Talk:White Collar (TV series)

Man With the Ring?

I've never updated or edited a page so I rather not do it myself since I'm not sure the proper format. But shouldn't someone update the page referring the fact that "the ring" the article refers to is actually an FBI ring? In Season Two, Episode One, Peter and his wife clearly say to Neil that their are hundreds of those rings because they are FBI rings. They are only given to FBI agents after they've had enough time in the force and most agents don't wear them as it's more of a sign of fraternity. That in fact, Peter does own one (and does show Neil it) and mentions that Fowler has one as well. Just my two cents, thanks.--Ashengrad (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.32.178 (talk)

its not season two, its a second part of season 1. check USAnetwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.195.64 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

USA Exec?

I think the quote from the USA executive is inappropriate. It's blatant advertising from the network and doesn't really contribute to the understanding of the subject. Pretty good article otherwise!--Serveux (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian? Is that you? I thought the same thing, I just put it in because it gives better evidence that the show is actually real. People around here tend to delete articles willy-nilly. So that's my take on it. I'll try to find a more critical one though to balance it out. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just having the references is enough. You don't need it in there to prove it's real. An ordered upcoming television show meets all requirements for inclusion as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability as long you have references (which you do). So I'm gonna go ahead and take it out.--Serveux (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it is Ian. :-)--Serveux (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it just worried me a little. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom or Tim

This article lists Mr. McKay as both Tom and Tim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.19.165 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed--Serveux (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone have a picture that can be used without copyright infringement? I know that commercials have been airing on USA Network, if that makes any difference in finding a picture. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The oddly similar premise to the show It Takes a Thief

I know this is not a place for speculation, but ever since I saw the first commercial I couldn't help but think it was an updated version of the Robert Wagner show. Has there been any official comment on this? You would think that there would be someplace, as they are so alike. 68.55.6.178 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's original research and pure speculation, regardless of where you put it, and will be reverted as such. Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's no longer original research, as the parallel was drawn in this NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/business/media/23adco.html

First paragraph: "A CABLE channel that has been aggressively expanding its lineup of original series is hoping its next show — kind of a cross between “Catch Me if You Can” and “To Catch a Thief” — will, well, catch on." Yalith (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Don't try to cast it as proof-positive that the the show was inspired by one or both when it's nothing more than a comparison the reviewer is attempting to draw to help readers understand the basic premise of the show. It's still speculation, just by the NYT this time instead of an editor, and no more reliable. The point of the piece is the expansion of the line-up and the advertising campaign. Drmargi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I wasn't implying it as proof that the show was inspired by the movies, just pointing out that others had noted the similarities in print. Yalith (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool - that wasn't quite clear from what you wrote above, but we're on the same page now. Drmargi (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to bring this up again, but considering the singular life history of Frank Abagnale, I think there is a case to be made that the show is based on or derivative of Mr. Abagnale's life and "career", as it were. Brainchasm (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Until the producers say he was the inspiration for the show, it's all conjecture and as such, original research. Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some details about ideas for the show are discussed with Jeff here ==> www.docstoc.com/docs/13525188/White-Collar-Jeff-Eastin-Transcript 24.60.190.107 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of White Collar episodes

I created an article for an episode list. It will get more detailed once more information comes out, but right now, I can't figure it out. The formatting looks all wrong (the chart is below the references). Can I get any help? Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive plagiarism from USA website

I've deleted all the content that was plagiarized from the USA website. The editors putting this page together and any other interested editors should write original overview and character descriptions -- and that doesn't mean paraphrasing what USA has already written. Drmargi (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get on that soon. I'm not condoning plagiarism, but I didn't realize that that wasn't allowed here. That's not really a good way of putting it (my previous sentence), so it probably doesn't make much sense. Anyway, I'll try to fix all the problems. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I get it. It's strictly a no-no. Thanks for improving the article! Drmargi (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Who cares? If USA website has problem then let them make a complaint but until then just use the text. It's promotion for their TV series so why would they care? Why is Wikipedia doing the job of copyright holders? Wait until you receive a complaint until you remove content. Is US law really this stupid? If so then why hasn't Wikipedia located to a country with sensible laws rather than ones that only favour big business?--217.203.148.112 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's about as non-constructive as you can be. We have guidelines around here for a reason, and they're very explicit about plagiarism. Drmargi (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter and Kate

We DID NOT see that Peter is holding Kate. We saw someone who appears to be Peter, but dressed very differently than he ordinarily does, waiting for Kate in a hotel room and Kate walk in of her own free will. Interpreting that as Peter being the one holding Kate in entirely WP:POV and WP:OR, and will be reverted. Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that sees a similarity between Kate and Peter's wife? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.85.146 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed as well. At first, I thought it actually was Elizabeth wearing a wig, but after looking closer, I noticed it wasn't. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it is the actor who plays Peter, and she addresses him as Peter. So unless the FBI cloned him, or he has an identical twin also named Peter, then whoever wrote the objection to this is being overly picky. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. We know that it probably was Peter, but we don't know that he's a bad guy. We can't put that he kidnapped her until we see a little hostility. In the meantime, don't call people that. It's not very nice. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. Since I'm the jackass he's referring to, I'd remind him of WP:CIVIL and that posting like this again may get him blocked. Interpreting what we saw is not encyclopedic. We can only note what we know, and we neither know that Peter is a kidnapper, nor that Kate has been kidnapped. Drmargi (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh block me big deal I have access to more than one computer, and this is the problem with Wikipedia. Because in a tv show or book or something, they don't come out and tell you what just happened you can't put it in the article. I still see no mention of the fact that Peter and Kate have had contact in the article. Which you CANNOT say they haven't she addressed him by name. And if you're going to use the fact that she didn't use his last name, then by that logic you could argue that Neal and Peter have never worked together past the first episode since he refers to him as 'Peter' as well. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, there's no reason to get mad. To be honest, I don't like certain rules around here either, but I'll abide by them. If I understand the rules correctly, it will be okay to say something like "In the most recent episode, it appeared that Peter and Kate had contact," or something like that. We just can't say that he kidnapped her. Drmargi, please correct me if I'm wrong. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, the answer is simple - you can say what happened (Peter spoke to Kate, Kate spoke to Peter) but you cannot interpret it. To do so violates WP:OR. The scene gave us no information about the nature of Peter and Kate's relationship, therefore we cannot make any suppositions about it and present them as fact in the article. It's constraining, yes, but the alternative is a Pandora's box that will render all articles wide open to every form of speculation and fancruft that is currently reserved to fansites and fan message boards, where they belong. -- Drmargi (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're proving my point about Wikipedia, the fact that you can't even say they had contact definitively, while there is no other feasible explanation for what happened at the end of the last episode. It's just mind blowing that there are people who actually think like that. And look at my post at no point did I say he kidnapped her. Though all it takes to say that he did is an article from an outside source saying that he did. (I would know I had a similar argument on another page.) Which makes zero sense. I guess when you add all of what you know together and they point to only one direction, then on Wikipedia you have to ignore it. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I never saw the original post. I'm just saying that it might be okay to write what I said above (which is probably what you had, or at least, close to it, in the first place). I'll have to check the guidelines, and if they say it's okay, then fine. But if not, then we can't do anything about it, no matter how stupid it may seem. I'm sure they had a reason for that rule at some point. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there IS another feasible alternative explanation. The two have a common link: Neal. Each could easily know of the other, without ever having met, through Neal since we do know Neal had contact with Peter while he was with Kate. On the other hand, we DO NOT know Kate and Peter had previous contact, only that they know of each other to the degree they can address each other by name. I can think of oodles of people I could address by name with whom I've never had contact, and the reverse. It's not that unusual. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think this site was ruined by the admins. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be in your opinion, but the bottom line is that by choosing to edit here, you agree to the rules, and thems the breaks. Kwitcherbitchin or move on. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter said something to her about her actions, I don't know the exact quote but it's enough to infer that they knew each other. 68.99.30.245 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but just to point out that the most recent episode shows that Peter was not the "Man with the Ring", and that the meeting we see at the end of the last episode was their first meeting in several years. So, whoever said we didn't know anything for sure was correct. 146.201.27.33 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. I hate to say I told you so, but since you've opened the door for me... This is why we have to be so careful about what we know versus what we can supposedly infer, and limit what goes in the article to what we know. Drmargi (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing in "Overview"

That section doesn't read so well. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to clean it up?

I tried to rewrite it a bit, but I'm having trouble find the adjective(s) to go with "con man", "forger", and "thief." I'm also having trouble with where to use "Caffery" and where to use pronouns. Feel free to share your ideas. ShihoMiyano (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Vs Mozz

As Neal stated in the last episode, Peter is the only person that could change his mind, not Alex, El, Mozz or June (and certainly not Fowler...) could prevent him from leaving with Kate (on the plane as you know if you watched the final episode from S01) so he avoided saying goodbye to him, and on another episode, when Neal was under drug influence, he said that Peter is the person he trusts the most. My point is, that clearly they're best friends, so the refference on Mozz's description of being his most trusted friend is unaccurate (he does trusts Peter but doesn't want him to change his mind, that's why he keeps the chase for kate from him).

A short question btw, i have acces to the episodes may i write the proper plots on the episode list? and if so, should i retale the whole episode or just the beggining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.6.81 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Contradicts itself

The article states that the number of season two episodes is unknown. It goes on to say that there will be 16 season two episodes... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mozzie's Status

Why is there severeal reversions of updates to Mozzie's character outline to indicate he has been shot - the reason given for these reversions is that this detail belongs in an episode summary. I dispute this as there are several other facts of a similar nature in other character outlines:-

Kate: "and eventually prepares to reunite with Neal, when the private jet she is aboard explodes, apparently killing her."

Alex: "Alex helps Neal steal the music box in order to free Kate."

Fowler: "He resurfaced in the season 2 summer finale and it is revealed that he is not as nefarious as he was previously believed and agrees to help Peter by identifying Julian Larssen."

I see no difference beween those statements and adding something like "Mozzie was shot at the end of season 2's summaer finale and his fate is currently unknown"

(although Jeff Eastin does state that Mozzie will feature in the remainder of season 2 and also in season 3 in an interview with available here (an in which he also catagorically states that Kate is dead)