Talk:Pawn Stars/Archive 1

Archive 1

My removal of copyright-protected material

I have removed copyright-protected material that was plagiarized by User:DisneyRah and User:68.96.200.190 from History.com. This is copyright infringement, can get Wikipedia in legal trouble, and can result in loss of editing privileges for the editors who engage in this behavior. DisneyRah, in fact, has been blocked for two weeks, as this is her fourth copyright violation, her third and final warning having been given to her seven days ago.

Although the Episode Guide at History.com does not display a complete list of all the episode summaries, and appears to be a schedule of only some of the episodes currently airing (meaning that its content is not immutable), I concluded that all of the ones added by DisneyRah and User:68.96.200.190 were copied from that site, and removed them, based on several factors: First, all of them had the History.com ref name tag placed at the end of them as a source. Second is DisneyRah's history of blatant copyright infringement, which includes deliberately ignoring and blanking repeated warnings on her Talk Page. Third is her Edit Summary, in which she admitted that she had no intention of paraphrasing the material, but merely cutting and pasting it for someone else to deal with. In addition, the summaries are written exactly like the sort of promotional pieces one would find on a site for the show, filled with colloquialisms, metaphors, POV, and rhetorical questions, which are not appropriate for the formal tone required in an encyclopedia. Finally, a couple of them, like this one by Bigblueplanet, are for episodes that have not yet aired, which means that History.com source would fail verification.

There were two summaries for episodes that have aired, and did not contain these informalities, so I paraphrased them and kept them in. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Wikilinks to articles

I would like to know why are some people editing out the proper wikilinks to items. For example, Chrysler Imperial in the article should actually redirect to Imperial_(automobile)#1964-1966 due to the model year repeatedly stated in the show (and the fact that the car in that model year range was "just" an Imperial). The purpose of Wikipedia is the free dissemination of information, not hindrance of information.--Cantthinkofausername 10:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talk • contribs)

• Okay, why is my signature now making a bot say i'm doing it unsigned?--Cantthinkofausername 20:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talk • contribs)

Did you sign your post using four tildes? Nightscream (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Try doing it twice. --Cantthinkofausername 05:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) --Cantthinkofausername 05:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talk • contribs)

Yep, coming up. Dunno why that bot is saying otherwise. --Cantthinkofausername 06:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talk • contribs)

Okay, fixed. Now, can we discuss the topic at hand now?--Cantthinkofausername (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. can you provide the Diffs in question? I don't know if I did this, but if so, I apologize. Which edits were they? Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• This was mine, and then your edits. --Cantthinkofausername (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what happened: I wanted to revert the location of production info in the Infobox, and neglected to scroll down to see that other things had been changed, and unwittingly reverted those too. Sorry about that. I'm usually more careful than that. Nightscream (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd note on Dana Linett

First, thanks to Nightscream for correcting Dana Linett's last name. Second, there may be an interesting fact about Dana related to his role on Pawn Stars as an expert, but I don't know how we can get it into the article.

Dana appeared on the "Steaks at Stake" episode to look at some colonial era buttons, as mentioned in the episode guide. But those same buttons seem to have wound up for sale on Dana's own site. [1] In fact, the buttons appear at the top of the page. Did he make a deal with the pawn shop to buy the buttons? Can't find any evidence to include this oddity in the article, but it's an intriguing item. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that they're not the same buttons; Since he's an expert in that era, he may have a set of his own. Or that the Gold & Silver Pawn Shop consigned them to him, or authorized him to help sell them, since he brings in another line of customers, one that goes for that particular type of item. But even if Dana bought them, if the purchase did not occur on the show, then I don't think it's relevant to an article on it. Nightscream (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, as many people claim, the show is a series of set ups and the "experts" bring in their own stuff to appraise using actors to bring them in for Rick to look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.192.105 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Show is acted

Should there be anything in the article on this show not being "real", as in "at least some of the bits are acted"? For example, in season 2 episode 5, there is a man trying to sell his Les Paul Custom, which he thought was made in 1960. First, the person who wanted to sell it apparently works as a luthier/guitar tech at Cowtown Guitars, so you'd think that he'd know that the guitar is not a 60 Les Paul, especially seeing how obvious it is. Second, the expert they called in is also from the same company, Cowtown Guitars. So basically these two people are working together, know each other and both are experts at old guitars. The guitar is now for sale on that company's website. The "expert" on the show said it was worth "about 3 grand", the price on their website is $4199. http://www.cowtownguitars.com/itemtest2.php?invno=glp537&itemtop=includes/gibsonitemtop.txt http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/norlin-years/70855-im-watching-pawn-stars.html Lars Holm (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that all or most so-called reality shows are in some degree scripted, acted, etc., anything that goes into the article must be supported by a reliable, verifiable source per WP:RS and WP:V. Information interpreted by a editor is called Original Research, and is not permitted. Nightscream (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromise: this reliable source makes a good point by quoting other pawnbrokers. A sample: "'Pawn Stars doesn't accurately represent our business. It's fun to watch, but it's made for TV,' said Corey Grigson, owner of F&S Pawn on DeSiard Street." This seems like a fair assessment. It cautions the article's readers that the show may not be strictly representative of the pawn industry, but doesn't venture into edit-war territory about the "unreality" of a reality show.

But before setting off an edit war of my own, I'd like some feedback on including such a caution - sourced, of course, and expressed as the opinion of other pawnbrokers, not as fact. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that source is a good one. I added the material in, with attribution. Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the material in a very effective way. I did make one small change and dropped the Las Vegas pawnbrokers. The source is actually quoting Louisiana pawnbrokers. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks again. Btw, those who intend to edit Wikipedia are expected to create accounts. It's free, takes seconds, and makes it easier for your colleagues to address you and for you to gain a solid reputation. Wikipedia could use good editors like you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had an account...my real name, in fact. Made over 11,000 edits on the account. I'll just stay anonymous for now, though thanks for the reminder. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch Season 3 Episode 4 to see that the flax bow a man drops off is NOT the same as he picks up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6j4DwKwio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.184.147 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

All reality shows contain scripted or fabricated scenes. That isn't news. In any event, this isn't a message board, as talk pages are solely for discussing ways to improve the article, and nothing can go in the article if it's not supported by a reliable, verifiable source. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Labeling the show as a "documentary" is quite a stretch. Even "antiques roadshow" I wouldn't call a documentary. Reality Show is more accurate. As far as the scripted nature of the program at times, see my subway comment further down the page 24.207.131.20 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The show isn't labeled a "documentary". It is indeed referred to as a reality TV show in the article. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it clearly is. Infact it is the first descriptive word used for the show. I quote from the opening sentence "Pawn Stars is an American documentary reality television series on the History Channel." 24.207.131.20 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On November 3rd, 2010, I visited the famous "Pawn Stars" pawn shop in Las Vegas. The outside of the store is very unimpressive and downright delapidated, but the inside of the store is a nicely arranged retail store. I recognized some of the items on the TV show such as one of the nickel-plated parade saddles purchased on a recently aired show. As expected, it was priced at $9800. which was quite a bit more than the seller was paid for BOTH of the saddles that he sold. Business is business and a profit is understandable. There was also a Beatles "Yesterday And Today" album in a showcase with a $2500. price tag on it. It may have been an unpeeled "Butcher" cover, but I couldn't tell without handling it. It was priced at more than twice collector's book value and many times more than what one can be purchased for at a record show or online auction site. There were also a few reasonably priced used items available and restored soft drink machines at usual retail prices. It is evident that most everything was priced for the tourist market or like the fancy gift shops in the casinos, for someone who hit it big at gambling.

The center part of the store was devoted to souvenir items like T-shirts, cups, postcards, bobblehead dolls, etc. Most od the customers there were looking at everything but only buying the souvenir items. Many items were labeled "not for sale" or not to be sold until a particular episode aired.

As for the main characters in the pawn shop, Old Man, Rick, Big Hoss and Chumlee, none were to be found in sight. It was obvious that they were there, but they were hiding in the back. A sequence of the show was going to be filmed there in a few minutes and the guest seller was wandering around the store bewildered with a book and an old military hat that he was planning to sell. It was probably a real situation, but it was obvious that everything was previously arranged, as is in most TV shows. Just before they were ready to shoot, ALL the customers were run out of the store and there was no "live" audience. They told everyone that it would take maybe 45 minutes to shoot the less than 5 minute sequence, but after 15-30 minutes in the direct sunlight, many people had left. After an hour, there were still a few people waiting outside.

What you see on TV doesn't happen there everyday and is not a typical day at a pawn shop. It makes me wonder just when do they film the outside sequences. When is there never any traffic on Las Vegas Blvd.? When are there no cars in their parking lot when they do a narration or inspect something that has been driven or towed in? Maybe they make everyone move their cars out of the parking lot or they have them towed away. I was disappointed at not being able to meet any of the "Pawn Stars", but I understand. It was kool visiting there. JUKEBOXEXPRESS (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)JUKEBOXEXPRESS

Nice anecdote, but what is the point of posting this here? --uKER (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jukebox, thank you, but this is already known, as indicated by any viewing of the show, and by the pre-existing above discussion, to which I have moved the above two comments. Wikipedia is not a webhost or message board, and its talk pages are solely to discuss how to improve articles. Since all material on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources cited in the article, do you have any suggestions for improving the article? Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On Pawn Stars, I believe I can prove the statement that the show is rigged, or it was in it's infancy. The first episode that they call in Rick Dale, is in fact a set up. During the show, Rick Dale's brother Ron, brings in an item to be restored; a vintage Coke machine, which Rick Harrison calls in Rick Dale. I know it was in the first season. But I'll let you do the dirty work. lol Pyresofchaos (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not really an edit request. You can just bring it up on the talk page. But without reliable sources it is original research and cannot be incorporated into the article anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the last two messages above to this section, where the matter of the show's scripting/acting/fabrication has already been noted. Again, please see WP:NOR and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the above contributors, let's remember this is a television show; and a reality show at that. I don't think that there is any confusion with wikipedia users as to the somewhat fabricated nature of such shows, nor any need to explicitly point out examples of such. 24.250.115.92 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)TexxasFinn

In this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3Svlza5Qw) interview, with David Letterman, Rick Harrison discusses how his business is quite different from other pawn shops, and explains why. He also openly admits that when, "a cool item comes in they have to shut the store down to film." Thought this might clear up some of the above. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oTRHxi-L54) is another interview of Rick Harrison by Letterman. 24.52.232.87 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does the person who controls this page want any information on the page about the controversy about the show being staged? Do you work there? 96.27.192.105 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)J

References

On another website I read an allegation that the show is filmed on a studio set, with a mock-up store to look like the real store. The allegation is that Nevada privacy laws prevent the Film crew from working inside the actual store. I have no idea if this is true or if its bullsh--! Its contradicts what I've always read, about the store closing for filming. ...But there is a degree of fakeness with regard to the experts. "do you mind if I call a friend in," Rick asks. well guess what: Autograph and document dealer Stu Lutz lives in New Jersey!!!! So that shows you how certain things are rigged and orchestrated in advance. I buy stuff from Stu, so thats why I know he's not from the Vegas area. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a discussion of what part of the show is real should be a part of this article. It's the reason that I decided to read the article, so I guess I'm biased on the issue. Yes, of course, all reality shows seem to be fake in some way, but the degree to which they are is interesting IMO and when a show is as well known as this one there is probably enough source material to include a bit about this issue. Davefoc (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant self-promotion? Hardly

I noticed the accurately sourced USA Today quote by Rick Harrison that "we're bigger than Leno" was removed as "irrelevant self-promotional material." Why? The comment actually has some truth to it. Pawn Star's peak audience of 4.6 million exceeds the viewership of a number of Leno's episodes at 10:00 PM. More importantly, the quote provides valuable insight into the attitudes of the show's most important character, so it's hardly irrelevant to a discussion of the show. In fact, I would argue that it's the single most relevant and revealing item in the entire USA Today article, certainly as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as critics' views of the show, which are already included.

I won't edit-war on the quote, though I note that other editors have made extensive use of the USA Today article that I introduced. If we're using a lot of other material from the article, why not use Rick's quote, which is relevant, revealing and at least partly correct? 70.123.108.149 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already material on the ratings in the passage. A joke by Harrison regarding it is not necessary, has nothing to do with his "attitude", and is not a part of the formal tone of an encylopedia. It is also far from "the single most relevant and revealing item" in the article; there are far more relevant pieces of information (the third season renewal, biographical information on the cast, etc.), which have been added to the article. Thanks for adding that source. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I am not going to edit-war on this. But I fail to see why a critic's jibe that a show's characters are "alternately amusing and grating" is somehow part of the formal tone of an encyclopedia, while a far more significant and revealing remark by the show's principal character is not. I still maintain that Rick Harrison's comment is the most telling and relevant feature of the USA Today story, much more interesting and enlightening to the reader than dull statistics on the store's planned expansion (which have now been included). That's why the comment was given a significant place as the "final word" on the show in the USA Today article, and why it deserves a place in Wikipedia. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The critic's opinion is relevant to the section, since that section is on "Reception". A joking comment that adds nothing to the information that already details the show's success is not, and is not "significant", "revealing", "telling" or "relevant". What a writer or editor thinks makes the best closing comment in a newspaper article has nothing to do with what is best for inclusion in a reference work. Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP revert

I blanked a section about supposed obesity and health issues and related employment practices for some characters on the show. The section was clearly unsourced, contentious material about living persons, so immediate removal was justified by WP:BLP. I left a non-bitey explanation on the inexperienced editor's talk page. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor added back the section, and it was again blanked, though not by me. 70.123.108.149 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Episode article split?

The episode list is starting to grow to a substantial portion of the page. Should it be broken out to it's own page like several other tv shows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodOmens (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that approach. This article should be fairly stable, with occasional adjustments for interesting events in the lives of the principals. The episode list is really a separate subject, related, but with a focus separate from the lives of the cast. Jglen490 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Season 3 is next week, I propose we move the episodes section to a new article, to not make the article too long and unnavigable. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep as single article. I personally don't find it hard to navigate, and keeping it in one article makes it easier to add information. If a consensus decides to separate them, that I'll accept that, but as a preference, I prefer it as one. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the articles on TV shows that have a separate article for episodes do so because the main article is extensive. I don't think we are there yet with this one. On the other hand, the episode list is getting rather long, and more episodes are coming. So why wait?--Nyctc7 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is already too long. I endorse the split. JEN9841 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation 57

While trying to research the content from the page, it brings you to a page that doesn't exist. I don't feel what is said about what is suppose to be on this page really isn't relevant to the Pawn Stars page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladybuminc (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Season 3

Are all of the new episodes added still part of Season 2? Or is there a Season 3? Does the History Channel have seasons, or just batches of episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.110.78 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It does have seasons, and the current season is indeed Season 2. Also, new posts and new sections go at the bottom of the page, not the top, and make sure you sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 begins on June 7th. http://tv.broadwayworld.com/article/RecordBreaking_HISTORY_Series_PAWN_STARS_Returns_For_Third_Season_67_20010101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.142.1 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chewie62, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change this entry from Carl – Expert in sunken ships and shipwrecked salvage items.

to

Captain Carl Fismer – Treasure hunter and expert in sunken ships and shipwrecked salvage items, owner of Spanish Main Treasure Company.

You may visit www.SpanishMainTreasure.com for verification.

Thank you.

Chewie62 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: Captain is a rather generic term, and treasure hunter is not a title. Other than that, it looks like someone added the bit about the company. ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under Experts please add:
Mark Logan - President of Nevada Classics, Inc. - Shelby Cobra Dealer - expert in classic and performance cars

The referenced episode: Season 2, Episode 2, Total 16: "Sharks and Cobras". Mark dealt with "a rare 1965 Shelby Cobra bodyframe that requires authentication." NVClassics (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable Content: at 20:43 during the credits the iTunes downloadable episode of Season 2, Episode 2 lists "Mark Logan, Nevada Classics". The premiere date of the episode was 11/3/2009. Around the 11:50 mark, Mark is called by name and he is wearing a Nevada Classics shirt. The episode's titling at a couple of points incorrectly calls him William, but the other proof should be enough that Mark Logan is his correct name, and Nevada Classics (and also "Shelby Cars Northwest" which he also mentions in the episode) is his business name. NVClassics (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are autoconfirmed, so you can do it. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will attempt to now. NVClassics (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

On another note, please edit the profile for Jesse, the expert in stringed instruments. Jesse is the manager of Cowtown Guitars, the owner is Mark Chatfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.154.230 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear 174.55.154.230 -

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources so it appears your request cannot be completed as it now stands. If an appropriate reference can be supplied, then please use another {{editsemiprotected}}.

Also, try to remember to sign your posts on Talk-pages with 4 tildes (these things---> ~).

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Shy of providing the city tax documents for the shop that is going to be a tall order, I know Mark and Jesse personally and have since Cowtown was in Columbus, Ohio. I'll try to find a verification but no promises Tokyosmash (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cowtown Guitars is owned and operated by Jesse Amoroso. The shop is licensed by the City of Las Vegas as Cowtown Guitars III, LLC and changed hands in June 2011. There are multiple sources available online that outline the sale of the shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxotronic (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Subway

There seems to be some type of deal between subway and Pawn stars for product placement during the shows. It has been pretty blatant a couple of times. There should be some mention of it 24.207.131.20 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:CS. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I realized whoever was locking the page was not going to be helpful in putting a serious encyclopedia entry together about pawn stars. But at least its on the talk page now. Cheers 24.207.131.20 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So all the work that's been put into the article up until now, all the level of detail, and all the sources that have been included support that information (which is often not found in other WP articles, in particular ones about reality TV shows) does not constitute a "serious" encyclopedia article, but adding material about a perceived product placement deal without a source that's required by the site's policies would? That's seems rather arbitrary, and a bit self-serving. Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But I notice you don't dispute whether its true. You just claim the truth doesn't fit with wiki guidlines. That's fine, like I said I was not expecting it to be added, but at least its on the talk page. 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.20 (talk)

You have not established that it is "truth". Saying "there seems to be" on a talk page is not "truth". In any event, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and for good reason. If material were included based on what an anonymous editor says on a talk page, then it wouldn't be a very reliable, or "serious" encyclopedia. I do not dispute that it's the truth because my opinion on that point (for the record, I would imagine it probably is) isn't relevant. We include material based on reliable sources, not what we personally believe. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you are the one locking the page, meaning you want to take full control of the article from novice wikipedia users like myself. So find whatever source you feel is appropriate and add it in. Or don't and be considered someone who is not that interested in a good article on pawn stars yet wants to be controlling of it. The information is true. Its notable. It should be included. It even says "Pawn Stars is brought to you by Subway" when they go to commercial. There is no question if you watch the show that they have a deal with subway. It is heavily criticized on the internet, most people noting the irony of the heavy weight characters in the show endorsing a product usually marketed as healthy. I would link to them but you probably wouldn't consider them reliable sources. Its not exactly like the New York Times is going to be doing a lot of stories on this topic. 24.207.135.48 (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not have "full control" of the article. Registered users with some tenure have full access to it.

I am not obligated to find sources for material you want to add to an article. If you want to add it, then you have to find the sources. What you "consider" me to be based on this point is of no interest to me, as your personal opinions are not the benchmark by which an article is judged to be "good", particularly when the opinion is that unspecified internet gossip is acceptable enough under the site's reliability policies. The idea that adding the opinions of non-credentialed gossipers to an encyclopedia makes it "good" is utterly inane. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Antoine

Under the information on Antoine, he is designated as African-American. I can't make the edit, but I think this should be removed for two reasons. 1) The designation of caucasian, white, Anglo-American, etc. hasn't been made for the other people listed on the page and 2) the chance that Antoine did not descend from people in Africa. I could get into reasons against the term of African-American, but I'd rather just say it doesn't belong in the article. Upon reading it, the racial distinction oddly sticks out as it's not that informative. Anyone agree? Amontjoy —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

I think that's reasonable. I initially wondered about whether I should include him at all, since he's never had dialogue or been the focus of a scene, but then someone else included him, and I didn't have a firm opinion on whether to remove him. But I agree that the description of him is inconsistent. Nightscream (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who watches the show too much, he does always pop up in the background. He is, in fact, security detail and his name is spelled Antwan. Can't make the change for another few days. Long time reader of Wikipedia and thought I'd start trying to edit. Source -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x72lNMeYmY Amontjoy (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

can someone add this, it's why I came here and it's not on the wiki article: Where did Chumlee get his nickname? Friends in elementary school took the name from cartoon character Tennessee Tuxedo's sidekick, a walrus named Chumley. http://www.gspawn.com/austin-chumlee-russell/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.176.76.2 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for that source. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

- This is just my personal opinion, but in regard to whether or not he should be included or not - I certainly think he belongs. He is usually relegated to background appearances, however he's on the show FAR more than many of the other people listed, including Peaches and Fat Back. Again, strictly my opinion, but I wanted to make it known. Ttc817 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think Negroes come from? It's pretty well established that the answer is "Africa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.81 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Shop Staff

Just a suggestion - I think the shop staff last should be divided into two sections - primary and secondary. Primary would be the main quartet the show revolves around (Rick, Old Man, Big Hoss, Chumlee) while secondary would be the other staff who generally have minor/limited/background roles (Antoine/Antwan, Fat Back, Peaches, Audie, etc.) Anyone else agree with this? If not, no big deal, I just wanted to share the idea. Ttc817 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were enough material to justify a secondary staff section, I don't think would be a bad idea. But the cast section is already divided into two sections already, and I don't think there's enough "meat" for a secondary staff section. I'm still ambivalent on including Antwan. Hell, the Cake Boss article, has a long cast list in one section, and I think it looks fine (though it's unsourced). Nightscream (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are TONS of secondary staff there, but I guess very few of them ever play a big enough role to justify two sections. I guess this could change in the figure if secondary staff become more prominent in later seasons, but as is, you have a good point. Ttc817 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the intern Lilly be added to the list now, since it was just revealed on 4/24/14 episode she became an employee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.123.159 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean April 3, 2014?

And if so, which of the two episodes? Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I meant the new episode that aired April 24th 2014, the title of the episode is 'Ponies and Phonies' I just realized the type-o so I apologize for that 207.255.123.159 (talk) 01:42, April 25, 2014

I reviewed that episode, and did not see or hear any mention of her. However, she was mentioned to be an intern in Episode 8.49, so I added her to the article with a citation of that episode.

Also, please don't forget to sign your posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You sure? because im watching it right now, the show starts off by saying that she is actually done being an intern at the shop, Rick had to sign the paper so she can get college credit, later on in the same episode, she was hired as an employee, well part-time that is 207.255.123.159 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Experts who have appeared in only one episode to date

I think we need to trim the list of experts a bit. Up until now, we've been including those who've appeared in only one episode, but if we continue to do this, the list might become a bit longer than is necessary. I think we should limit it somehow, perhaps by limiting it to those who've appeared in a minimum of two episodes. I've removed those in the article that appeared in only one episode to date, and moved it here. I also added four other experts from the most recent two episodes ("Double Trouble" and "Getting a Head"). Should any of these reappear in addition future episode, we can add them to the list in the article. In addition to the episodes, I included sources that establish their surnames. Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actual list

• Geoff – Expert in edged blade weapons.
• John – Document examiner.
• Kevin – Violin maker, repairman and restorer.
• Rocco - Expert in Civil War-era militaria.
• Roland – Expert horologist who specializes in cuckoo clocks.
• Scott – Pilot and expert in aircraft maintenance, repair and restoration, who works at Mojave Aviation.
• Wayne – Expert numismatist.
• Kells Christian – Nautical expert, Christian & Co. Marine Surveyors.
• Ann DeVere – Antique book expert, and owner of Plaza Books.
• Len Ettinger – Expert in stamps, and Vice President, Southern Nevada Stamp Club.
• Carl Fismer – Expert in sunken ships and shipwrecked salvage items, and owner of Spanish Main Treasure Company.
• Dr. Scott Foss – Regional paleontologist for the Bureau of Land Management.
• Gary Frick – Rare books expert, and owner of Academy Fine Books
• Steve Friesen – Director of the Buffalo Bill Museum
• Larry Joslyn – Expert restorer of wrecked, damaged aircraft and owner of LJ Air, Inc.
• Rod Kordoza – Owner of West Sea Inc, and expert in nautical antiques.
• Nick Kovalevsky – Pinball machine expert and repairman, and owner of Planet Nine Pinball
• Mark Lyons – Locksmith and expert in police memorabilia and restraints.
• Dwight Purcell – Motorcycle expert and owner of Purcellz Customz.
• Dean Rich – Expert in antique U.S. military edged weapons.
• Chris Richardson – Vehicular expert, and owner of L.A. Speed Shop.
• Jeffrey Richardson – Gamble Curator of Western History at the Autry National Center.
• Andrew Rosenberg – Expert in coins; owner of American Coin Express.
• Mark E. Scott – Expert in old and rare coins, and owner of Sahara Coins.
• Leonard Shafter – Expert in coins and paper money, former grader for the American Numismatic Association, now works at the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino.
• Peter Sidlow – Expert in antique gaming machines and jukeboxes, and owner of Victorian Casino Antiques.
• Kristin Slonsky – Classical linguist at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. Languages she is fluent in include Latin.
• Jonathan Ullman – Executive Director of the Mob Museum.
• David Wang – Expert in military vehicles, and owner of Army Trucks, Inc.
• Jeff Wyatt – Wine expert and co-owner of Marché Bacchus.
• Mike Yamasaki – Japanese sword appraiser and dealer, and owner of Tetsugendo.

References

Link spanish version

Someone can introduce this line?? es:El Precio de la Historia, is to link spanish version with english version of the present article. --201.244.134.89 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :) Nightscream (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of Fat Back passing comment

In the section for Fat Back, it reads "He examines a 1980 Datsun 280ZX that is brought to the shop in "License to Pawn", and gives his opinion of its condition." Now, may I be enlightened as to what is the value or relevance of that statement? We could also say "in episode XXX he wore a blue shirt and he had his sleeves up". --uKER (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, it elaborates on his stated function as in-house mechanic by providing a relevant example. Second, mentioning the episodes provides a citation for it, per WP:V. --Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the point, we can say he's a mechanic and he provides advice on the condition of vehicles and provide the link to the episode as a source without making an explicit mention, but it's plain dumb to say "in that episode he saw a Datsun and he said what he thought of it". And no, citing guidelines doesn't add to your argument. --uKER (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "adding to an argument", I was simply answering your question. You asked what was the relevance of including this information, and my answer is that in part, that the information needs a citation. Would you have preferred that I ignored your attempts at discussion?

If you want to summarize the material without a specific example, I'm not against that. However, you might want to consider comporting yourself with comments that are a little less hostile or pejorative. --Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't sign your comment, I didn't even know it was you replying. About my coment, pejorative? I'd call that a stretch. About the information, the citation can be made just fine without that trivial bit of information being explicitly mentioned in the article. BTW, with your permission, I put your name to your previous message. --uKER (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to sign it. As for calling someone else's rationale "dumb", that is indeed pejorative, and is not a stretch. Since we're in agreement about how to proceed about the material, that sort of hostile language is unnecessary.

As for the citation, I did not say it required the information in question, as I already stated that we could summarize it, as you suggested in your previous message ("he provides advice on the condition of vehicles..."). Nightscream (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Peaches

For some reason there seem to be alot of sites that give peaches' surname as Pearey, when actually it is Rainey. Nobody, least of all Peaches, quite knows why this is. I have fixed it per VRTS ticket # 2010111010014551, please see if you can find a better source than http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1492088/trivia to support the change. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the footnote for that information, you'll see that the source is not imdb. It's Box Office Magazine. I do not use imdb for sources, because sources with user-generated content are not permitted as sources under the Reliable Sources policy. If anything, some of the information on that imdb page looks like it may have been taken from this article, and not the other way around.

As for OTRS, where does it say the name "Rainey"? I clicked on your link, and it merely directs one to a login page. My Wikipedia login doesn't work there, and there is no field in which to enter in the number you provided above. Can you clarify? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to JzG's reversion of my edit, and his request for me in his edit summary to read this Talk Page, I am pasting the following message that he left on my own Talk Page here, so that we can continue the discussion here:

OK, imagine yourself in this position. You're a minor celebrity from a reality show, there is tattle about you but no weighty sources. Your name is given incorrectly on the internet one day and before you know where you are it's on Wikipedia and becomes The Truth™. So you try to change it and it gets reverted. So you write to Wikipedia and ask for it to be changed and they want you to jump through more hoops. You find some links, only to have them rejected as unreliable (e.g. IMDB). Suddenly Wikipedia has become not just part of the problem but most of the problem. So, I fixed it. Because, you know, it's not as if the subject has any credible reason to lie about this, and sometimes the most important policy we have is "be bold". I can only assume that you did not check who you were talking to and did not check the Talk page either because I am pretty confident you would not expect an admin and OTRS volunteer to be ignorant of WP:V and WP:NOR. Right now, to that individual, we are giving a very good impression of a bunch of navel-gazing idiots, and I'd really rather we came across as (a) having a clue and (b) actually giving a shit. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the type of predicament you describe, but it does not justify going onto someone else's property, and deliberately violating their rules. This includes someone else's website, just as it would someone's brick-and-mortar policy. While BOLD is one of the site's editing guidelines, it is not the only one, nor does it say anywhere on that policy's page that it's the "most important" one. In fact, it does couple that advice with the clause/admonition "but please be careful".

Regarding your statement that I didn't check who I was taking to, I did indeed read it, and I responded to it around the time I reverted your edit, explaining that there was nothing at that link provided indicating Peaches' real surname. Given that you reverted my edit about 38 minutes after my response above, may I ask if you read that response before making that revert?

Try seeing it from our point of view: Someone comes onto this site, claiming to be the subject of a biographical article, or someone representing them. We have no way of knowing if that person really is the person in question, or her representative, since we're all pretty much anonymous here on Wikipedia. How reliable would the encyclopedia be if anyone could just claim to be a BLP subject when changing material without following the WP:V?

That said, there are legitimate ways to address issues such as this, and as someone who has helped numerous biographical subjects with their articles, I'd be more than happy to help you. I would start by suggesting that "navel-gazing idiots", or suggesting that we don't "[have] a clue" or "[give] a shit" isn't the best language with which approach such a resolution. Can explain the OTRS link issue I mentioned above? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• What do you mean, our point of view? I am a Wikipedian. Our point of view is my point of view, and top of the list is not being a bunch of process fascists when some poor girl is trying to correct false information about herself. m:DICK really does apply here: to enforce the wrong information because too many people have picked up our wrong information is dickish in the extreme. We have email. From Peaches Rainey. You want to write to tell her she's got her name wrong? And yes I know that's a primary source, just like her LinkedIn profile, but honestly this is not controversial information. Oh, and you might want to check out WP:OTRS for information on what the OTRS link means. Have you really never come across an OTRS ticket before? Guy (Help!) 19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the "our point of view" passage. I composed my response to your message as I was reading it, and by the time I came to the part that indicated you were a Wikipedian, I had already written that phrase, and neglected to go back and modify it.

Regarding the issue with Peaches, nothing I said here exhibits any "fascism", and again, I really suggest you be a bit more selective in the language you choose when we discuss this problem. As I stated above, the issue is one of helping a BLP subject resolve an issue with their article in a transparent manner in accordance with the site's policies, which entirely reasonable, and has nothing to do with fascism, or "enforcing the wrong information", or with acting in the manner described by that inflammatory and poorly-written essay you linked to (which slightly off-topic, has no business being on any of the Foundation's pages, much less being cited in a discussion). An apparently reliable source established her surname, and I cited that source. That's not "dickish", that's entirely understandable.

I am aware of OTRS, but I do not specialize in it or have expertise in it. Every editor/administrator, may specialize in a narrow range of areas on the site, and not have a full command over every single one of them, which is why I asked the question that I did above. Verifiability does not apply solely to controversial information. Social networking sites are also problematic as sources, since anyone can create accounts and claim to be someone else, which has been a problem for such sites. I know what OTRS is; I'm asking how others here can verify that information, since there's no field to place that number that was provided above, nor way for me to log into that page. Nightscream (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page: Check my response, also see WP:OTRS for an explanation of what an OTRS ticket is and why you can't access it. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the fact that they're only visible to OTRS volunteers. I take it you're the OTRS volunteer who verified Ms. Rainey's email? Nightscream (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed what I meant by "I fixed it per OTRS ticket". There is a link to the OTRS page there, and that states that only approved volunteers have access (because there is private informaiton in there). Have you really never come across an OTRS ticket before? I'm amazed. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've come across references to OTRS, I do not recall, offhand, coming across a particular ticket number, at least not recently, which shouldn't be that hard to understand, since as aforementioned, I haven't dealt often with OTRS directly. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I know for a fact that Peaches is no longer employed by the shop, and I edited as such, only to have it un-done. I know why - I have linked no source. At the same time I know it to be 100% true that she doesn't work there now - how do I know? Facebook, from the Pawn Stars own site. Is that good enough to be proof? This is what ticks me off about Wiki at times; things that are truths can't be put up simply because nobody else on the internet has bothered to report the damn news, and now anyone who comes across this will think she still works there, which is flat out untrue. LancasterII (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

The relevant standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. Nightscream (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Information on show's beginnings

"Hi. Regarding your edit to Pawn Stars, just because you wish to add detail to the article from a source--in this case, Rick Harrison's early attempts to pitch a series set in this shop (whose source, btw, was already in the article)---does not justify removing the material on how Brent Montgomery and Colby Gaines of Leftfield Pictures conceived of such a show, or found Harrison and his shop, since the two pieces of information are not mutually exclusive. If you going to delete content from an article, please make sure you cite a valid, policy-based rationale in your edit summary. Lastly, Wikipedia expects material in articles to conform to the formal tone of an encyclopedia. The phrase "though she adjusted its storyline" is consistent with this policy. Changing it to "and tweaked it", is not. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)"

Judging by how often he appears here, and the obnoxious missives he keeps sending me, it's obvious that this guy thinks this article is "his", and God help anyone who tries to contribute to it! In case anyone cares, below is my reply:

Fact is, Harrison was pitching the show when Montgomery and Gaines approached him. Moreover, his interview with EW was NOT sourced until I entered it (which, I've noticed, you have removed)!

"Pawn Stars began with Brent Montgomery and Colby Gaines of Leftfield Pictures, who were struck by the array of eclectic and somewhat seedy pawn shops in Las Vegas during a 2008 weekend visit to the city. Thinking such shops might contain unique characters, they searched for a family-run shop on which to center a TV series..." is NOT professional, encyclopedia-standard writing! If you had filed that with the Encyclopaedia Britannica, not only would it NOT be published, you would be fired!

"The phrase 'though she adjusted its storyline' is consistent with this policy" is your opinion, and - based on the above passage - I do not consider your opinion more authoritative that of the people behind Wiki!

As far as Jesse's last name not coming from a "reliable source": do your own research. He has a band called Pigasus whose performances you can find on youtube. He also has a shop of ebay. The man's last name IS Amoroso -- deal with it! Worc63 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Upholding Wikipedia policy does not constitute an attempt to "own" an article, nor were the messages I left on your talk page are "missives", nor "obnoxious", as they are the standard type of messages that are left on the talk pages of editors whose edits violate the site's policies and guidelines. Since you've accumulated a few thousand edits here since 2004, you should know this by now. But if you really feel that merely saying, "Hi. Regarding your edit to Pawn Stars, what's the source for the surname you added? Thanks." constitutes an "obnoxious missive", or explaining how your edits violated Wikipedia's policies such as WP:TONE, WP:IRS or WP:EDITSUM, then you can report this matter to the Administrator Noticeboard.

As for the material on Harrison's attempts to get the show pitched before he was discovered by Leftfield, it has not been removed. If you read the article, or look at my edit, you'll see that that material is still in there, as is the cite. Not only is it still in there, but that EW interview was already in the article, because I added it myself on August 13.

(I referred to this in my second message on your talk page.) At the time, I neglected to notice that it contained some info on Harrison's early efforts, so you were perfectly in the right to add that to the section on the show's History, but you have not provided a valid rationale for removing the material on Leftfield Pictures, which is properly sourced and accurately paraphrased. If you felt that it was not as well-written as it could have been, then you should've taken it upon yourself to rewrite it. Not delete it. It is also rather odd for you to criticize this passage because it is "not professional, encyclopedia-standard writing", when you yourself altered a passage from "though she adjusted its storyline" was changed to "and tweaked it". "Tweaked" is a slang phrase that does not belong in the passage, as indicated by Wikipedia's policy on writing in a formal tone. That is not merely "my opinion", it is a fact. If you don't know what the difference is between formal writing and slang, then the problem is not my opinion; it's that you lack basic writing skills.

I do not have to do my own research for material that you want to add to articles.

If you want to add a given piece of information to an article, it is you who has cite reliable sources for it that can be used under Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources. Sources whose content is user-generated, such as blogs, web hosting sites, forums, message boards, other wikis, imdb, etc., are not permitted as sources, as indicated on that policy page. Please familiarize yourself with policies like this if you intend to continue editing here.

As for my opinion not being "more authoritative that of the people behind Wiki", you imply an Either/Or situation where there isn't any. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and all the content on it, including its policies and guidelines, are formed through community consensus, members of which are the same people who sometimes to admonish editors when they violate those policies, such as myself. In short, I am one of the "people behind Wiki". And as a member of the community that helps write those policies, I would offer the friendly suggestion that you learn them if you want to edit here, including those that govern how you treat others, such as WP:Civility, WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:No Personal Attacks. Nightscream (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your first message was most-friendly. I made the correction, as requested, and assumed that would be that. But the overall tone of your second message smacked of "I'm the boss" and "you have to answer to me". That tends to get a person miffed.

Before I added it, I didn't see it among the footnotes. Perhaps I overlooked it, but it wasn't there.

I doubt that you will find "tweaked" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, either. That's a different level and style of writing and scholarship. As Wiki's own article on EB states, EB caters to "educated adults", while Wiki caters to the general public. Anyone with internet access can contribute to Wiki; only those with advanced degrees who are regarded as experts in their field are allowed to contribute to EB. Big difference.

My point was: since you seem to be so hung up on what Jesse's last name is, find a "credible source" yourself.

Just because there are sources of information that you don't consider "official", that does not mean that they are not realible -- including blogs, SSDI, message boards, and public record searches.

Again, you came off as "you have to answer to me". Sorry, I don't answer to you. Practice what you preach, junior. Worc63 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned the Encyclopædia Britannica, nor argued for the inclusion of the word "tweaked", you did. I argued the opposite, that words like "tweaked" do not belong in passages like the one in question, and the rationale I provided was Wikipedia's requirement that material be written in a formal tone. Why you seem to speaking now as if I'm the one arguing for the inclusion of slang words, or making comparisons to Britannica, I don't know.

Nothing in my second message to you evoked the sentiment of "I'm the boss" or "You have to answer to me", except in your imagination. I explained the policies that your edits violated, and pointed out that you did not provide any justification for removing the sourced material on Leftfield, or changing a properly-phrased passage into an informally-written one. Nothing more. The fact that you don't like to be informed of the rules of web sites you visit does not mean that any admonishment to that effect is "obnnoxious" or "bossy". If you can't help but perceiving it as such, then that is more likely a reflection of a poor disposition on your part, not mine. The fact that you seem to regard my mention of the site's rules as if they are somehow my viewpoint would seem to underscore this.

I am not hung up on Jesse's last name. I'm simply adhering to Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability, and citing Reliable Sources. If you dispute some aspect of my application or interpretation of those policies, then feel free to explain what that is. Barring that, those guidelines are clear, and your addition of that information violated them. I do not have to find sources for material you want to add to the article. You want to add that material, you find the sources.

You seem to speak as if my statements on source reliability are somehow of my personal opinion or invention. They're not. They're the rules indicated by this website, which you should be aware of by now, and they are not going to set aside simply because you feel like ignoring them. Anyone can create a blog or post on a forum, which is why such sources are not reliable. "Official" is your word, not mine, and is irrelevant to this point. Again, do you dispute that the relevant policy pages make this clear, and that I have referred to them accurately? If so, why not explain how? And if not, then on what basis do you feel you have the right to violate them? If you want to edit on this website, then you have to follow its rules, just as you would when you're on anyone else's property in the brick-and-mortar world, which has nothing to do with "answering to me". Nightscream (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding Murray to the list of experts

Magician Murray Sawchuck was recently shown on Pawn Stars in the episode "Houdini's Handcuffs". Murray is actually an accomplished magician, and was seen on last year's America's Got Talent (season 5), but was eliminated in Round 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenks (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lenks! For future reference, new discussions should be started at the bottom of the page. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will cause your posts to be automatically signed and time stamped when you save the page.

As for Murray, I added him to the list of experts that have only appeared in one episode that's on the Talk Page. I move them to the article when they've appeared in more than one episode. Nightscream (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Murray has only appeared as an "expert" on one episode, however, he can be seen in the background on several different occasionans. Wether or not he is shopping or give expert advice is unknown.67.166.155.113 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Murray also appeared on the second, new episode dated 5/10/11 as an expert who identified a straitjacket that was once owned by Harry Houdine. 67.166.155.113 (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

{{Edit semi-protected}} Just was wondering, why is the article semi-protected? This is not a particularly controversial show. I prefer to edit anonymously, so the level of protection does seem excessive to me. Anyway, I'd like to update the ratings information with a notable ratings record for one of this week's episodes. If somebody who edits under a regular account could update the article with the following text and source - probably replacing the first sentence of the "Reception" subsection - I'd be grateful:

To be replaced: The show has garnered successful Nielsen ratings, peaking at 5.1 million viewers for the original episodes broadcast on March 1, 2010.

Replacement: Pawn Stars has been one of History's most successful series, consistently placing among the network's top-rated programs. An original episode broadcast on January 24, 2011 was watched by seven million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. This was the most-watched telecast ever on History. [2] 12.198.205.9 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was actually protected back in March 2010 for 1 year. That's an extremely long protection, and is almost never done unless previous shorter protections haven't worked. I'm have requested unprotection at RFPP, since I don't see the logic in having it up so long; if it becomes a problem again, it can always be re-protected.

As for your edit request...unfortunately, I do not believe that tvbythenumbers is a reliable source. While it is used in a number of other WP articles, previous discussions on WP:RSN, while not decisive, indicate it is a self-published blog. As such, I'm not comfortable adding the info myself. However, if the semi-protection goes off, you can do so yourself if you think it is reliable, and then engage with other editors if they think it should come out. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is actually History itself, not TV by the Numbers. Well, really the ultimate source is Nielsen Media Research. It's a completely reliable report. In fact, I don't know why TV by the Numbers isn't considered reliable, since its ratings reports have been repeatedly checked against many other sources by many readers and found accurate. There were seven million viewers for the episode - by Nielsen's estimate, of course - and that was the most-watched telecast in History's, er, history. (I've been trying to avoid the "History's history" phrasing. It's not easy.) That's certainly a notable record for the show and should be in the article. If necessary, we could get really anal and caveat the report with an "according to History and Nielsen Media Research" comment.

On the general issue of protection, I really can't understand why this article about a relatively noncontroversial show has been semi-protected for a year, except in a regrettable attempt at ownership. It's pretty clear from this talk page that there is an ownership issue here, even extending to an obviously necessary OTRS fix. Can a non-involved admin look at this? 12.198.205.9 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, semi-protection was removed before I made my second comment. Thanks! 12.198.205.9 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Three days after protection was lifted, the article became the target of a vandal or group of vandals using 13 different accounts to repeatedly vandalize the article between January 30 and February 1, which is far worse than anything that happened prior to protection, and far worse than anything I would've thought would happen. I almost wonder if the vandal happened upon this discussion and targeted the article for this reason. I've protected the article again for this reason. This has nothing to do with "ownership" or whether the show is "controversial". As for the earlier OTRS matter, that was merely a matter of my wanting to verify the information in question, nothing more. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Still locked as of Dec 26 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.192.105 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error in the last paragraph for Reception

The word "boon" should be "boom". It was locked, so I could not fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.244.253 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct word is indeed "boon", with an "n". Replacing it with "boom" would make no sense. Nightscream (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of episodes is incorrect

The article is locked so I could not edit it. There are currently 100 episodes. The article lists a figure far below that.--Daybankman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The 100th was the first episode to air on the night if 10 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.155.113 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A picture and more information on the store

I think this article would greatly benefit with a shot of the shop, both during filming, and if the shop is substantially different, then one of after filming. I will try to find one of both to include in the article.Mmallico (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It would certainly look nice in the article. One thing though: New discussions (and new posts within discussions) go at the bottom, not the top. No big deal, though. And welcome to Wikipedia. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The weight loss information.

While I agree with Nightstream's point that this is an article about the show, not each individual, it also needs to be kept in mind that the individuals are the show in this case. As such, I've re-added the information about Corey's weight loss, given that this has been a thread running through the entire run of the show, and was a central plot point in at least one episode. LHM 04:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The individuals are not the show. They are part of it (the items brought into the shop take up the majority of most episodes' air time), and only those aspects of their lives that are mentioned or seen on the show bear relevant mention in this article. Corey's weight has been mentioned in about two episodes or so, such as the recent one in which Rick mentioned the upstairs gym he built (which certainly does not constitute "a thread running through the entire run of the show"), so I'll compromise and leave it it, but I summarized it, and fixed the paragraph so that it's part of the same bulleted item. Please use the Preview function or check your edits after saving them to address things like that.

As far as the matter of Chumlee's competence, and your statement "chum is noted for INcompetence, not competence.", the passage did not read that he was noted for his competence. It said that he was noted for his LACK of intelligence and competence. In other words, the lack of both of those things. Nightscream (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I read "lack of intelligence" as a phrase unto itself, which makes the sentence quite confusing--at least to me. The way it currently reads to me is that Chumlee is unintelligent but competent. Perhaps if it read "unintelligent and incompetent" or "lack of both intelligence and competence", it would be more easily understood. LHM 03:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You may read it that way, but that's not how it's supposed to be read, and it's a perfectly legitimate way to write out that sentence. Nonetheless, if you insist, I've changed it to compromise. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if it was just me, but then I asked a guy I know who likes Pawn Stars to read it and tell me what he thought it meant. He understood it the way I did as well. But maybe that just means that my friend and I are lesser mortals grammar-wise, who knows? Either way, thanks for making the change! LHM 07:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Episodes and seasons

The History Channel website lists current episodes as part of season 2. Shouldn't Wikipedia's pages reflect the opinions of the creators/owners of the show, which is in this case that they're still in season 2? Dracoster (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sources cited in the main article, such as this one, indicate it is season 4. Season 2 consists of only 32 episodes, as indicated by Amazon.com, where that season's DVD is already on sale. Nightscream (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional Appearance at the NHL Awards?

Shouldn't a sentence or two be added that the cast of the show appeared in a "Pawn Stars" like segment when the Hanson Brothers attempted to sell the Stanley Cup at the shop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.68 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can cite a source per WP:V, WP:CS, etc., sure. Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This was not part of any episode of the show, but was a skit. It is mentioned on the Boston Bruin's website - would that be considered notable? Neil Kelty (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability is the test for whether topics merit their own article. For sources, the issue is Reliability. If that's the Bruins' official site, then I'd say it's reliable. I added the material to the article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar Series Section

Why is the similar series section about series created by the show's producer rather than similar shows on television - items should be "Similar to Pawn Stars". This is not an article about the producer. I am speaking to the removal of information about Hardcore Pawn and Auction Kings by user User:Azumanga1. This issue needs Wikipedia:Consensus before information is deleted from the article. Neil Kelty (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What about competing shows like "Hard Core Pawn"? The similar show section is really more about direct spin-offs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.253.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar shows, including Hardcore Pawn, are in the See also section, which is appropriate, given the function of the See also section. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition to International broadcast section

I'm watching the show often on the swiss second main channel SF2 for quite a while now, so i think you could add the country and channel to the list. Swissgamewonder (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Shafer in Wikipedia search results

At the end of episode "Getting a Head", the authors mention: "In loving memory of Leonard Shafer June 6, 1994 - August 21, 2010". I think it would be nice if he was put also on "Recurring experts" list. Leonard Shafer was a NGC authorized coin dealer based in Burbank and was featured on the hit show several times.

• In loving memory of Leonard Shafer
  In loving memory of Leonard Shafer
• Leonard Shafer in Pawn Stars
  Leonard Shafer in Pawn Stars

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:In-loving-memory-of-leonard-shafer-pawn-stars.jpg

http://blogs.babble.com/famecrawler/2010/09/07/pawn-stars-burning-question-who-is-leonard-shafer/ Ghiurutan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The only episode I know him to have been in was "Ace in the Hole" (Episode 3.14). What other episodes was he in? Nightscream (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently saw "Getting a Head" so the message at the end draw my attention. I don't know all the episodes he was invited. Ghiurutan (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But you're positive that he was on the show several times? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately i can't say i do. The message at the end of "Getting a Head" episode draw my attention so i tried to find who is Leonard Shafer. If you Google "Leonard Shafer" you will be suggested to search for "Leonard Shafer in Pawn Stars" and as result you will see that on many websites and blogs people are asking the same question: "Who is Leonard Shafer?" If you use "Leonard Shafer" in the Wikipedia search box you will get no results :-( Now i noticed you edit of the main Pawn Stars page and that there is a "Experts who have appeared in only one episode to date" list (and Leonard Shafer is on that list). My main concern is that the Wikipedia Search Box does not return any result on "Leonard Shafer" and also Google results don't return any reference to Wikipedia. My proposal is to try to fix this somehow. Easy fix will be to include "Experts who have appeared in only one episode to date" on the main page. Ghiurutan (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

????? If you can't say that he was on the show more than once, then why did you say above that he was "featured on the hit show several times"?

It is not the role of Wikipedia to engineer search results or serve as a memorial to the deceased. The Recurring experts list is for just that: People who have had a recurring role on the series. Sorry. But if you discover a second episode he was in, you can let us know. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark Hall-Patton edit request

Under "Recurring experts", change Mark Hall-Patton's last sentence to finish "...preferring to only establish authenticity and historical significance" (adding the last three words "and historical significance"). This more accurately reflects his role on the show and is a minor, non-controversial edit. 98.19.155.198 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia edit request

Please add Slovakia alongside Czech Republic as country which broadcasts this series, because Slovakian and Czech History is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.131.241 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Spin-offs and similar series

Nightscream, it would seem to me that there is a section in this article called Spinoffs and similar series by Leftfield for a reason. American Restoration and Counting Cars are spin-offs of Pawn Stars, while Cajun Pawn Stars is a similar series. For the same reason, the "Chronology chart" used the term "Related shows" because not all reated shows are spin-offs. Thus Cajun Pawn Stars is a similar series - same concept different characters, which makes Counting Cars the second spin-off Joy if (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is indeed reason for that section's name, and that reason is: I'm the one who renamed it.

The series listed in the lower part of that section are similar series, while those in the upper part of it are spinoffs. Since Cajun Pawn Stars is a spinoff by definition^*, (it's part of the same franchise, by the same production company, follows the same format and is shares the same name branding), it is placed in the upper section, and referred to as the series' second spinoff.

The Chronology chart section of the Infobox uses the term "Related shows" because that's how that Infobox template is written. No, not all related shows are spinoffs, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that Cajun Pawn Stars isn't one.

^*Sources for definition of "spinoff"

• Dictionary.com: "any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product"
• Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: "Something that is imitative or derivative of an earlier work"
• The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition: "Something, such as a product or enterprise, derived from something larger or more complex; byproduct"

Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Recurring expert list

I have reverted IWannaABillionaire's recent edits for the following reasons:

• No rationale or edit summary was provided for the removal of the note at the top of the section admonishing newcomers to include only recurring experts--that is, experts who have appeared in a minimum of two episodes.
• No source was given for the explanation that was added for Tony Dee's appearances, per WP:V/WP:NOR.
• The division of the Recurring experts section into "Current" and "Former" experts appears to be arbitrary.

What constitutes a "current" expert and a "former" one? I notice three experts Tony Dee, Dana Linett and Murray Sawchuck, that have appeared as recently as the fourth season, and one, Sean Rich, that has appeared as recently as the fifth, which is the current season. How are these determined to be "former" experts? How recent does one have to have appeared to be a current one? If Murray Sawchuck suddenly appears in the next episode or two, does that make him "current"? Is he a former one simply because there haven't been any sellers this season with magic-related items? Unless more objectively defined criteria can be devised for this, I'd suggest keeping all recurring experts in one list, since it's hardly so large that it's unmanageable. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reassessed the experts list re-including all the references, as you suggested, but please leave it with the standing division: former experts, or those who have very seldom appeared are below, and the really recurring ones are on top, where they should be, in a very hierarchic positioning. It might be that someone has appeared frequently in the first or second season, and no more after that. That is a former expert. A recurring expert is one that pops up every 3-4 episodes or so, or anyway, never stays out too long. How's that arbitrary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max ventura (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It fails to demonstrate any greater usefulness than the prior arrangement, nor did you provide one in your edit summary.

In addition, your edits exhibit a number of other problems in terms of writing::

• There is no merit to including the word "daily" in the passage Professional specialists are called in by the pawn shop on a daily basis, because it implies that the shop relies on these people in their normal activities, which they do not. The experts are only used in the production of the TV series.
• There passage "h.[120][121]" has no meaning or function.
• The passage The following is a list of the most featured recurring experts, those who keep appearing in most episodes. is not a sentence.
• The passage Has his own spinoff show. is not a sentence.
• One line break is the amount used to separate paragraphs and sections, not two.
• You removed the punctuation from the Paul Millbury passage for some reason.

This is an encyclopedia, and care must be taken to write it properly, and in terms of controversial edits, such as massive removals or rearrangements of information, to provide rationales in edit summaries that cite either the policies, guidelines or elements of good article writing that justify them.

Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I refuse to fall into an edit war with you. Be as you wish. Just mind this, you truly sound, and write, like a pedantic schoolteacher with no life outside here. Keep screaming at night 'cause that's what you do, probably. Max Ventura, Bergamo, Northern Italy. Out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max ventura (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

By the subsection's name, "recurring" inherently requires two or more events. There's nothing wrong with the hidden note: "Please do not add any experts who have not appeared in a minimum of two episodes." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Chad Sampson , O have been the art expert for the last three seasons. I replaced Brett Maly years ago and yet am not listed. I am listed on the history channel under experts for several years now. All you have to do is Google my name. 1artdealer (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Layout order

Having lists intermixed with the prose[3] seems to disrupt the flow of the article. What about putting the entire cast subsection below Production history? This would be more consistent with articles listed in Category:FA-Class television articles and, I think read better. The main cast is mentioned in the lead and if the reader really wants the nitty-gritty on them or the minor casts, they can scroll down or click on any available links. As a more comprehensive suggestion along the lines of the FA-Class television articles, I suggest a structure such as:

1 Production, 1.1 Development, 1.2 Casting and production staff, 1.3 The shop, 1.4 Filming

2 Series overview 2.1 Story line summary, 2.2 Episodes, 2.3 Main shop staff, 2.4 Minor shop staff, 2.5 Recurring experts

3 Reception 3.1 U.S. television ratings, 3.2 International television ratings/broadcast 3.3 Critical reception, 3.4 Awards and honors

4 Syndication and Distribution 4.1 DVD releases

5 Spinoffs and similar series by Leftfield

6 Merchandise, 6.1 Tie-in products, 6.2 Products from the shop

7 See also

8 References

9 Further reading/Bibliography

10 External links

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd been thinking about that. Go for it. And thanks for that Cast table and the lawsuit material. Nightscream (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I kept all the content, but merely moved it around. This change should help editors focus on sub-topics to expand. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As January 2013, the show is broadbast in Spain as "La Casa de Empeños", on Xplora. 80.31.101.31 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Claudio Sánchez / Tokafondo

References

Edit request - year business opened

The lead incorrectly states that the pawn shop opened in 1988. While the shop did in fact receive its license to operate in April 1988, the shop did not open for business until 1989. See this story from the April 8, 2010, edition of Las Vegas Weekly for verification. The story details the hassle the Harrisons went through to get the license and then to open. Therefore, please make the following text correction and add the citation:

CURRENT SENTENCE: The series is filmed in Las Vegas, Nevada, where it chronicles the daily activities at the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop, a 24-hour family business operated by patriarch Richard "Old Man" Harrison, his son Rick Harrison (who opened the shop with his father in 1988), Rick's son Corey "Big Hoss" Harrison (who has worked there since childhood), and Corey's childhood friend, Austin "Chumlee" Russell.

CHANGE TO: The series is filmed in Las Vegas, Nevada, where it chronicles the daily activities at the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop, a 24-hour family business opened in 1989 and operated by patriarch Richard "Old Man" Harrison, his son Rick Harrison, Rick's son Corey "Big Hoss" Harrison, and Corey's childhood friend, Austin "Chumlee" Russell.

I also removed the part that says "(who has worked there since childhood)" because it's unnecessary, not lead-worthy anyway, and clutters the sentence. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done--Launchballer 07:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer, thanks so much for the quick fix. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - two more places that show the wrong year

Relating to the above thread, I just noticed that the Cast section also has the wrong year - twice - for when the pawn shop opened. See the first two listings (for Richard (Rick) Kevin Harrison and Richard Benjamin "The Old Man" Harrison); it says 1988 instead of 1989. Please change both to 1989. You can also attach the "<ref name="Las Vegas Weeky 2010"/>" cite (from the lead) to each of them so that no one will remove or challenge the year. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Launchballer 08:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Launchballer. It's great to have editors like you who are nice enough to handle requests like this so fast. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed two minor corrections that are needed for this edit in the Cast section. 1. In the listing for Richard (Rick) Kevin Harrison, it mistakenly has the comma after citation 3, instead of before it. It currently shows "in 1989[3],". 2. In the listing for Richard Benjamin "The Old Man" Harrison, cite 21 (USA Today) should just be removed because it has the wrong year; it shows the year the license was obtained (1988) instead of the year the shop actually opened (1989). Currently, it shows "1989[3],[21] with his son, Rick", but it should be "1989[3] with his son Rick" (no commas needed). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Both  Done.--Launchballer 09:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's still an mistake. Look at the listing for Richard Benjamin "The Old Man" Harrison; it now says "which he opened in 1989[3], USA Today February 18, 2010</ref> with his son, Rick.". Remove the stray part that says ", USA Today February 18, 2010</ref>". It should just says "which he opened in 1989 with his son Rick." --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Launchballer 09:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is still a mistake; a stray comma. It now says "which he opened in 1989, with his son, Rick." There should be no comma after the cite or after the word "son". As I requested above, it should just be "which he opened in 1989 with his son Rick." No commas are needed. You can just copy and paste that part in. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Launchballer 09:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you got it! Haha. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Cameo appearances

Another editor removed the listing of cameo appearances on the grounds that it did not belong in the lede and that it was OR. I restored it pending development of a consensus here as to whether it belongs in an article about a "reality" show, and where in the article. It is verifiable information, and the ref already there tells which show the celebrities appeared in. It is not just some editors O.R. fantasy that some famous person was shown in the episode because they think they spotted them in a crowd scene. They are specifically named in the episodes and identified as being the particular celebrity. The listing of celebs who appeared on the show might better be placed farther down in the article. Cameos by celebrities may be an important part of the appeal of a show such as this. Suggestions as to wherein the article it should be moved? Is there a consensus to include it? Edison (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved "Celebrity cameo appearances" from the lede down to the Cast section, after "recurring experts." Edison (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not OR. Original Research refers to material that originates from the personal knowledge of the editor who adds it, rather than from sources that are cited for that material. The material in question comes directly from the episodes in which those cameos were made, which are cited for that passage.

Mentioning what notables who have guest-starred on a TV series can be a measure of that TV series' impact and popularity, and is obviously relevant to mention, which is why it is mentioned in other articles on TV shows, such as Happy Days, and when that info is extensive enough, ends up being split into its own article, as with List of The Simpsons guest stars, List of The Love Boat guest stars, List of Saturday Night Live guests, List of South Park guest stars, List of Family Guy guest stars, List of Futurama guest stars, List of guest stars on King of the Hill, List of SpongeBob SquarePants guest stars, List of M*A*S*H guest stars, List of Miami Vice guest appearances, List of guest stars on Sesame Street, etc. Hell, there's an entire category called Category:Lists of guest appearances in television. Clearly, the community does not consider such a thing to be trivia. Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The information was proper to be in the article, just not lumped in with the lead when it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article (WP:LEAD). The lead is to summarize the main points of the article, not to list arguably insignificant cameo appearances. The place it is in the article now is just fine. STATic message me! 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're definition OR is "stuff placed in the Lead that doesn't belong there"? :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not refering to that, which should have been undeniably clear based on my response... It would be WP:OR in the fact that someone sees it, and says "oh they were on that episode, I am going to add it to Wikipedia". There is not proof that they made an appearance on the show, backed by a reliable third party source. Come to think of it, unless a reliable third party source reported it we should not even mention their appearance on the show. Might want to see WP:V. STATic message me! 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not original research. Fictional works such as books, movies and TV shows are their own primary sources for their content, including their plots and their credits. Please see WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, WP:BOOKPLOT, etc. The episodes cited in the reference are the sources that satisfy WP:V, just as the episodes that are cited for other material in the article, like most of the material on the recurring experts.

Secondary sources for content would only be required if the material is evaluative or analytical (i.e.: critics' reviews). Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I deleted the cameos because in my opinion it was fancruft trivia, not because it was OR. My main point is "who cares" if George Stephanopolous shows up...?!?!" The show isn't about the sellers, the show is about the buyers and the subject matter experts, and thus listing random "celebrities" who come on the show amounts to trivia in my mind and giving it ITS OWN SECTION is clearly overkill.

However, I would be fine with moving the entire sentence OUT OF its own section and spliced into the "Production history and format" section. This would lower its importance to the off-hand comment that I think is merited. This may clarify the discussion and/or open up a new line firestorm of new complaints. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Chumlee

How about adding Basketball shoes as an area of expertise for Chum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.123.159 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

I want to suggest adding a wikilink to the wiki page of Pawn Stars' Executive Producer Brent Montgomery in the following line. "Pawn Stars began with Brent Montgomery and Colby Gaines of Leftfield Pictures, who were struck by the array of eclectic and somewhat seedy pawn shops in Las Vegas during a 2008 weekend visit to the city."

Augustcjs (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Romney

... has not worked for Bauman Rare Books for 6 months or so. She has moved and now lives in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.136.51 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Warwick Stone,

Can you please add Warwick Stone to the list of recurring experts?? He has filmed more than 15 episodes beginning in season 12 and is still filming new ones. I can compile a list of the episodes if needed.

Warwick Stone, Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Curator, Rock & Roll Memorabilia expert, Rock Collector.

BethanySwain (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Bethany Swain Stone

Doc Phineas Kastle

@Lizoverton: started an article on Doc Phineas Kastle? except it needs a lot of work to conform with notability guidelines for this wiki.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This Article Needs a FINANCIALS Section

The article has scattered references to viewership and ratings, but what is the total gross revenue of the show since its inception? How much has it increased the income of the 4 main characters over their pawn shop salaries? What do they get (approximately) per episode? Union scale? Yes, contract deals are a private matter, but there MUST be some public information available, and possibly from the producers and marketers who sell the advertising.Starhistory22 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to add this information. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Rebecca Romney is no longer employed by Bauman Rare Books. She is currently a representative for Honey & Wax Books. Pmccuen (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

The show now uses a new art expert who should be added to the expert list, his name is Chad Sampson with Icon Fine Arts and he has been featured for the past 4 seasons or so. He is on the history channel website https://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/articles/experts and the shops website https://gspawn.com/the-experts/. 174.71.244.235 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Rumours of Cancellation

I believe that some people always claim that Pawn Stars has been cancelled. But are there any present unhelpful edits related to said rumour? Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request- Alex Cranmer - Military Collectibles and Antique Firearms Expert

Alex Cranmer has been the antique firearms and military collectibles expert on the show since 2015 and has appeared in over 40 episodes. Alex is the CEO of International Military Antiques. https://www.ima-usa.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Antiques

Alex is currently listed as an expert on Pawn Stars History Channel website and the Gold Silver and Pawn website, he is currently filming season 17. https://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/articles/experts https://gspawn.com/the-experts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranalex (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Number of seasons + episodes

Could someone correct the number of seasons and episodes in the infobox? 2001:888:0:109:0:0:0:99 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)