Talk:The Riches

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies Unassessed

	LGBT portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Title

I'm pretty sure the title of this show is actually "The R1¢hes." Note the alternative characters in the name spelling.

Do you have a source? The references in the article use the regular spelling of the word. Rockpocket 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, the promo seems to use the alternative spelling. I've made a redirect and mentioned the stylistic spelling of the title. Rockpocket 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an i, albeit an un-dotted one, but an i nonetheless. Not a 1. I've changed the article accordinglyTrevorLSciAct 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Newbie editor here. I'm working on character summaries. I'm following the basic format for Dirt (Dirt_TV_series), which does not currently have separate character articles--I know that separate character pages are pretty common, but I'm not sure if we're there yet with this show? Anyway, just giving a heads-up because, as stated, I'm a newb; and to let people know in case there is parallel effort going on. Also, question: if a character's summary necessarily contains plot elements (e.g., explaining Dahlia's drug addiction), does that section need to be spoiler tagged?--Thessaly 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! Using Dirt as an example would be a great way to go about it :) Generally, we'd rather expand a page and then split it off, rather than have a lot of stub pages (though your milage may vary on that one). Don't worry about spoiler tagging the character summaries right now. I think we're okay so long as we don't launch into hugely detailed explanations. Can't wait to work with you :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Committed first set of characters (main Malloy family). Secondary characters to follow. Critique welcomed, especially in the area of 'neutrality'. (I spend a lot of time on show discussion forums, so neutrality may take a while to get the hang of.) :) --Thessaly 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I'd already move the spoiler end template before I read this - not having a good day on this article today! Feel free to move it back if you prefer. Welcome Thessaly, your material seems good so far. Regarding neutrality in character bios, the major thing to do is avoid analysis of their behaviour or actions (something that is rife on forums). Often that means some of the more subtle aspects of their character can be lost, but thats how it goes. Rockpocket 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Let's see if I can intuit this identation trick!) Re: spoilers...due to my television-fandom/forums background, I'm fairly spoiler-phobic, and I'm fine with the summaries being spoilered (esp. while they are part of the main article). I'm also fine with whatever the consensus is--I'm actually not too familiar with wikipedia's treatment of television shows (I'll work on that). :) Thanks again. --Thessaly 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added more characters; tried harder with the brevity. :) I included characters that either a) I know will play significant roles in future episodes, or b) (in the case of the O'Malleys), were part of a pivotal plot point in the pilot/premise. Totally unintentional alliteration there. I'm having second thoughts about whether the real (dead) Riches need their own bios, at least until we know more about them. Kept new character additions within the spoiler section. Not deeply invested in the categorization I used (the family, the travellers, and the others), just seemed the most natural for now. --Thessaly 00:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffers! They should totally be Buffers instead of Others. I'll go fix that. Also, I think the Riches should have at least a blurb. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about a Buffers heading instead, wasn't sure if it would be too 'inside'. I do like it, though. (Should a brief explanation of what a Buffer is be inserted in the synopsis?) Re: the real Riches...my other hesitation is that I've lost track of what I know about them from the pilot, and what I know about them from episode 2 (which is being webcast early on Yahoo), and I don't want to *really* spoil people. :) --Thessaly 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia's addiction

Most of the mainstream (i.e., non-blog) press I've seen has said that Dahlia's primary addiction is methamphetamine. Minnie Driver herself said methamphetamine this week on The View; here's an article with a similar statement: LA Daily News. That said, we've only seen her chug cough syrup, and start to shoot up something from a spoon. The latter has made a lot of people assume heroin, but the fact of the matter is many drugs can be 'cooked' and injected, including meth. Until they explicitly say what she's shooting, I think we should keep it open-ended. It's possible the show-runners will go a different direction from what they (and Minnie Driver) have stated, but the fact remains that we don't know what she was trying to inject.--Thessaly 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]