Talk:Veronica Mars

Frank Hilbert??

There's a quote in the article's summary from Frank Hilbert, supposedly The CW chairman, saying that nothing is set about the cancellation. The given source is TV Guide (presumably the paper version, which has exclusive content that is not publically given on their site).

Because a Google Search for << "Frank Hilbert" "The CW" >> only yields two results (both of which are a Wikipedia article--the other of which is the main article on the network, and the reference was removed by someone who seemed annoyed at Veronica Mars for being a good show), I'm assuming the guy does not exist. Am I wrong? While I'd love to believe this bit of info, at least until June 15th, I'm afraid it's a bad joke at fans expense. What is your take? Can anybody verify this? 87.231.174.160 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely spotted! I think you're correct in assuming it's just vandalism. Spent 15 mins tracking down where it came from, and here is the edit in question; by a user with just 3 edits in total, the other two of which sound somewhat suspect too. I have removed it. Thanks. :) AllynJ 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that (and for having the patience to track the edit!). *sigh* Would it be terrible if I pretented to myself that it was real information? 87.231.174.160 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddities like that interest me, finding out where specific information came from and such. Hehe. I don't know, I'm still hopefuly of a mid-season return, myself. :p AllynJ 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

09er

So, 09er redirects here, but there's no explanation of the term. Can we include this? I would, but I'm not sure I understand the root of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be included, because it's important to the class distinctions in the show, but I don't have full info. The gist is that Neptune is divided into two or more zip codes; the one ending in "...09" is the realm of the "haves", home to the rich, powerful and famous; and the other ones are where the "have nots" live. This is further illustrated by the types of homes the characters live in: the Kanes, Echolls, Casablancases, etal., all "'09ers", live in palatial homes with extensively landscaped grounds (Duncan and Logan later live in a luxury hotel suite); the Fennells, MacKenzies and Navarros live in lower middle class tract homes; the Marses live in a residential motel. Canonblack 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Goof?

In the second season, I found that in the scene titles they refer to the Fitzpatricks as the "Fitzgeralds." Is this a goof or an oversight on my part? BlueStarz 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a goof as the same thing is on my S2 DVD scene titles, which either means the writers had changed the name from Fitzgeralds to Fitzpatricks before filming the episodes and the change didn't get to the DVD production team when they were getting things ready for the DVDs(which is really stupid anyway as there would've been lots of time between the change and getting information ready for the DVD to indicate that there was a change in the name) or someone on the DVD production team really goofed-up when typing the information in for the scene titles and no one fact-checked the information for accuracy. Either way the team didn't do their job and making sure the information on the S2 DVDs were accurate before sending it to the plant for pressing. Not sure if that's true or not, but it's my take how the goof happened.--HuskersRule 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! (Not sure whether or not to put it into an article or where though as of yet because it might be regarded as just random, inconsequential trivia.) BlueStarz 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PCHer ???

Does PCH really stand for Pacific Coast Highway in the show? Is it a common abbreviation in California? The reason I asked is that I was under the impression that it stood for Peurto Rican/Cuban/Hispanic. Which goes along with the makeup of the gang. Ksheka 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The PCH is a major highway in California where the PCHers ride. The show also uses the acronym PCH several times to refer to the road itself (and not just the gang). They have never actually said the gang and the road acronyms mean the same thing, but it's a reasonably logical assumption. The road exists in the show and the real world. Pacific_Coast_Highway_(US). Vectorferret 14:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers in article

I've reverted a recent change and inserted the Template:Spoiler tag - Wikipedia is not censored, and has to be factually correct, spoilers are to be expected and readers are forewrned with the tag and in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer in big bold letters "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" - and hence unless a rationale can be provided to offer misleading information spoilers are not disallowed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt, what do you think about changing the section to be both spoiler free (as seems to be the preferred in the Spoiler discussion above) and yet completely accurate? We could change Weevil in particular to "Local delinquent regularly suspected in various crimes". CaptainGetts 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd liek to see this discussion.. i cannot see one with a consensus saying to keep teh article spoielr free. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone point to a policy which suggests that wikipedia should be spoiler-free? Given that just about every article on a movie or book is a complete spoiler, giving away the entire plot, why on earth should we avoid spoilers for events that have already happened on TV shows, material which is specifically designed to be aired at a given time? Every new episode of Veronica Mars spoils the plot of the first two seasons. This simply isn't the case with books and movies (except that new books or movies in a series presumably spoil the older ones). If anything, we should be less worried about spoilers for TV shows. john k 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. Though I generally support the idea that unimportant spoilers should be contained in character articles and left out of the main article, essential information should still be contained here in favor of accuracy. Just add the spoiler warning. - Debuskjt 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have read this full thread before making any changes, and I apologize--but I'd like to reregister an objection to the specific spoilers here. After a certain point they make the article less useful rather than more, as people who prefer not to be spoiled on major, season-long plot threads can't use it for basic information.Epenthesis 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While there's clearly a place for spoilers, I think people should be able to look at the sentence-long character descriptions on the main page without fear of having the season-long mysteries spoiled--particularly as even the brief season synopses are carefully worded to avoid giving too much away. I just redacted a lot of details from those; they're still available on plenty of other pages for those who want them.Epenthesis 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with User:Matthew for a) removing the spoiler warning and b) keeping the "spoilers" in. WP:SPOILER's points are not part of an essay and as such this article should definitely adhere to the policy (in fact, it has to if it ever wants to progress beyond B class). I fail to see how they make an article "less useful" - this is an article about a TV show, the plot is the entire basis of the show. Removing parts of the plot because they are deemed spoilers is decidedly unhelpful towards creating an encyclopaedic entry on a TV show.
I can see why you would want to, don't get me wrong; but this is an encyclopaedia, not a dedicated TV site. The job is to convey verified information in the most encyclopaedic manner possible, not to try and prevent people from finding out the plot.
"Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality."
If it can be avoided without detriment to the article, sure, it may be worthwhile; but in this case I fail to see a single bonus point to doing so.
Furthermore,
"Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article."
There has not been a consensus developed here as of yet; the template should not be placed on the article, just yet at least.
"Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (TV shows aired in the last three months, movies released in the past six months, or books released in the past year). Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary."
Bearing in mind that VM was on hiatus three months ago, a minority of the content on this page adheres to the above point of WP:SPOILER. I see no reason to include spoiler warnings, personally. AllynJ 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Critics

Is it possible to have a balanced "reception section"? This definitely lacks in an otherwise very thorough article. It reads a bit like a fan page, and that puts the credibility of the rest in jeopardy.--SidiLemine 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Do you have some negative criticism of the show to add? - Debuskjt 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I probably would have one or two.... No, just kidding. I don't know much about the series, but the article looks so good it's a shame it's unbalanced as to reception. I'll see if I can find some. --SidiLemine 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it has any negative response because it is such a well recieved show, i've never seen any negative reviews my self, but if you can find them and cite them from a vetifiable source.. then sure. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess there's no denying that. Actually, I would be so amazed if this show happened not to have any negative response, that I would advise a separate section just to note it.--SidiLemine 14:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New Category?

I'm new to Wikipedia but I love how complete the information is on Veronica Mars. One thing I think would be nice is if there was a section that had places VM was referenced. The only reason I'm saying this is because in an episode of The OC, Marissa says to Summer something like, "Way to go Veronica Mars, looks like you solved the mystery of the week." I just don't know what exactly to call the category, or how to do it.66.181.233.93 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're looking for is a "References in popular culture" subheading, not a category (categories on Wikipedia are a way to link related articles). The problem with that is determining what is WP:NOTABLE, and what is Wikipedia:Listcruft. And has there been enough cultural reference to include in an encyclopedia entry? - Debuskjt 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Including The O.C. reference, to my knowledge, there has been four: George Michael on Arrested Development mentioned watching the show(it was bleeped out, but you could read his lips and the caption telling why was an obvious reference to the show) on the series finale, characters were shown on an episode, I think, from the current season of The Sopranos watching VM, and VM was on a billboard that Quagmire crashed through while flying a plane on a recent episode of Family Guy. I'm not sure if that qualifies as enough information to warrant a separate section on the main article or if there is any more that I don't know about, but there are those cultural references if anyone was wondering.--HuskersRule 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the 09ers

The main article lists "She is ostracized by "the 09ers"(referring to the zip code of Beverly Hills, where most wealthy and popular students originate)", while the article on Neptune, CA lists 09er as coming from the zip code of Balboa county - 90909. This makes alot more sense, since (as anyone who watched TV in the early 90's can tell you) 90210 is the zip for Beverly Hills.

I agree; the fictional zip code 90909 is assigned to those who live in Balboa county in Neptune. BlueStarz 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not quite right. The 90909 ZIP code only applies to the affluent section of Balboa county. In general, Counties in the US contain many different ZIP codes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.116.45 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I thought the term 09ers refered to the year their trustfunds were available to them. When the show started they were teens so at 2009, they would turn 21 and got to have their trustfunds.

Not sure where you got that, but it wasn't from the show. It was explicitly stated in (at least) the first episode that it's the zip code. PurplePlatypus 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical opinion

These "critical" opinions seem to be cherry picked to be overwhelmingly biased towards this television program JayKeaton 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Find some negative ones then instead of complaining, I haven't seen any negative opinions of VM to be honest though. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not familier with the subject matter. Find them yourself JayKeaton 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, folks. Let's not be rude. I'm sure there are criticisms, and I'm rather sure that VM's unsatisfactory early ratings have been commented on in many places. Matthew is right that those who see a problem are the most likely to do the work to solve it, but Jay's suggestion that there isn't any meaningful criticism is well taken. In the interests of presenting a robust picture of the series from an encyclopedic view, we should consider scaring up some of those critiques. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but I have genuinley never seen a negative review of VM, aside form viewers posting on forums and whatnot. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the editor who wants this unknown criticism included. Telling the active editors to just "find them" because it must exist is asinine. You either have something to contribute or you don't. The fact is, VM is generally very well liked and almost always included in the latest list of good TV that no one is watching. The poor ratings are already commented on in the article. - Debuskjt 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is someone who admits to being "not familiar with the subject matter" doing alleging bias with no actual evidence? I don't think that that should be taken too seriously.

External links section

I do not like the external links section. It only consists of generic links: Creator, studio, channel, IMDB and a promotional MySpace. These do not contain much information. Compare this for example to http://www.marsinvestigations.net/ which has a wealth of information including episode descriptions much more detailed than those here and Gimmicks like quotes, cultural references and a list of the clues which does not contain spoilers if you choose your last seen episode in a drop down box. I think this is quite astonishing and much more preferable to a studio or IMDB site which does not contain many noteworthy information. I think the links should be checked for quality, those which are not interesting should be removed, even if they are official. Good fan sites should be included if they add to the content presented here. --84.178.91.214 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:External links before removing standard links or adding fan websites. Not everything that is interesting to fans (of which I am one!) is necessarily an appropriate external link for this encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that http://www.marsinvestigations.net/ should be added to the list. This is the most thorough and comprehensive fan site I've ever seen and the quality is amazing. It has got tons of information on each and every episode (summary, cultural references, transcript of the most important conversations, list of music etc.) and every character, an extensive timeline, etc. What this fan site does not tell you about VM is not worth knowing. It has far exceeded what should be considered necessary to be included in the external links section of an encyclopedia entry on VM. Actually I almost think they deserve a Wikipedia entry of their own! Forteller 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SAVE VERONICA MARS

Hey this website is trying to ensure that Veronica Mars sticks around for a 4th season. Please join the fight!!!!

http://www.saveveronicamars.tv/

Repost the web address anywhere relevent you can think of :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.42.111 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Citing sources

I've updated some of the referencing in this article because it fell (and still falls) short in three areas:

• Some editors mistakenly believe that the URL is supposed to be the label of an external link, creating oddities like [http:/www.news.com/item/542325225 http:/www.news.com/item/542325225]. Not only is this pointless repetition, it also has a tendency to screw up display of citations in Reference sections because browsers can't split absurdly long text strings, so left-side link labels bleed over the right-side ones.
• Many editors (including the above ones) leave out critical information in the citation, like article or webpage titles, publications dates, and access dates. Many external links become broken over time for many reasons, rendering the "source" invalid. When people try to fix these problems, they have to figure out some other way than the URL to get the information, but a lack of title or dates frequently makes this impossible. If one is lucky, one can use the Internet Archive to dig up an old copy, but this often fails (as it did when I tried to find a Veitch blog citation).
• The ref/references system is designed to allow multiple uses of the same citation, but one must give a name to the citation for it to work. It is a very good habit to always name your references (e.g., <ref name="Veitch-2007-1204"> ... </ref>), so that editors may reuse it with a simple empty element (e.g., <ref name="Veitch-2007-1204"/>) elsewhere in the article.

In short, one should use the {{cite}} templates, filling out at least the author name, URL, title, work, publisher, date, and access date infomation whenever possible, and name those references! It also doesn't hurt to include some non-printing whitespace (as I've done) to provide some edit-mode formatting to make it easier for editors to spot and understand the references. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies!!!

I did not mean to blank the page here, I think I mistakenly selected the whole page when I was trying to remove this one sentence in there I felt was not appropriate. I am so sorry, and will be more careful next time!Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Debasement Tapes - Name That Guest Star

Can someone please tell me the actress's name who played the fan (the one who turned out to be a teacher)? I would appreciate it!!

---

May 12 2007

Suzanne Cryer played Professor Grace Schaffer, according to marsinvestigations.net. BlueStarz 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed Suzanne Cryer, who is probably most famous as George's "yada yada" girlfriend on Seinfeld. dharmabum 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled. :|

Seems the lowest common denominator mentality of television is cemented: CW's fall sched was announced, and VM has been cancelled, officially according to HollywoodReporter.com, and "...while nothing's official, people familiar with the situation said "Mars" was, indeed, canceled" according to Variety. I don't trust HR enough to put it in the article yet, but they're not exactly a rumour grindhouse and Variety is about as good as entertainment news sources get, so it will probably be attributable in the next couple days, although expect a bit of a fight until then with people adding it without sources. Total shame. dharmabum 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy being falsely accused of vandalism. The show was cancelled, and its final episode will air on May 22. 69.181.156.67 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not officially canceled but that's the most likely outcome. Let's hope the fan campaigns work. 64.229.184.56 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Eonline from 5/17 says it's canceled. another site, veronicamarstv.net, cites the same source (eonline's Kristin Veitch) and says it was announced (by the CW) at a press conference. vmz 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

if i remember correctly the final axe blow wont be taken to the show until 15 June because thats when Dawn Ostroff HAS to decide whether to renew it or not but its not exactly looking good for the show (I havent found the source from where i heard that bit sadly)

Critically acclaimed bit in lead

I removed the bit in the lead that says "critically acclaimed" again. It's a clear case of a peacock term. Someone added it again, using the article itself as a source which is not a proper citation. As per the guidelines regarding these terms - "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.". --Jtalledo (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Critically acclaimed" is not necessarily a peacock term, although it's a common peacock addition; it's an unsourced claim. I fully agree that such a statement should be very well-sourced (ie. to a "Rotten Tomatoes"-style consesus source, or at least a critical review which credibly summarizes critical consensus, rather than individual reviews) if included in the lead, though. dharmabum 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up templates

I re-added the laundry list template and added the {{Quotefarm}} template as well. The international airings list should be prose. The reception section is almost entirely comprised of lists and quotes. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the actors?

Why does this article not mention who starred in this show? Catchpole 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tv guide

I removed the international tv guide section but it was reverted. Why should this section stay? Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Also this information has been removed from other similar articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of House (TV series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of Lost. Note, it was deleted there, not merged to the parent article. Garion96 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your citing article deletions... that doesn't equate to consensus not to include text within articles. The information doesn't seem to be "TV Guide" to me (although it should probably be condensed), it's encyclopaedic information -- which I personally found to be useful. It doesn't seem indiscriminate information to me. Anyway I've reverted you, seek consensus to remove it. Matthew 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazil: The third season airs on TNT on Saturdays at 03:00 pm and the first season airs on SBT on Tuesdays at 01:30 am.

Greece: The first season is currently shown on Star Channel on Sundays.

Latin America: The third season is currently running on TNT Latin America on Saturdays at 3:00 pm.

Middle East: The third season is currently airing on Orbit on Wednesdays at 10:00 pm.

Sure looks like a tv guide to me. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Garion96 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Matthew [I hope we can still be friends], but I respectfully disagree. Why is it needed to have this in the article in the first place? To me, it's very cluttered, not to mention completely un-cited, so that information could be false, and frankly, it does seem like a TV guide..Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I opened discussion here for all TV articles..Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Okay, so I think it's pretty obvious the Characters section needs tidying up. There's no way that we need to list all the recurring characters on the main page of the article; we should move them to a separate list. List of characters in Veronica Mars would be the page name, following the naming convention for such articles. How should we do it, though? Just recurring characters? All characters? If just recurring, then the page name would probably be List of recurring characters in Veronica Mars: this is what is done for The O.C. (see: here).
On a similar note, should Ms. Dent be moved if we choose to do just recurring characters? I appreciate that she was in the title sequence for the entire first season, but it doesn't change the fact she only appeared in 4 episodes: certainly much fewer than Aaron Echolls or Kendall Casablancas, who also happen to be much more central to the plot; can we move her whilst remaining objective? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. AllynJ 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack Question

For track "04.I Turn My Camera On - Spoon" i got told that they used the version by Rock Kills Kid in the episode, is this true or not? Peachey88 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the one used is the original by Spoon. After listening to the version by Rock Kills Kid off their Myspace, it definitely is not that one.--HuskersRule 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Utter scrap

As a european I think this series makes no sense. Based on just 3 episodes one can tell it has nothing common with the Maltese Falcon and the Big Sleep, in fact it is an insult to write Bogart's name in the same article this piece of junk appears in. Someone please correct that!

A high school story in which a bus and an airplane are bombed? Get a life! Being arrogant does not make a series funny and its cynism is nothing genuine so it is not the revival of film noir, it is filmmaker's prostitution.

I think it hows wikipedia is very off-beat that such detail is afforded to this TV series when so many encyclopaedically significant topics remain unaddresses.

All in all, I can't grasp why it took three seasons to cancel this shit from TV? 81.0.68.145 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)