affect the television series? They don't, so that has no place in being added.

"fierce resistance form fans who see the show as pure science fiction such as the blogger stevetobak" Pure advertising of some random blogger that is not related to the series in any way, none of these fans have any relation or credentials related to the series, yet again, and nothing resulted from any of this, so they have no place in being mentioned.

"The same pattern is to be seen in the IMDB user reviews of the show" See what I said before about IMDb. Wikipedia's television articles, per the consensus of the Television WikiProject, does not include user reviews for the series; we list only critical reception from critics.

"National Science Teachers Association wrote a piece about how to best handle its bad science in the classroom." In what classroom? How was this directly integrated into the curriculum? Which curriculum, which country? What result did this directly have on the series? Was it cancelled? Was the writing and/or direction changed because of it? No? Then, again, no place for it.

That covers pretty much every entry into what you've added. Your personal belief is not what runs this article or this website, just as this applies to every other editor here. You are not above the rules, and hence, you need to self-revert your edit until your disputed content can be agreed upon. Simply because you think you are right, that does not mean that you have a right to own this article. Disputed content gets remove until a consensus can be formed. -- Alex^TW 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you that the form of it all could be greatly improved, but the response this show got to its flawed and often misleading scientific claims is real, and it does contribute towards a large portion of the negative reviews the show gets. This isn't just my personal believe both its scientific inaccuracy as the flak it gets for it can be seen online. Do you have a good suggestion on how to handle this, what would be better sources for it and perhaps merge the solution with the errors discussion ? Otter3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't answer a single question that I posed to you. So, clearly you understand how utter tripe your contribution was and still is. Add any negative reviews into the proper reception section, but remember to retain a neutral point of view, per WP:NPOV (another policy that you are not exempt from). I recommend removing the offending content again, until you can provide a better example of what to add. -- Alex^TW 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the piece to protrait a more neutral vieuwpoint that doesn't mention any of the sources in the text Otter3 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC) :::[reply]

Literally every one of my points still stands, and you refuse to answer them. Is that a hint of knowing I'm right? -- Alex^TW 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some people don't understand that this show is fiction and in fiction, anything can happen and, in this series, it does all the time. For the record, I agree with Alex. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that it is fiction, and that viewers should know that. Note, though, that at least one Star Wars movie has a All persons fictitious disclaimer even though that should be pretty obvious. I suspect that a few people might believe more of Scorpion than they should. Maybe Walter should pull out a lightsaber sometime, so it would be obvious to all. Gah4 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The all persons fictitious disclaimer is something added to the media itself; it's not a guideline for a Wikipedia article. -- Alex^TW 01:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I am suggesting that maybe the show should have one. And yes, that probably doesn't need to go into the article, but doesn't seem so far off to discuss here. We should realize, though, that since (as far as I know) the show doesn't have one, we (WP editors) should not be surprised if viewers mix up fact and fiction. It might be, then, that the article should help them. Gah4 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can suggest that one be added to the media itself as much as we want, but nothing will happen. As for the article, we have nothing supporting the statement of viewers mixing up fact and fiction, and no other television series article has required any form of disclaimer in the many years that Wikipedia has been running, so we don't need one here either. -- Alex^TW 01:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, there is WP:NODISCLAIMERS that tells us we shouldn't include a disclaimer in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions to recurring characters[edit]

Maybe someone should add entries for the characters played by Penn Jillette (character of Cecil Rizzuto) and Shantel VanSanten (character of Amy Berkstead) Nomwiki1 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]