Talk:Californication (TV series)

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

First sentence of Article[edit]

Im not a native english speaker, but isnt the sentence bogus, i mean grammatically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.83.66 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a little better now. CohenMD (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Californication"[edit]

The term is not a "portmanteau of California and fornication" but rather a term to describe the metamorphosis of something, particularly cultural, into the ways or ideals of California. I wish to see the fornication reference removed. Anyone agree? 24.61.129.48 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, it's Califonia and fornication. Otherwise it would probably be Califoniacation (with an "a"). Just look at the content of the show. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 08:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, but I've spoken to Showtime about this and they conveyed to me that the idea of the title Californication was NOT referring to California and Fornication. It's in reference to the idea and way of life in California. Please correct this because this is dreadfully incorrect. If you need the Showtime representative name for reference just let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.251.228 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking[edit]

Is this show sponsored by the cigarette industry? It appears to be blatantly pushing cigarettes. The scene blocking revolves around cigarette antics. David puts his cigarette out in holy water. He gives a lit cigarette to a child - who subsequently smokes it. He can't get his lighter to light over too long a time to be natural. The list goes on. In fact, he does everything with a cigarette except inhale. The camera always cuts away for that.

The main message of this show seems to be, smoke, drink, and you can have a great life with lots of sex. It's like a 30 minute version of the cigarette commercials that at one time were shown on television in between cartoons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show was based on the Novels of Charles Bukowski. If you know anything about Henry Chinaski, you'd know where the show draws its influences and it is not saying that you should 'smoke and drink' to have a great life with lots of sex. --124.182.227.24 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone watches this show and decides that he can smoke, drink etc and have a great life, then this person is not of a great value to the society anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.181.5 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

   It's part of the character and show that Hank smoke, drink and have lots of sex. If you don't like the premise or don't understand it, then its not the show for you. Its all part of the overall character and also is a way to give an explanation for some of his antics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.30.125 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kapinos bio[edit]

"Tom Kapinos, former manager at Blockbuster and long time resident of Long Island has been writing creatively in California for over a decade. Tom was born on July 12, 1969." This doesn't belong on the main page but is a start for someone who wants to write an article on him. WindsorFan 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it not irrelevant to add a link to The World According to the TV Critics, in which Brent Bozell characterizes the first episode's initial scene in front of an altar as a "blatant display of anti-Christian bigotry, insulting to the core the Catholic Church." Asteriks 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.59.88.144 07:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC) washtub80 8-22 I think that characterizing the show as a writer controlled by drugs and sex really moves the show from its core principals as a dark comedy and instead makes is seem like a porno drama. The show obviously wants the character to have his flaws but drugs are not one of them and the underlying root of his problems are not sex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.88.144 (talk) 07:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture References[edit]

I originally added the mention of Slayer albums as Hank's book titles. It was then edited to include the context, which was great, but I changed the book names back to italics, from quotes, which is the proper style. And I also massaged the phrasing a little. Stormj 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the reference to the quote being from The Clash, it is apparent in the quote that it is from the clash, no explanation is needed. "To quote the Clash..."

The title of the season 1 finale 'the last waltz' is a reference to a farewell concert by The Band. The wiki page on it says it all:
"The Last Waltz was a concert by the Canadian-American rock group, The Band, held on Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 1976, at Winterland Ballroom in San Francisco. Billed as a "farewell" concert after 16 years of touring,[1] The Band was joined by more than a dozen special guests, including Eric Clapton, Neil Diamond, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, Ringo Starr, Muddy Waters, Dr. John, Ronnie Hawkins and Neil Young."
Someone might want to ad it to the pop reference section. Im not gonna do it myself, cause im not to great with the layout thing.--82.92.99.177 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section says the following: "All three of Hank's novels, South of Heaven, Seasons in the Abyss, and God Hates Us All are the names of Slayer albums. If this tradition is continued, Hank's next novel will probably be called Christ Illusion since this is the album that follows God Hates Us All." That second sentence is unnecessary, is it not?98.200.6.244 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) It should be noted Warren Zevon's song "Carmelita" is sung by GG Allin,which is probably the only time that he has had a song in any popular show or movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.210.58 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode synopsis[edit]

Why were these deleted? IanLamberson 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out who got rid of them I can take a look into it. I think the episode synopses should remain, too. ScarianTalk 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californication_%28TV_series%29&diff=next&oldid=158887274 *one more night*talk/contribs 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ScarianTalk 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode synopses were removed from the main page and relocated to List of Californication episodes were they belong. There are now, also, individual entries for each episode, which are linked on the list of episodes page. The main article about the show should include a summary of the entire season, while more detailed summaries should be placed on the episode entries. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See The Sopranos for reference. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No of course, I understand now. Thanks for pointing that out. But to be a bit logical, Soprano's has 86 episodes whilst little Californication here has a mere 12 for now. Oh, I was looking through some of the episode articles, a little heads up might be in order as they may all receive the same fate as the X-Files episodes(Being deleted for not expressing notability). ScarianTalk 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, and it is a concern of mine. I hope, when I have some more free time to expand the articles significantly. (I hope other editors will, as well!) For now, my hope is to fly under the radar, so to speak, of the deletionists. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem before was that there was no reference to the episodes whatsoever. I wasn't aware that there was a separate article for them because it wasn't linked. It's all good now though. :) *one more night*talk/contribs 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was linked. In the infobox it says "No. of episodes 12 (List of episodes)" but it could be more clear. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear is important otherwise it just gets forgotten. Perhaps it should be italicised somewhere? ScarianTalk 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is...[edit]

... amazingly terrible. Except for a seemingly random lists of items relevant to "popular culture", it says nothing about the show. Surely we can do better than this? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to agree but for different reasons. It reads like an advertisement for the show. --Mokru 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg[edit]

Image:Californication Title Ep2.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 03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale is there you damned dirty bot. — 60.241.67.229 12:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links deleted[edit]

Hi, I just added two links to this page and they where deleted. I do know that these links will have nothing to do with the pageranks and that is not why I added them. The website and forum I added are the only fansites out there and they are information sources and places people can come together and talk. Please let me know if I can add the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwidegirl86 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at WP:LINKS, links to discussion forums are not allowed.V-train 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website has no content, merely a link to the forum. The forum, as noted above, isn't allowed per WP:EL. Beyond that, it only has 6 registered members so it isn't as though it is a high traffic website. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

Channel 10 in Australia recently aired episode 10 where bits of the 3-some scene was cut during the part where the girl squirts over Charlie's face & the girls barge through the door. As I don't tend to watch it on Channel 10 very often I'm not sure if this is the only scene they've censored. Dunno if someone wants to add a paragraph or 2 on censorship in Australia & other countries - Dizrythmia

75% of advertisers did not withdraw adverts due to New Zealand screening. None of the citations back up this claim. Citations indicate this may have been added by a family first affiliate.

Fair use rationale for Image:Californication Title Ep2.jpg[edit]

Image:Californication Title Ep2.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 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fixed. --84.178.118.242 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reaction[edit]

Bit concerned that the reaction section concerns itself disproportionaly with the reaction of the religious right in the US, and Australaia, it almost reads as if this the only reaction worth mentioning when these groups are actually just a tiny minority of the potential audience and also as the reaction is likely to actually represent the views not of these groups but of the few individuals that have actually watched the program. Suggest the reactions are removed or supplementented with a large number of reactions from the mainstream.--82.69.113.120 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's probably a good chance that the only reactions [Negative] were from the far religious right. But I do agree, there should be a balance between favourable and not-so-favourable reactions. I'll have a look tomorrow. ScarianTalk 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree it makes it sound like the only reaction to the show was religious criticism. Until someone finds some positive reactions (of which there were many) they should be deleted to keep a NPOV. 220.253.97.133 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action by the Red Hot Chili Peppers[edit]

The sentence about the lawsuit by the Red Hot Chili Peppers seems biased. It only states the accusations of the band and does not include the fact that Californication is a term that has been used for decades. There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the term with references of its use going back to the 40s. TIME magazine had an article published on August 21st, 1972 titled "The Great Wild Californicated West" that used the term. Also, there is no mention of the fact that the Red Hot Chili Peppers never trademarked the term they claim to be their "signature".

-- What happened to this lawsuit? There's more to the lawsuit than just the tile Californication (such as the character of Dani California). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.241.38 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's no mention of the lawsuit at all. It needs to be mentioned at the very least. Tithonfury (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of when Warner Brothers wanted to sue the Marx Brothers for using the word Casablanca in the movie title "Night in Casablanca." The Marx Brothers wrote back, saying they would countersue Warner Brothers for using the word brothers.

I'm surprised either one would try to claim rights to "Californication". It has been around for years. I remember seeing it in San Diego at the Over-the-line tournament that is held each summer. There is even a parody of the state flag with two bears (guess what they are up to) and the word "Californication" on the flag.

I've put a real date reference on this 'last monday' that isn't a date. The article should reference the actual court papers and give a real date. Court papers were filed on 19th November and can be found here. http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/1119_rhcp_lawsuit_wm.pdf Gah I can't make the reference work right, can someone fix it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.149 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Business removal[edit]

I removed this section from trivia:

  • In Episode 8, there is a scene when Hank Moody is with his father while on the set of a film production and is having an argument with the director. The scene intimates that Moody is the writer of the film Risky Business, as a Tom Cruise character can be clearly seen, in a typical cruise pose, on the screens behind him and a Rebecca De Mornay character is then introduced to Moody's father.

(obviously both this and my reply constitute "original research" but I wrote it to explain my actions to the poster in the name of fairness) Actually, the flashback is to the filming of "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" the movie that was made from Moody's anti-God book. Yes, the actor is supposed to make us think of Cruise, but it's not "Risky Business." Been a few weeks, so I can't remember the blond, but on the monitors you also see the Katie Holmes lookalike.

This is a prime example of why the "no original research" rule is in effect - the poster provides no documentation. It's like in a few years there will be folks who will claim that the line "I like it when balls are in my face" from 40 Year Old Virgin is a reference to "Borat" when in fact Virgin came out a year before. SteveCoppock (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Popular Culture section[edit]

I think this whole section needs to be either:

A) Removed entirely per WP:TRIVIA as it's just random unsourced "information"
Or
B) Condensed and cut down to things we can source and prove.

Basically, what happens is, users come along and add their own WP:OR observations. I just think it needs to be removed entirely or cut down. Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think pop culture references saturate the show and should be noted. Obviously, the OR nature of the section leaves a lot to be desired. I think the best way to deal with a pop cultrue section is to de-trivialise it by converting it from list to prose and condensing the items thematically. Items such as direct song references would be an example of one such potential paragraph. What this could really use is sourced third party discussion of the content. Skomorokh incite 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you Skomorokh. I'll try and bring up a list of the more important points in that section when I have time and we can sift through them. Thanks for the reply, friend! ScarianCall me Pat 08:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to move all of the pop culture references to the pages of the individual episodes in which they refer to (including the significance of each episode title), this would not only make everything look nice, but would provide a way to keep everything organized for future submissions. MalachXaviel (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems pretty good to me. I'll have a go at that tomorrow! Thanks for the suggestion! ScarianCall me Pat 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penultimate episode just before the end when Hank is asleep he has a Kafka book on his chest. Needs reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.77 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and removed the entire section. There are no references, as it stands now it's just a section full of original research and lists of episode/album titles and trivia. Dayewalker (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season Two[edit]

It was my understanding that season 2 is tentatively slated for a Summer 2008 release, as the source from Showtime says. It said "Summer" a week ago, and I think someone just decided to substitute that for "Fall" without supplying a source. Right now the source for it coming out in the fall is the source that was there before which talks about it possibly airing this summer.Larphenflorp (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. As the ref says summer, i have reverted the edit. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 06:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the first two episodes of season two have leaked. Worth noting?Larphenflorp (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Episodes 1 and 2 of season 2 have been leaked. The problem with noting it is it might seem as if wikipedia condones piracy. I know many people who, if they were to find out information on leaked episodes of shows, would be right there to get them.--MrPhillinois (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the average Wikipedian has a big grudge on internet piracy. I know i don't. This information can be added to the article, however, for crucial details like this, a source should be found. One that is reliable (something like torrentfreak I guess), but without download-links would probably the most appropriate choice. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems somewhat noteworthy simply because they leaked prior to airing, and two no less, though that could just be me (I thought shows leaked after airing). Regardless, I always see the articles for albums mentioning a "leak", so it seems worth mentioning here. A person could just as easily read the editing page as the article itself, though I would guess that most people probably just read the article. Also, those who are already predisposed to downloading media illegally most likely know already or will know soon enough with or without Wikipedia. But yeah, it doesn't add much to the article anyway, so I suppose leaving it out definitely won't hurt. Also, I guess it's not worth going to every article on every popular show that airs on TV and point out that it's available to download illegally.Larphenflorp (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

This section reads like a press release with no sources cited for all the quotes. I'm tempted to remove the entire thing. Davhorn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alterntively, you could roll up your sleeves and find a few citations, Dav. That's usually how it works. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Towards that end, after I wrote that, I expanded it somewhat. Go ahead and pitch in, Dav. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last name of Bill & Mia[edit]

The official website does not state their last name. However, on the show Mia's last name is said to be Cross. It's being displayed on her book F&P. I have changed the names two times. Someone changed it to "Gross" and now it's back to Lewis. Does anyone have a source saying the last name is Lewis? I'm planning to edit the page again. But it does not make a lot of difference if someone makes the changes undone again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilcrepus (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The surname was originally "Cross" and episode 3 of season 1 shows an invitation for Karen's and Bill's wedding displaying that name. By the time of the 4th season the surname has been changed to Lewis and is mentioned a few times during the course of Hank's trial. I have not seen any explanation for the name change. --BenM (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters[edit]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec[edit]

I added Quebec in the Airtimes worldwide section, since diffusion began last week. However, I don't know if I should have made some kind of subdivision in Canada or if it must be in its own row. Since I do not know how to do the primer, feel free to correct me. 66.130.156.83 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Hates Us All[edit]

Has anyone heard anything about this? http://www.amazon.com/God-Hates-All-Hank-Moody/dp/1416598235 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.128.242 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section limited[edit]

The section about the reception of the show talks about how it is mostly well-received, but then gives no examples of good reviews. Instead it talks at length about boycotts in Australia of all places (I suppose because it requires advertisements over there as oppose to on Showtime in the US). Since the series is well-received, the positive critical attention should be more fleshed out, and the boycotts might make for another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.102.129 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of awards/nominations[edit]

I propose that List of awards and nominations received by Californication be merged into this article for the simple reason that there is not enough content in the article to warrant its own article. Moreover, there is plenty of room in this main Californication episode. 121.209.235.20 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As with most shows, unless they have a substantial amount of awards and nominations e.g. Friends there's no reason to have it, especially seeing as the Californication page is looking thin anyway! CohenMD (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge: It barely gets nominated for awards, quite frankly, and doesn't warrant a full page. (This is not personal, as I enjoy the show and think Duchovny should've won an Emmy for the second season--which could've been the impetus for the user who split the section into its own page.) A section on the main article would most certainly suffice. There are more extensive awards for movies/actors+actresses that do not yet have their own page, so this seemed a little premature. Like the user above said, if there was a more substantial amount from a vast array of awards bodies, I'd say yes. But it doesn't even receive nominations in major categories at the Emmys, so this merge should happen ASAP.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 17:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Well It is a little suspect that Duchovny has not won an Emmy for this performance for I believe his character is one of the more intriguing characters on the show. Anyways, there is no reason for this section to be excluded from the main page and since I expect more awards to come in the near future I believe the "awards" section should be included in the main article. Please merge ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lips4189 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad I have consensus! Whilst I don't like to edit as a registered user, can someone else please now orchestrate the merge? (copy over and delete the other page) Cheers! 121.209.235.20 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You probably "don't like to edit as a registered user" because you have been blocked as a registered user. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3[edit]

I recently heard that Madeline Zima will not return for the full season. Heir character is on a cross-country tour for "her" novel. Saemikneu (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I was just reading the article (just recently became a fan) and some suggestions occurred to me after reading the Season 3 summary. I considered making the edits myself, but being a recent fan, I don't think I have enough information. I thought someone whose watched the season(s) more than once (who perhaps owns the DVDs and has read more reference-able supporting material like interviews and such) might take a stab:

  • The season 3 summary seems overly detailed/focused on the events of the last episode, making up more than half of the section. Contrast this to the season 2 summary that seems to summarize the events of the season more evenly.
  • The season 3 summary seems focused on Hank and doesn't summarize the events surround the other main characters. Contrast this to the season 2 summary that seems more well-balanced with respect to the plot lines of the other characters. [The season 1 summary also seems to omit the events around the other characters.]
  • The season 3 summary isn't replicated on the List of episodes pages like the other seasons' summaries.

71.171.84.234 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last episode of Season 3[edit]

Is Karen supposed to have an accent? If not, she really needs to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.17.169 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After watching the end a few times, "Since there's silence and Hank's lips are intentionally blocked from the viewer, it's truly unknown what Hank was telling Karen that made her upset."

I quickly caught on that Hank could've been telling Karen anything and it's purposely kept a mystery like this for the cliffhanger ending. While a likely assumption is Hank told Karen about sleeping with Mia, other topics I can speculate one, 'til Season Four starts, is:

  • Hank doesn't want to move to New York.
  • Hank told Karen about Becca having sex.
  • Hank goes the other way all of sudden.
  • Hank tells Karen she's a man.
  • Hank tells Karen he has AIDS.
  • Hank, between Mia and his place, stopped off and bought a comic book of poor taste.
  • Hank voted Republican in the last election and just told Karen.
  • Hank voted Democrat in the last election and just told Karen.
  • Hank voted, period, and that action alone upset Karen.
  • Hank reveals that's he's really an FBI agent looking for the existence of UFOs and world domination and that he's been undercover as a drunk author, had another kid with Agent Scully, and is in love with Scully.
  • Hank reveals he was involved with the "Kalifornia" incident.
  • Hank reveals nothing and makes a silly face.

As I'm getting at, nobody really knows what Hank was telling Karen, and even Karen's lips aren't exactly revealed, except for the cussing. Just wait until Season Four, then, which is most likely that Hank told Karen of Mia and his tryst, change it back to Hank tells Karen about Mia.

Coffee5binky (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth season claim[edit]

"On January 14, 2011, the show was renewed for a fifth season.[2][3]"

That's not true, and neither of the referenced links prove otherwise. Last episode of the fourth season, I think pretty much wraps everything up for the entire series. I don't think there will be a fifth season at all.

Mr. Leinad (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no proof that the end of Season 4 was the end of the Series. SHO has plainly announced the last episode as a SEASON FINALE, not a Series one. Unless you can prove your case, not just how you "feel," don't edit the entry to reflect your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.185.150 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.entertainmentbeacon.com/news/television/7757-californication-season-5-announced tom kapinos confirmed season 5, the day of the season 4s finale. Mrleinand, you were incorrect. sorrybud, yay mulder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.215.215 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Slayer references[edit]

I've noticed in episode 5 of season 1, at the interview for a radiostation, that the interviewer introduced Hank as the author of "South of Heaven", "Season in the Abyss" and "God hates us all"; these are all 3 albums from thrash-metal band Slayer. I'd like to add it but I'm afraid to mess the page up. Jeanskizor (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a citation for that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the interviewer??? That was Henry Rollins! 199.83.223.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I was unclear. What I meant is a reference wherein someone notes that the names of Hank's novels being the same as being Slayer album titles. Without a citation, it is seen as you taking two different pieces of information and drawing a connection between the two. We don't allow that, as we ourselves are not citable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics Détente[edit]

With a bit of a scuffle brewing over the Hank Moody subsection, I have decided to not wait for the other user (Hearfourmewesique) to cowboy up and initiate discussion on the matter. My problem originates with the phrase in the article:

"Henry James "Hank" Moody (David Duchovny) is an erratic but esteemed writer who frequently becomes embroiled in bizarre and in some cases scandalous situations. Moody resembles Charles Bukowski,[16] as conveyed through his semi-autobiographic character from "Women", Henry Chinaski.[17][18][19]"

I will address the fallacy presented by the apparent abundance of citations for the moment, so I can deal with the initial problem. I don't think Moody looks anything like Bukowski, which the word "resembles" directly, explicitly implies. There is a - imo - a bit there at the end of the season 5 title credits where Duchovny (as Moody) does this squinty eye thing that could be an affectation to Bukowski, but it isn't present anywhere in the series, so it could be a one-off.
I coppedited the text to say (bold text indicating the change):

"Henry James "Hank" Moody (David Duchovny) is an erratic but esteemed writer who frequently becomes embroiled in bizarre and in some cases scandalous situations. Many reviewers like Moody's character to that of writer Charles Bukowski,[16] as conveyed through the latter's semi-autobiographic character from "Women", Henry Chinaski.[17][18][19]"

I think this is a vast improvement over the previous text. However, its been reverted twice by the same user, so rather than have this degenerate into a pissing contest, I thought it best to suggest discussion and when that failed, to initiate discussion myself.
Moreover, I have significant concerns over the citation being utilized connecting Moody to Bukowski. Citations 17-19 all talk about Bukowski's work, Henry Chinaski. None reference Hank Moody. In fact, of all four citations, only #16 is actual, valid and notable enough to connect Moody to Bukowski. Now. before I remove 17-19, I thought this might warrant discussion or at best, give some people time to seek out far better citation than we have here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not before reverting me for the third time. You can aim higher, yaaaay!
Now for the actual (forced) discussion. The sources you question make the comparison between Chinaski and Moody, as respectfully noted by the corresponding footnote. The fact that neither of the sources uses the word "resembles" does not give you the right to negate the use of this word in a paraphrase (which is how Wikipedia works, lest we engage in copyright rapefest). Lastly, Moody does not have a novel named "Women" (moreover, the name points to Bukowski's novel), so I don't think "latter" is such a significant improvement in this case. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of paraphrasing suggests that one is actually utilizing a similarity to the source it is paraphrasing. The comparison I removed liked a resemblance to Bukowski, which a great many people are going to assume means a physical resemblance. If I can make the error, then there is a substantial likelihood that a sizable number of the article's readers will arrive at the same conclusion. I am not married to my particular version, but I will (correctly) resist the usage of an incorrect descriptor or connector between Moody and Bukowski/Chinaski.
As well, you will note that none of the latter three citations are notably referenced. They are all forum or blog posts - sources we usually dismiss for being both non-notable and unreliable. Apart from the more useful CNN review (#16), the comparison between Moody and Bukowski/Chinaski in the latter three sources is tenuous, and the last source makes no reference to either Chinaski or Bukowski whatsoever!
We cannot use them. If you disagree, Hearformewesique, you should feel free to avail yourself of the notability noticeboard. I suspect you will find them of the same mind in regards to these sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon relies on these customer reviews when they get a high rating, would you call Amazon an obscure blog? Besides, we don't use blogs for science or world events, but as far as literary/artistic debates go – a good blog can be a great tool in helping us understand the work. As for Simon & Schuster, we can go ahead and remove it as I don't see it there either (the cached version must use a script that updates itself or something). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hearfourmewesique, I am not making up the rules here; I am simply enforcing their usage. Yes, Amazon can be a useful initial source - note how I used the descriptor "initial". The consensus from previous Reliable Source Noticeboard discussions (and there appear to have been more than a few) is that we should track back reliable sources of content (professionally employed reviewers, such as those from NYT or whatever) to their source and use that source. As Amazon is a user-input review - users who have no real notability in and of themselves, we cannot use them as per WP:RS and WP:NOTE. Furthermore, as these "reviews" can be puled by the user any time they wish, the use of these reviews also fails WP:V.
Lastly, there is the concern of undue influence being generated on the basis of one or two wacky, oddball reviews. In support of this concern is the fairly legendary internet prank from Amazon, Daddy's Hat is on Backwards by Bil Keane. The customer reviews are absolutely hilarious tongue in cheek humor. And delivered with such deadpan, academic seriousness that an unsuspecting reader might think the review to be a fantastic source for a review. It isn't, and can supply an enormously undue impression of the subject matter.
In summary, it doesn't matter if these customer-generated reviews are helpful to Amazon. They are unusable to us because of their failure to meet our qualifications for inclusion, such as notability, reliability, verifiablity and of likely undue influence. They cannot remain in the article, Hearfourmewesique. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK... so, according to your logic, Google's hoaxes disqualify them from being a reliable search engine. A prank is a prank is a prank, you cannot use it as a means of discrediting. The criteria you are quoting does not apply to this particular field. Undue would apply if you cold find a vast number of reviews stating that there is no connection between the two. Do just that and we can move on. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've latched your defense upon the very nearly opposite of what I said. Allow me to be much, much more clear:
We cannot use blog posts, unless the person supplying the blog is in fact notable.
We cannot use Amazon user-generated reviews, as they are not notable, and fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in virtually every way.
The Undue Weight argument was simply the last nail in the coffin regarding any argument to retain these citations, and is largely moot due to the fact that the ones supplying these random views cannot even be included in the article. Indeed, you are interpreting our UNDUE weight policy almost completely backwards. You might wish to consult with a more experienced editor or an admin to confirm what I am telling you. However, I wouldn't hang my hat on that particular argument because - as I said - the main problem is that the sources of the reviews cannot be used. I am not going to revert you again, because I am going to AGF that logic and reason will prevail. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...yet you did, again – do you suffer from incontinence or something? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, from impatience. I can see how you might confuse those two words, though. You stopped discussing the topic for two days. I presume that one of two situations existed: either you thought that so long as your preferred version was in place, all was good, and you could ignore the ongoing discussion. However, assuming good faith, you saw the reason (and correctness of my arguments, having consulted with an administrator or another experienced editor) of the argument. Either way, I wasn't going to sit on my hands and wait for a response or discussion that wasn't forthcoming. Either stay with the argument, or step out of the way and allow it to be improved. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a nod to the "pissing contest" from earlier... but anyway, you stated that although you are convinced that the sources are not up to par in Wikipedia terms, you were not going to revert any further because you tend to agree with the statement itself – in your own words, "logic and reason will prevail". What was I supposed to do, keep bashing my head against a brick wall of bureaucracy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to suggest that you should do yourself harm, H; that said, banging your head might make a crack, and - to paraphrase Leonard Cohen's Anthem - that's how the light gets in. The light in this case being your realization that while you may not appreciate my demeanor, I happen to be correct in this case. The refs don't belong. I wasn't going to revert, because I was hoping you would be self-reverting. I cannot wait inordinate amounts of time for your illumination - sorry for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clock is ticking to find a reliable source connecting Moody to Chinaski. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting two weeks, no one could find an explicit citation comparing Hank Moody to Henry Chinaski. So, until it does, it's out of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Californication (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Californication (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Californication (TV series)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Stub rating== While the article has more text than most stub-class pages, most of it is about the reception of the show. I don't think the reader will have a decent understanding of what the show is actually about. I think the premise of the show should be developed before promoting the article to a higher rating. Louis Waweru  Talk  19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Californication (TV series). 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) 02:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californication_(TV_series)&oldid=1206513551"