Talk:The Real World: Denver

Article needs a picture

It has been suggested that this article needs to have a picture. If anyone can find one, please put it in the article. Any new info is helpful. Thanks TheVault 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blog Link

HeyNow: The cast members have been chosen; as usually done given the timeframe until filming begins May 15th 2006. Unfortunately, you are unaware of the fact that open calls for season 18 were conducted late in 2005; casting has been complete. You cannot discredit the External Link simply because you speculate against it. It doesn't interfere with the article, and such material should be expected within a highly speculative article tracking a future television show (hence the future TV template used). If you want to bet against the picture, I'd be happy to take on ANY wager. Just let me know. I'll take Paypal. LorenzoRims

You also cannot discredit the blog simply because it is new. The show's location was JUST announced on Monday (two days ago from this writing). Please stop fighting the blog. LorenzoRims

Do you have proof that the cast has been chosen? If so cite it. Do you have proof that this man is a castmember? If so, cite it. Until then, please stop re-inserting this link to this blog you set up. It has unsubstantiated claims, you offer up a picture of someone you claim to be a male castmember with no evidence to support it and expect people to take you at face value. This is an encyclopedia that deals with facts, save stuff like that for fan web sites, where they belong. Thank you.

And having that link does interfere with the article, people expect external links to be factually accurate. HeyNow10029 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes it contains facts. This article contains speculative content as warned with the future tv show template. The blog contains ONE posting that has a link to the factual announcement of location and a picture of a castmember that is impossible to cite to your obsessive satisfaction. MTV has not made any official announcements of castmembers. They would never do so until the show is prepared to air on television. There should be no issue to the idea of wikipedia containing speculative content on specualtive articles. No, this link does NOT interfere with the article since it is an external link and properly labeled as "Blog", meaning it is not a completely official, factual, MTV citation. It belongs here because it is closely following the same explicit season of this television show, and will draw interest to the article and the idea of community driven articles. I will continue reverting this link. There is nothing wrong with having "stuff like [this outside of] fan web sites, where they [can] belong." There can't possibly be a citation that would satisfy your strict philosophy of speculative pages without taking my word for it. This cast member IS chosen, I know him personally. Again, I would love to bet against your pathetic doubt. Please, leave the link alone. LorenzoRims

Speculative information gained from credible sources. Like the New York Post. Last time I checked a blog you set up isn't a credible source. Oh, but, wait? This is a castmember because you say so and you "know him". In that case, it must be true. And Elvis is alive and working in a gas station on route 66. And Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by aliens! lol -- your arguments are laughable. If you have a problem with me removing the link, seek a third party mediation. Or better yet find another place to promote your self-interests (aka blogs you set up with pictures most likely stolen from myspace.com).HeyNow10029 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you believe it or not, or if you think my arguments are laughable. I wish you wouldn't give a shit at all, and stop removing the link. You can believe what you want. Just leave the damn link alone.LorenzoRims

Lorenzo. Please see the Wikipedia articles on External links and Verifiability. They clearly state on the subject of the credibility of blogs: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

And on the subject of external links: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. That blog you set up is hardly of high standard. Please stop re-inserting the link or else I will seek a third party mediation. Thank you. HeyNow10029 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You remove a Google link to 1920 Market St. You remove the word "trendy" to describe LoDo. You leave in "it is expected to follow the format of the past seventeen seasons". Isn't this obvious? Plus, where's YOUR citation? Who expects this? You? Are you THE expert? LorenzoRims

To HeyNow and his various sockpuppets The blog link is not used as a citation in any of my edits. I have not made any claims within the article that use the blog as a source. I am fighting for the connection between the blog's subject and the wikipedia article to remain. The Wikipedia policies that you are referencing cannot apply to external links that are not used as citations. To re-emphasise this, I have now placed the Blog link under a "See Also" heading. I have also added a credible, substantiated, reliable, trustworthy, dependable, honorable, responsible, balanced, official, contemporary, valid, authentic, corroborated, and agreed with article link that contains the announcement of the Real World location (even the 1920 Market St and former B-52 Billiard info)! Is that ok with you HeyNow? Did I use enough descriptive words so that you can acknowledge the new external link as being satisfactory to your precious needs? I hope so. I don't want you getting too worked up over it. LorenzoRims

It doesn't matter whether it's sourced in the article or not. The blog is still an external link, therefor it is expected to be somewhat credible. And posting pictures of people and claiming they're castmembers without any proof isn't credible - it's fine if that's what you want to do, but it shouldn't be linked to an encyclopedia article.

And the policy applies to all external links, whether or not they were sourced in the article. (See External links) About the filming dates you've added on, I removed those because you didn't cite your source; I searched Google News and found no website listing the dates you supplied. Finally, I re-inserted the wording about following the format of the past 17 seasons, because, again ... this is an encyclopedia. You are under the impression that everyone that wants to find about The Real World: Denver is a Real World fan, but not everybody is. And why it may be obvious to you that the Denver season would follow the format of the past 17 seasons, that information is relevant to someone who isn't familiar with the program. So it stays put. HeyNow10029 18:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll also take this time to warn you are in violation of the three-revert rule. Any more reverts and I will report you. HeyNow10029 18:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "very handsome" description of Ty as it's completely POV --Xacidx 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Series Premiere

The series premiere, according both Alex and Stephen is 11-22-2006 being 11-22 episode 1-2 of the 18th season.

Friendships and Turmoil

Jenn and Ty are currently no longer friends due to what happened before the Thailand trip.

Stephen, not Alex, expresses dismay towards Davis' sexuality and believes homosexuality can be helped/stopped and a ludicrous way of life.

Trouble brews in the house when one of the cast members brings her beau by unexpectedly.

According to a reliable source, Stephen is the house father when it comes to listening/loaning advice and almost hooked up with Brooke.

Davis leaves the house early because of roomate distate.

Nicole and Jenn flirt ending with Nicole coming out.

I just watched it. I hope you're right. It's gonna be a goooood season!TommyBoy76 04:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions of the cast

I have deleted the "quoted" descriptions of the cast members. (i.e., Davis as an "Angelic Gay Hottie".) I don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia entry. Let's also keep our own judgements out of the article (I noticed a revised entry on someone being a "homophobic bigot", nice job to the Editor for revising that). As much as that may or may not be true, it's a statement of opinion and therefore does not belong. I will tag the artcile NPOV if this continues, and may request an editing lock. Let's make this a professional entry. Trodaikid1983 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really care what you think? You don't have the right to lock it.74.195.3.11 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How about registering instead of hiding behind an IP address? I didn't say I'd lock it just because I feel like it ... I said I'd request it to be locked if editing becomes rampantly unprofessional. I think I have a right to do that.Trodaikid1983 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up already, dude. And I'm register. I just don't feel the need to login.74.195.3.11 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know what high school in Houston Alex went to???

How about place 4 tildes then well flipping tell ya.74.195.3.11 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about telling an admin to shut up. I'm sure they'd love to hear it. Or, show your name. Either way, you don't own this article. Quit acting like you do and come to grips with the fact that people will make this artcile NPOV, whether you want it to happen or not, or it will get deleted. Simple as that. NPOV. You may also want to check out this fun link : Civility. Trodaikid1983 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blah-blah-blah, nobody wants to hear you tell others what to do. Thats like robbing a store and telling the owner how to use it. I wasn't picking at anybody I was just stating the obvious. And why do I have to fight the Admins. Thats tasteless.74.195.3.11 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Davis is so hot :P and he has the hottest body --HurricaneRo 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Somebody vandalized the cast members in the Cast section. I don't watch the Real World, so somebody edit it!--989 RVD 07:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored the cast section. TheVault 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.--989 RVD 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone update the episode guide? We have summaries at tv.com plus MTV episodes so its really easy.Rocky 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Episodes NPOV

The episode guide is very POV. We should probably just have a small synopsis of the episodes. --Silvestris 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, it turns out the episode summaries are copied verbatim from MTV's own website, which is defintely a copyvio. --Silvestris 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Main series 281x211.jpg

Image:Main series 281x211.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship

This does not display particularly good scholarship.

The building BTW appears to have 3,000 SF per cast member. This is quite a bit. I'm sure there is a good reason but it is not explained.

The problems are outlined already in Reality_television#Criticism. There is no "behind the scenes description." There is no mention of scripts, who wrote them and why. There are no reasons given for casting. Why was X chosen over Y? Indeed, what did the "Casting Call" even look like? And what was the reasoning behind that? There is not attempt to discover in-depth analysis of why some stuff wound up on the cutting room floor and why some scenes were presented. What is the size of the crew? What directions were the cast given ("no interaction in hallways or when cameraman is on break?)"? It is superficial. It is Wiki_lite, rather than Wikipedia IMO.

What is here is a summary from the producer/sellers pov. It is, basically WP:SPAM for them for reruns or sales or whatever. It is of little use to an educated adult. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The square footage likely refers to the entire building, not the living space afforded to the cast.

As for the rest of your message, the reason there is none of what you prescribe is because we are limited by the information that is available to us to place in the article. This is a natural limitation of a grass-roots encyclopedia organized from the bottom up by volunteers, who don't have easy access to the documentary, journalistic or investigative resources that professional media outlets have. This has nothing to do with a lack of an "attempt" to add relevant material when necessary, since I've worked very hard for years to always incorporate such information when when I or others come across it. Your complaint makes it sound as if there is some wealth of material that's available, but is somehow being suppressed, censored, or ignored, which is specious. How are we supposed to add material that we don't have access to or don't know about? These newest complaints of yours against the series make about as much rational sense as your previous demand that the only people mentioned in articles should be those notable enough to have their own articles.

The material I have added to the articles over the years includes some production info in the main Real World article, such as the size of camera crews, the use of IKEA for furnishings, the need to restrict outings to places cleared for filming, etc. It includes info on how/why Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora applied to be cast on the show, which I added to their articles. It includes information from law enforcement agencies and the publications quoting them on the police incidents detailed in the San Diego, Philadelphia and New Orleans 2010 articles. It includes the material in the main article that is based on statements by former cast member Irene McGee, who is highly critical of the show. All of this is hardly "the producers' POV", unless you think the San Diego, Philadelphia and New Orleans police departments are all on the Bunim-Murray payroll.

If you know of relevant information from reliable sources on the show, then point it out to me, or just add it to the article yourself. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)