Talk:Greek (TV series)/Archive 1

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

LGBT Category

What's the reasoning for putting this back in the LGBT-related TV programs cat? It seems to me like there's only one "token" gay character, which wouldn't really fit the criteria for "LGBT-related". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "This category includes television series...which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." Clearly the series features a significant gay character dealing with significant issues and involved in significant storylines. Otto4711 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, include it. The show's theme seems to be about the greek system with pros and cons. As someone whom was in it (I didn't like the system personally but feel it is a great system for many), I can tell that a lot of the issues here are accurate. There are some stereotypical people and then some non-stereotypical people. One issue that often is a mirky one is one of homosexuality. Pledges rarely ever openly declare their homosexuality until they are fully initiated, if at all. The show seems to be moving towards that direction IMO. Arnabdas 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting update as to future TV or already running

I watched about five minutes of this show last night. Could someone who watched the whole thing please remove the "future TV" message? Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article structure and cleanup

The frequent editors of this article may want to look at How to write about television programs. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving episode summaries

I'm creating a page for the episode summaries. It will be categorized to match other series' episode lists, and it should prevent this article from getting ridiculously long. Frog47 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

cast

Is it really necessary to mention that "Casey once referenced to her[Spencer] father's famous television program Frasier in an episode"? Especially at the top, before the description of Casey's character even begins? Luzzio 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

VirtualRush.com Access

I got 403 Forbidden when I access VirtualRush.com. Is the site only accessible within the U.S.? Can anyone confirm? Thanks. I suggest we put notice beside the link to avoid confusion. timdream 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

This controversy section only has one reference which seems less as a controversy and more of one article complaining about it. Has anyone found anything else that could be added here that would make it an actual controversy? I might try and clean up this article soon and if nothing's added to it I might move the reference elsewhere in the article and remove the section altogether. Phydend 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delta Delta Delta has commented on the series, I've read about others but I don't have many articles right now as I'm heading for bed. Here's a few: Delta Delta Delta, [1] also a college paper so notability is in question, [2] a comment on Tri Delt's comments, etc. I'll see what I can add to this tomorrow, depending on the reliability of the sources the section can either be added or pulled. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I did a quick search and didn't find much which is why I added the talk here. I'll see what you can add to it, and also hopefully add some stuff myself in the next few days. (Also, thanks for adding the reflist in the article, totally forgot about it when I changed the link to an actual reference) Phydend 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said that "90% of viewership dropped" ? We should exclude this statement. Quoting an exact number like that needs accurate citation, not just a citation needed tag. Saying "viewership dropped" can be acceptable tho IMO. Arnabdas 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that the print advertising campaign features a Brady Bunch-style photoset of (presumably) the main characters of the show, many of them holding the plastic cups that have become synonymous with the rampant underage drinking in many frats/sororities? Seems awfully unwholesome for the ABC Family network to be airing/advertising. Nevermind that, y'know, underage drinking is illegal.Thebookpolice (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

naming section again

I keep seeing this section pop in and out of the article. It seems that there's an equal number who want it in and who want it out. I've reinstated it in the article for now but I believe that we need some kind of consensus on this section and we're obviously not coming to it. I'm going away for the weekend or else I'd look up how to do it now, but it seems like we need the consensus of the wiki community since the individual editors who work on this page are divided. If somebody wants to initiate that now, please do so, otherwise when I get back (Monday-ish) I will do it myself, in the meantime please leave it in the article. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems people will continue deleting sections that they feel arent useful, without posting any sort of comment or reason. I guess that is what happened to the "Name of the show" and "Trivia" sections. I'm putting the Name of the Show" section back up since I have it saved to my flash drive for whenever someone deletes it. Would someone else be so kind to put the trivia section back up?Thelegendofvix 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it that means you don't know how to use Wikipedia's history feature. But before anyone tells you how to use it, think long and hard if you really feel it's important enough to argue with people about it. The trivia section would have a much steeper up-hill struggle than the naming section. Cromulent Kwyjibo 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I know how to use the history section, its just faster to open up the file on my flash drive and hit copy/paste. Restoring it is more rewarding than arguing.Thelegendofvix 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast and characters

I'm creating a new article, just for cast and character descriptions, as they are getting longer and longer on this page. Leaving extremely brief descriptions on this page and adding a link to the new character page Frog47 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Show's name section

OK, Now that someone has took it upon themselves to delete the name section (again) without posting a valid reason, I will restore it again. And one more time, as stated tirelessly above, the Name section is not for the people who understand the Greek Alphabet and its English/Latin counterparts, but rather for the people who DO NOT. Being in a Fraternity, Kappa Sigma, I dislike it when people confuse us with "KE" when the letters actually stand for "KS." So until ABC decides to stop using the Sigmas in place of E's or Epsilons, please dont delete this section Thelegendofvix 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. A~B. QuinnHK 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I do believe it presents a valid point though even when stating something that is known it's nice to have references to back it up. I think it would help the article greatly, and prevent people from continually removing this section, if there were some published source marking the difference between Greek and Grssk. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but wouldnt the Greek Alphabet, English Alphabet, and Latin Alphabet be sufficient sources of publication? However, I will take your advice and see if I can't find a legitimate published source. I just do not think that the New York Times, Atlanta Daily Journal, Fox News, or NBC would care to write an article about a misspelling.Thelegendofvix
    • It's still not necessary under this particular article. Really, it's not. --70.168.242.18 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I cracked up when I read this section because I'm Greek and I read and speak Greek - so I'm always telling people that it reads GRSSK. I'm really glad this is here. Maybe that way I won't have to correct people as often; those referring to the show, fraternities, or the letters in general. --69.154.67.28 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually this is undue weight and original research unless a reliable source has written about this in relation to the show. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox and while people making this mistake might be annoying, unless it can be demonstrated this is a genuine issue that has been raised by reliable sources it doesn't belong here.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't consider this to be undue weight. I think it is very relevant, considering that it's very expository and directly related to the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.50.93 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, look. The section says that "The name of the show, taken literally, is Grssk." This is just not accurate. When discussing the show, do critics and fans switch to the "Symbol" font and insert Sigmas? The only time the Sigmas are used is in the actual logo - it's just a font issue. I am going to at least change this line. I think that the entire section should be removed. It just seems like an "Aha! Gotcha" addition by language snobs. Williamloaf (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's settle this or find a compromise. This is not a forum to correct people's ignorance about the Greek alphabet. It's an article about a television show whose main demographic is high school/college age people. I truly believe the section is undue weight. "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This falls under this category. I studied Classics and know the Greek alphabet backwards and forwards, and I barely noticed, much less was annoyed by, the Sigma issue. Coupled with the ridiculous image, the section is just totally unnecessary. This is a matter of NPOV. There is a minority who believe that ABC Family is somehow duping everyone into thinking that they are using legitimate Greek, or that the logo is some sort of sham. The majority believe it to be a font/design choice, and no one can find an article about the minority POV. I am removing the section - if you want to put it back up, please provide a rationale according to Wikipedia guidelines. Williamloaf (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I see where you are going with your argument. However, if we wer to remove everything that a minority views as important from wikipedia more than half of the articles would be gone. Also, the fact that more users have added this section back than the number that have deleted it serves to show, at least for this particular section, that it is a majority viewpoint that feels this section should stay. I would agree with your point if this article had been added on once and then it was removed and that was the end of the story, but it has not. And, with that I will add it back on and will continue to do so. Thelegendofvix 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • But Wikipedia is not a democracy. The majority of people do not approve of George W. Bush, but does that mean a random sentenceadded to his article saying, "George Bush is a bad president" would be appropriate? Even if people "kept adding it on"? 70.255.90.64 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not making your point by simply adding the section in without explaining why. Will someone please just provide a good reason for including the information that is in line with Wikipedia policy? Seriously. Williamloaf (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The page has been protected from unregistered edits for a few days. Hopefully this will help with the dispute and lead to some discussion. I suppose my opinion is that the section be removed permanently, and the article be expanded and improved to where the tidbit about the logo could be included somewhere in it. Williamloaf (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What if the section name was changed to a "goofs/editing mistakes" section? Then it could be open to expand more on the article than just the misconception with the sigma. People from the science community love to continually point out that Doc Brown (in Back to the Future) spelled and mispronounced "gigawatt," a mathematical unit of measurement. That was not original research, just something that was considered common knowledge (at least for anyone who took basic chemistry). If a character in a movie said that 2X6-2=8 (the real answer is 10 btw), and it was presented as correct, would we really need to document something with sources, professors, credible websites,etc that is common knowledge...that being how to correctly perform the mathematical order of operations?Thelegendofvix (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, it's not a goof or mistake - I doubt anyone in ABC think that they are using the Greek equivalent of an E. It's a clever thing they decided to do with the font. Again, there is absolutely no cited information here. Find a citation or it goes. You can't even prove that the official name of the show is GRΣΣK. The administrator who protected this saw this as original research. Williamloaf (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I never said that ABC knows (or does not know) if a sigma is an E or an S, but rather I am pointing out that they are presenting it in both ways...thus implying that the sigma is in fact, an E. And it is for that reason, that a company is intentionally being misleading regardless of whether it is construed as "clever" or not. And again, why do you need a source for material like this when you can simply look at an alphabet. So when I say "often times the sky is blue" do I need to add a citation to that too? No. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite I do not need a source if it is subject-specific common knowledge, which is what I have been saying all along. Thelegendofvix (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This section was taken away as undue weight and unnecesary. Wikipedia needs verifiable material. Granted most of wikipedia's articles don't have citations, or not enogh citations, this section has been cited out before, and unless there is a official Greek (TV show) website, citing this as a common problem, this is out. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    • This is verifiabe material which is why all anyone has to do is compare alphabets, talk to someone in a fraternity/sorority/honor society, or speak with someone from Greece. Thus...
      • It is subject-specific common knowledge
      • According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite I do not need a source if it is subject-specific common knowledge
      • Undue weight is a matter of opinion, I respect yours, but believe more strongly in my own. I, and the other people who add this back on, do not feel that it is undue weight (otherwise we wouldn't bother) and the great thing about wikipedia is that everyone is free to come in and share theirs.Thelegendofvix (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It isn't subject-specific or common knowledge. No one is arguing that GRΣΣK does not equal Greek. We are arguing the relevance and non-NPOV of the information. We are also arguing against the idea that ABC is committing a grievous language error. So far, there seem to be a lack of registered users who find the information relevant and not undue weight.Williamloaf (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Two co-ordinators, who are both very knowledgeable in solving problems like this, have decided the section is unnecesary. And regardless of weather or not you believe in your opinion more strongly, this has been found useless. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Thelegendofvix, please don't re-insert a section under the premise that it is a "minor edit". Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, you can have a link to a website explaining the joke, missconception thing, but not a entire section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


DVD and Season Discrepancies

I have noticed that according to IMDb, the current Greek season is nothing more than an extension of season one. This flies in the face of the season one DVD release that I have seen in all major retailers, both virtual and actual. Not to mention that it is known as Season two on ABC Family. Anyone have any idea why IMDb recognizes the new episodes as season one episodes? Anyone have any idea how to bring this to the attention of IMDb? dwilczyn 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One of many reasons IMDB isn't a reliable source. You can submit information corrections if you are a registered users. Whether they will fix it or not is another issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chapters or Seasons?

Shouldn't those be Season 1, Season 2 instead of Chapter 1, Chapter 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.11.73 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Greeks on the show

Can people go over the List of fictional fraternities and sororities#Greek and update which of the GLOs are fraternities and which are sororities? Also add any other ones that aren't there...Naraht (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a list of "additional" greeks was added to the header and then deleted. I think that this list may belong farther down in the article. I would suggest limiting the list to those Fraternities or sororities who actually have characters speaking and recognizable. At this level, I think the Tri-Pi, Psi Phi Pi and Lambda Sigma Omega qualify and perhaps a few others.Naraht (talk)

A separate list is not needed at all. They can be mentioned, as appropriate, in the character descriptions and in the fuller character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of information on Cyprus-Rhodes University revealed in the course of the series, perhaps it belongs as part of a page for that.Naraht (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "after elton" :
    • [http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/3/patrickseansmith Interview with "Greek" creator Patrick Sean Smith | AfterElton.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/3/patrickseansmith?page=0%2C1|title=Interview with "Greek" creator Patrick Sean Smith|first=Brian|last=Juergens|publisher=After Elton on Logoonline.com|date=2008-03-23|accessdate=2008-05-30}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


GRΣΣK

I've added this: "(promoted in faux-Greek alphabet as GRΣΣK)" after the show's title. I know there's been a long, long debate on this talk page about is this necessary (because it's incorrect usage of the Greek alphabet), but I placed it there as per the conclusion reached in Talk:WALL-E, which was promoted, also typographically incorrectly, with an interpunct/middledot (as WALL·E). --Dario1250 (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

episode listings

I realize there is a link for episode listings, but quite frankly I don't think it's enough information to properly recap what happened. There deserves to be better summaries that show how the plot unfolds and evolves. I have written more thorough explanations of season 2 episodes but I am debating whether these should replace the two-liners that are on the link page, or if I should make a new episode section on the primary article page. Any thoughts? LegitSquare (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Character Pages

Since the link to the character pages contains more in-depth information on the cast of characters, perhaps we can delete the tables, and work on enhancing the linked to page. Any objections? Graceblue23 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, I think I'd like to remove the list of characters from the main article and replace it with character summaries, and then these summaries can link to individual character articles, which would eliminate the need for the List of Greek (TV series) characters and keep it consistent with how the episode and season information is established. I suppose we could remove the list, leave the link to the characters page, and then link to character pages off of that, but I can't help think that three pages doing the work of two is unnecessary. Concerns? Graceblue23 (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the page is getting too long with the tables. Those tables could be added to the List of Greek (TV series) characters page, I suppose. Wouldn't it be easier to just simply start individual character pages and then do a simple list to shorten the page? 66.166.246.154 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, in fact, I've started working on individual character pages, but until those are done, I don't want to delete the information currently available. I suppose I became impatient, and could easily move the character tables over to the List of Greek (TV Series) characters page. Graceblue23 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Meta References

While 8675309 is a good pop culture catch, I'm not sure how much a meta-reference it is? Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be removed?Graceblue23 (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Houses

I added Theta Pi Gamma back, not sure why it was deleted? It's the Jewish fraternity that Rusty and Calvin are seen in within the pilot.Graceblue23 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And still

This entry still doesn't say very much that is useful about the show. Maybe you think that is commentary, but this is a talk page. I thought that's what it was for. Comments about the article. Sarah511 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Sarah511Sarah511 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the article are only helpful if they actually say what you feel is missing about the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I said was that the article isn't very informative about the show...it is basically a lift from a preview from the network. Is that enough? Or I could just repeat that there is not really any information on here...67.8.19.11 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Sarah 51167.8.19.11 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could also say that it isn't very well written. There are plenty of well written informative articles about TV series on Wiki....Maybe this should try to emulate them! 67.8.19.11 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Sarah 51167.8.19.11 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

why is there a section on "CRU Greek terminology"? aren't all greeks (ficitional or real) using the same terminology? why do we have to write them down specifically for this page? 66.166.246.154 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added the CRU Greek terminology section, because the terms used within various Greek systems aren't universal, and the rules and regs associated with different events aren't universal. Graceblue23 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The terminology is a section useless to the article and the terms, despite not being universal, are still widely used there is no need to site them just for this set of Greeks. Besides things like, "Mr Purrrrfect" isn't Greek at all! 67.103.30.12 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1109130624"