Talk:MythBusters (2003 season)
|WikiProject Television / Episode coverage||(Rated List-class)|
- 1 Notes for editing the episode table
- 2 Split the table into separate episodes?
- 3 Inconsistent tenses
- 4 A question regarding Episode 12 - Breakstep bridge
- 5 Jet wash
- 6 A question regarding Episode 6 - Lightning Strikes Tongue Piercing
- 7 Eelskin wallet
- 8 Season subdivision, reference
- 9 Incompleteness
- 10 Results' Sources?
- 11 Super microwave
- 12 Merger proposal
- 13 Barrel of Bricks
Notes for editing the episode table
This is as a reference for people who are editing sections only and not the entire page (they won't be able to see it). It's referenced to from the source. --hao2lian
NOTE FOR THIS TABLE:
- Busted myths should be marked red
- Confirmed myths should be marked green
- Plausible myths should be marked orange
- Any myths tested with inconclusive results or need to be declared in mixed form (Plausible/Busted) should be marked blue
- Do not leave the note field empty. Add a simple hyphen ("-") to fill the space. Also, always try to fill in any note fields which are empty (the more info, the better).
- Be sure to correctly nest myths which include several different trials (see the example on the cola myth)
- If you'd like to suggest a different format for this list, please do so on the talk page.
- Note: I added a note that states that "True" was used instead of "confirmed" on the first season (at least the episodes I've seen - for instance, I know the microwave ep used "true"). For the sake of consistency, let's refer to confirmed myths as confirmed, to match the other four seasons - but keep the note that says that "true" was used in season 1. If someone can verify when they switched from "true" to "confirmed", that'd be helpful. TenPoundHammer 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Split the table into separate episodes?
I think that the big table is quite difficult to read. I'd rather split the single table into separate tables—one for each episode—with the episode title/date/etc as a section header. That way, the tables would have only 3 columns. Also, we might reconsider using the wikitable class on the tables. --Fred Bradstadt 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Go right ahead. I'm going to start dealing with redirects.--Drat (Talk) 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It should either all be in present tense, or past tense, not both.
Maeglin 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A question regarding Episode 12 - Breakstep bridge
- Before they started testing the myth, they show some old bridge (black and white movie) from something like the 50s, that people attempted to destroy it by putting heavy loads on it - didn't work, air strike - missed, artillery - didn't do the job and finnaly they used explosives. So my question is - what's the name of that bridge and where it was located? if you have more info/pics about it'll be great.--18.104.22.168 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Galloping Gertie". TenPoundHammer 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not the bridge in question. He was talking about the concrete or masonry bridge that took a great deal of effort to demolish, NOT the old Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge, which collapsed due to wind. I believe they showed the film sometime during the course of the episode, not necessarily at the beginning. --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Galloping Gertie". TenPoundHammer 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What were the MythBusters trying to prove in this episode? Was it that jet wash could be enough to overturn a car? Or was it that the output of a jet engine was enough to overturn a car? Top Gear were able to verify the latter, but not the former.
One difference between Mythbusters and Top Gear was that Mythbusters used a 737, while Top Gear used a 747.
They also admitted this myth was confirmed and showed the video from Brazil where a taxi cab was blown over. Their only limit as to why it could not be properly reproduced was due to legalities and Insurances reasons. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the status of this myth marked as "Partly-Plausible"? As the article states itself, the myth was confirmed when Tori, Kari and Grant were able to acquire a real 747 and proved that the thrust from the engines of a 747 could completely blow away a taxi, a school bus and even a small plane. Was the status officially stated as Partly-Plausible on the show? Rajrajmarley (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The episode where Tori, Kari, and Grant confirm the myth was in Supersized Myths in season 6, NOT the season 1 episode. The article deals with the verdict in the season 1 episode, which was Plausible in that episode because they could not actually confirm the myth with hard evidence (i.e. in the test, the car did not flip). --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A question regarding Episode 6 - Lightning Strikes Tongue Piercing
The myth statement says "Metal body piercings increase one's chances of being hit by lightning." The status of this is then listed as busted because "The lightning does seem to strike a pierced body more, but not the piercings directly. It would take a piercing the size of a doorknob to attract lightning." But if "the lightning does seem to strike a pierced body more" then the actual myth statement is in fact confirmed (the myth title, "Lightning Strikes Tongue Piercing", on the other hand would be busted). So what should it be?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
The text says "In addition, further tests were conducted to see how much magnetism would it take to 'wipe' a card, and was found to be far above what the average person may encounter."
Ummmm... Busted!!!!!!!!!! Put your card next to a handbag clasp and see what happens to it -- or let it sit on or under a fridge magnet... Don't take my word for it, try it. But be ready to apply for a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- (This is a late reply, I know.)
- Good sir, Wikipedia isn't the place to bring this up. The MythBusters episode entries here on Wikipedia deal mostly with the results given in the show, and results to the contrary from anecdotal sources rarely have a place here. If you have an issue with the experiment itself, you're better off taking this to the MythBusters forums on Discovery.com; you'll probably find you're hardly the first one to question the results given.
- Also, they did prove that a card could be made unreadable through magnetic exposure, through the electromagnet experiment shown on the show. What's more, in MythBusters Outtakes, they showed that one of Jamie's powerful neodymium magnets could completely wipe a card—a clip not in the original show because they could not get an accurate measure of its strength in gauss. --MarsJenkar (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Season subdivision, reference
Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if noone is going to finish this anytime soon, they should at least add stub entries for the rest of the episodes, so the casual reader doesn't get the impression that the season was 8 episodes long. Among other things, the page for cellar spider directs one to this page even though it doesn't mention the daddy longlegs episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Late reply. The seasons are currently listed by year aired, rather than by their production season. Hence, episodes 9-13 are listed as part of the 2004 "season" (as they initially aired in 2004), even though they were technically part of production season 1. This was done mostly due to confusion as to where each "season" began and ended.
- I have no doubt this change has "broken" quite a few older links, and those will need to be fixed. But adding stubs for the other five episodes would not be appropriate in this case. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the episode overview section, nothing in this article has a source. Where are the show results coming from, original research? As this appears to be the case with every article on a season of MythBusters, would this be better brought up in the MythBusters group discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The results come from the episodes themselves, which are primary sources so it's not OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"It is possible to build a super-microwave by aligning four magnetrons around a metal box. Busted (unofficially) If there is a proper method to build one, the method used in the show is not it. After a glass of water was exposed to the "super microwave"'s magnetrons for thirty seconds, a thermometer found that the temperature of the water had actually dropped by two degrees Fahrenheit(1.1°C)."
IIRC seeing the episode it was quickly clear that they hadn't a clue what they were doing, thus produced a non-working machine, as the results prove. Basic electronic engineering skills make it clear that such a machine can be successfully made.
The result on the page could reflect this more clearly, eg by saying that they failed to get their microwave functional, thus could not reach any valid conclusion. Tabby (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe since the pilot episodes are from the year 2003, it would be more logical to include them in the 2003 season list. Even if there are long pauses of episodes in a year, on Wikipedia it is still categorized in the same year (for MythBusters, that is). They can still be distinctly marked as a pilot, but the pilot episode page is fairly small. It contains nothing notable enough to separate it from the 2003 season. Also, the list on Discovery's website here (which is used as a reference on both pages) shows them all in the same season
, without mentioning pilots or a pilot season.
- Strong oppose - The pilot episodes were three episodes that were created completely separately to the 2003 episodes and don't form part of the 2003 season. That's why they are in a separate article. We use years for the articles because of the inconsistent way that episodes have been listed at reliable sources and the way that episodes are released on video. The series does not follow a typical calendar of on and off air periods so it was really too complex to break the episodes into traditional seasons because it was never clear where seasons began and ended. The only exception to that was the break between the three pilots and the start of the first season. The first episode in the 2003 season is the first episode of season 1, while the pilots are effectively season 0. Imdb is not a reliable source for episode information. Your analysis of the Youtube video is WP:SYNTH because season numbers don't directly relate to years. The seasons start and end sometime during the year but it's virtually imposssible to determine when during the year that is because it changes. Season 5 may have started with the first episode in 2007 but that doesn't mean this has been the case with other years. TV Guide actually shows season 5 starting in 2006 and the list of production codes here don't support Jamie's claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- The (confusing) changes made today really don't change anything. The pilots may have aired in 2003 but they were aired before the series started. Strictly speaking they shouldn't even be included but it's common practice to note such episodes, clearly establishing them as having aired outside the series. See, for example, the NCIS backdoor pilots. As I'm sure you realise, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, and what happens on the Spanish Wikipedia is really not relevant to any other Wikipedia. If it were, then the fact that other Wikipedias mimic the English Wikipedia would be justification against a merge, or indeed for changing the Spanish Wikipedia for consistency. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Barrel of Bricks
Perhaps reference could be made here to the popular and hilarious Irish song "Why Paddy's not at work today" (author Pat Cooksey, copyright Celtic Music), in which an Irish building worker encounters a barrel of bricks several times in both directions, leaving him with bruises, broken ribs and other injuries.220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)