Talk:Real World (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Longest Running Reality Show?

The Real World is the longest running show on MTV as well as the longest running reality show ever on tv.

I thought that was COPS

From Renaldo-The other cast member's name is Jenna not Brooke. And no I didn't get it from that cheap site Tubescan.

Too much on Irene McGee

I think the criticism section places too much emphasis on Irene McGee. Anyone else agree? --Jeremy Butler 12:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That section could certainly use expansion, given the voluminous criticism directed at both reality tv in general, and The Real World in particular, but until someone adds such material, what are ya gonna do? I suggest that the next time they air The E! True Hollywood Story on the show, and some of that channel's other shows on reality television, that they tape it and relate some of the criticisms therein. Nightscream 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Miz

Why does this make no mention of Mike Mizanin also achieving success outside this show. He is the host of WWE's Friday Night Smackdown and took place in the "Tough Enough" tournament.

A lot of sites do that. I think it's because they may not be in the known orMizanin is ashamed that he left the Challeneges, where he got his start, to do something that he had pride for, but now, feels, he has nothing.

Series Premiere

The series premiere has been pushed up from October 10, 2006 to September 26th, 2006. The first episode is schedule for Tuesday, October 3, 2006.

199.80.117.24 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The season premiere is now November 22nd.

Coral Smith

Hi - the Coral Smith article has been subjected to some heated debate and need some work in terms of adding content. Any real world fans willing to lend a hand?

--Charlesknight 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - Drinking

Why is there no mention at all about drinking, getting drunk, or alcohol in this article? Filming the emotionally-charged behavior of wasted people is obviously a big part of the success and popularity of this show. I suggest adding a new heading of the 'Recurring themes' section to talk about some of the more extreme examples. I'm watching an episode right now where Davis says he wants to leave the house and move back home, because he is so embarrased about his drunken behavior last night. This is an important learning experience for him. Isn't that sort of thing worth mentioning in the article? Has there been an increase in the frequency of getting drunk on the show by season? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary84 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Recurring themes section

Please source it. It looks like a bunch of OR. Quadzilla99 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay Writer?

Can anyone verify this section that I removed?

"*According to a gay writer, Mr. Michael Thomas Ford, in his book "It's Not Mean if It's True", there's a lost season of the Real World San Francisco consisting of only gay cast with 7 plus 1 (later joined as one left midway through the production) strangers living in a restored Victorian house. Cast consists of: Geoff, 32 underwriter; Stephen, 25, bartender; Richard, 23, graphic designer; Timothy, 29, actor; Phillip, 30, lawyer; Mathew, very interesting surprising job; Chad, 20, frat boy; and Ryan, who later joined the show."

This just sounded weird to me, it was poorly written, and the person who submitted it back in January has only one contribution (this paragraph). I smell vandalism, however, I've been wrong before. Restore if legit. Flibbert 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Series ending claim refuted

In the opening paragraph of the article someone wrote that the 20th season would be the last. I just saw a clip on MTV's website where the creator of the show refuted this claim. So, I removed it from the wikipedia entry. Here is the clip if anyone wants to look into this: [1] --Chris Brennan 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Sydney REALLY the nineteenth?

There was a season between Sydney and Denver called Reunited: The Real World Las Vegas plus they advertised Sydney as the 20th since I can remember. I think they should fix that, So I did. You can check that and if I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

THE REAL WORLD: HOLLYWOOD REAL SEASON PREMIRE

On "Trim The Fat: The Gauntler 3 Reunion" the host announced that Hollywood will premire Wednesday April 16, 2008. Not May 21, 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.139.240 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey all, I was just passing through when I noticed that the infobox, while obviously there, isnt showing up. Glitch? My monitor? Wikihicup? Anyway, just FYI. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Firefox, and it shows up for me. Nightscream (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt work on the home computer either... hmm. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this article still protected? I realize it is only semi-protection, but there seems to have been no real vandalism in a month and it has been protected for 2 months now. There seems to be no discussion about protecting it either (although there was some persistent vandalism from an IP editor before it to justify), I don't think it warrants protection for 2 months. 66.177.175.115 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding International/National Destination

Can someone add a international/national destination chart on the main page next to it's season. It seems like a important piece of information. I'd do it myself, but I don't know all of the destinations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H3avySt0rm (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See Also

I believe the "see also" section should only contain shows and subjects directly related to The Real World. If we start to include every single show which parodies the show or is similar to it, we might as well give a list of 50 different reality shows. Hence, I think it's best to keep this list short. If you disagree, please discuss this here, and for now I am removing any links which are not directly related. Plastikspork (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These shows do not simply parody the Real World, but are spin-offs and even include the words Real World in their headings. If you remove the link again, you will be in violation of the three revert rule which is cause for a block. Also, please use the edit summary to explain reversions and not to just make orders like 'go to talk page if you want to add this', as editors don't have to go to the talk page every time they make an edit 65.31.103.28 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Plastikspork. How are the words "real world" in the title of Drawn Together and Surreal Life? Drawn Together is not a spin-off of The Real World. It's a parody of almost all reality TV, including The Real World, Big Brother, Survivor, Fear Factor, ... As for the surreal life, that show had challenges, something that the Real World does not have, so I would say it too is more a parody of Big Brother, with the difference that people are not voted out of the house. It's hard to say what to put on the list and what not to put on the list, but it seems like the article is already very long. I'm all for adding these links if enough other people agree. If anyone else has an opinion, feel free to discuss. 192.17.194.142 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more, I agree with IP:65.31.103.28 with regard to "The Surreal Life". A cast member from the Real World appeared on this show, and hence, I added it. Is this a suitable compromise? Others? 192.17.194.142 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Plastikspork (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policies/guidelines govern the use of the See Also section, but is it considered redundant if those shows are already mentioned in the Parodies section? Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Plastikspork (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, here [2] is where Wikipedia discusses the See Also section. Doesn't seem to have many rules on it. It does say as long as links are relevant that they can be added into the section. However, I didn't realize it was already in the article under a parody section directly above it, which is a good enough reason not to have it in the See Also section.

I agree. Plastikspork (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I notice you're an administrator. You may want to keep a watchful eye out on Plastiskspork. Clearly he has not read any of the policies of the See Also section but has stubbornly reverted constructive relevant info (with no reason in his edit summaries) as if rules are being broken or its vandalism. According to what I read, relevancy and whether or not material should be added is based on editor judgment and commonsense and the material I had was related. Despite this, Plastiskpork has consistently reverted the info and argued above that certain relevants things can't be added based on fears of the section becoming way too large if I understood him correctly. What he said made no sense as the section has very little in it. The user has been extremely hard to deal with, going so far as accusing me of violating the three revert rule on the administrative noticeboards which resulted in no block because he was mistaken. I also suspect 192.17.194.142 to be a sockpuppet of Plastikspork. 65.31.103.28 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about with regard to the "sockpuppet"? It seems like a compromise has been reached? Keep link to Surreal Life but no link to Drawn Together as it appears in parodies section directly above? Do you agree? Thanks for your feedback in the discussion! I will have to look into this sockpuppet thing. Plastikspork (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should focus on what your arguments and your opponents' counterarguments are, and how WP policy applies to them, and see what your opponent says, rather than making comments that stray close to being personal. Plastikspork is discussing things here with us (he's the one who started the discussion), and you were correct to point out what that policy page says insofar as the criteria for inclusion. I concede your point, which means that we have three people--you, me, and 192--who favor including that section. That's a rough consensus, and unless more people chime in against it, that should pretty much decided it. But making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence that excludes other explanations is not in keeping with the WP:AGF and WP:Civility policies. It's especially questionable, given that User:192 changed his mind and agreed with you.

And apropos of nothing, I encourage you to sign in with an account. It helps addressing others in discussions like this when they have a username.

Plastikspork, I notice you conceding that a consensus has been reached. Are you still against that section? Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, My personal opinion is that there are already links to both "Surreal Life" and "Drawn Together" in other sections of the article. For that reason, I feel that the section should be kept to only directly related links like MTV, ... However, I am always willing to compromise or listen to others, so I would be willing to go with having just the additional link to "Surreal Life" in there if that's what everyone else thinks. I will refrain from making any edits on that section until a consensus has been reached. It seems to me that the majority opinion is to keep "Drawn Together" off the See Also list, but include "Surreal Life". If that's the majority opinion, let's go with that. Just to be clear, I am not against the "See Also" section, just against adding unnecessary links to it. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Having or not having the section was never the issue. The issue here is about the inclusion of Drawn Together and Surreal Life Nightscream. Anyways, decision has been made. Case closed! 65.31.103.28 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacements

The producers or the casting director casts them not the roommates. However, San Diego and San Franscisco got a say.66.157.30.183 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a WP:RS? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Real World DC

Please add Washington, DC as the next location of the Real World season 23: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Real-World-DC-MTV-makes-it-official-47531542.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpanger (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Self Mutilation - a life threatening illness?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound biased here, but I don't see how that's a life threatening illness. It might be a mental illness, but I don't see how that's relevant enough to count as a life-threatening illness, which is why I had removed it earlier, but then I got a warning. 69.112.221.166 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some context? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He/she's referring to my inclusion of Ayiiia's condition in the Cancun season. Yes, mental illness indeed a type of illness, and self-mutilation is obviously harmful and potentially deadly, and is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I don't see how arguing that cutting oneself until they are bloody is not potentially life-threatening. Ayiia event received therapy for it, and filmed a public service announcement for it. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I understand that, but she was clearly not doing it because she wanted to commit suicide, she was obviously only doing it for attention. 69.112.221.166 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about doing it to commit suicide. The issue, if I understood the point of your initial post correctly, was whether it is life-threatening. It is. As for her doing it for attention, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but we don't include editor opinions in articles. (Please see WP:NPOV.) Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RW/RR Challenges

I'm not sure where to put this question, but it refers to all the RW pages so I figured I would put it here. On each page, under Cast, there's a column to the right of the cast chart for each RW/RR Challenge that the castmember has appeared on, and a while back I saw a column to the right of it for "Challenges Won". I was just wondering where that column went since it provides useful and summarized info especially if a castmember is one that's been on seven or eight Challenges? Is it possible that we could re-add this column? Wikiguy09 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit crowded to add another column. There is the RW/RR Challenge page which summarizes this information for frequent competitors. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What about under the "After Filming" part of the page, why not make a new chart so it would be less crowded?

Example for RW: Sydney

Cast Member	RW/RR Challenges	Challenges Won
Cohutta Lee Grindstaff	The Island, The Ruins	None
Dunbar Flinn	The Island, The Duel 2, The Ruins	None
Isaac Stout	The Duel 2	None
KellyAnne Judd	The Island, The Ruins	None
Parisa Montazaran	-	-
Shauvon Torres	The Duel 2, The Ruins	None
Trisha Cummings	-	-
Ashli Robson	The Island	None

Wikiguy09 (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that such a table pertains more to the Challenges articles than to the RW season articles, which should focus on their time on TRW. Nightscream (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to provide a link to the RW/RR Challenge article, but we should probably not expand the RW articles to include a bunch of text about the RW/RR challenge. That information is best summarized on the RW/RR page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see why you think that having this chart would disrupt the main article, but unless we create new Wikipedia pages for every contestant, there's no place to summarize all the information. As for your opinion that this chart is distracting viewers from the main article, I kindly disagree. Since it's at the bottom of the article in the "After Filming" section, (and indeed these shows occured "after filming") it would seem to just give the viewer further information about what their favorite "Real Worlders" are up to now. Wikiguy09 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of "disrupting" the main article, it's a matter of relevance. An article on a given season should only pertain to that season. Any tangental information related only more remotely to it should be kept to a minimum, which the current After filming sections are. Including an entire new set of tables on the Challenges has nothing to do with the seasons. As for where to summarize this, well, there's no reason to assume that it has to be. But if you insist on doing so, I'd suggest that it should be done in a more relevant article, since putting it in the season articles may violate WP:Trivia. Information on contestants' Challenge history can be placed in the main Challenge article, where it would be more directly pertinent. It would not only summarize it, but do so for the entire accumulated casts of all the seasons. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to expect to find a detailed summary of a RW/RR Challenge on the page for a RW article. This information is best summarized on the RW/RR challenge page, not in the RW article. If a contestant is notable enough to have his/her own article, then there can be some additional summary there, but otherwise it's bordering on WP:COATRACK and WP:TRIVIA. It was fine when we were providing related links, to help guide the reader to related articles, but to add lengthy summaries of what happened on the subsequent challenge seems excessive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And btw, Wikiguy, while I admire all the hard work you're putting into the articles (kudos!), just so you know, it is not considered appropriate to continue making edits that form a point of dispute when a discussion on that dispute is still ongoing. Nightscream (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, sorry about that. Well I think that the RW/RR Challenge articles summarize well enough with the many charts & ep. summaries etc., but it seems the problem was with the "Challenge History" part of the table: If I just remove that part, would the table be appropriate?Wikiguy09 (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should dispense with the entire section from the RW season articles. You could put it in the Challenge articles, though there's also the issue that you're not citing episodes or any other sources for the information you're adding. Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bios

I noticed that on the article for the Las Vegas season, it has a list of the cast, their ages, etc. but it doesn't have brief biographies of them like the other seasons. Also, I noticed that mainly only the more recent seasons (Sydney and forward) have a lot written down in the bios, and most of the seasons before that (minus one or two seasons) only have like 2-5 lines written about each housemate. Can we expand this? 69.112.221.166 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The thing is, you have to make sure that you follow the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV). The reason I was able to beef up the recent articles is because I took it upon myself to pay close attention to the episodes and other reliable sources at the time they were being produced and first aired. I was also able to do this for the San Francisco and Philadelphia seasons, because for a time, MTV.com had videos or bios on their site for those as well. But right now I don't think they have any info for the other seasons, which is why I haven't been able to do this to the same degree with the other seasons. But if you can find reliable sources, be my guest. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But I've only been watching (regularly) since the Brooklyn season, so I've only seen people from before it on challenges and stuff, so I don't have and information about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.221.166 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble editing

On the Cancun page, I'm trying to put the "starring" in the info box, but it says it's already there when I edit, but it's not seen. Can someone tell me how to do it, or do it for me? Arilicious (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really weird. I looked at the Brooklyn Infobox to compare them, and they're the same. No mistakes that I could see. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Vacations and Work

Should we say that they haven't been going on cast vacations a the for the past two seasons, and in the Brooklyn, DC, and now probably Back to NOLA season, they aren't working, yet they still did in Cancun? Should that be in here? Arilicious (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the BTNO cast is indeed going to be given a season assignment involving Katrina relief (see the Assignment section in that article), but I'm not 100% positive. Some mention of the group trip could be mentioned in the Format and structure section, I guess. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Drugs and Alcohol

I don't know if this was the best thing add, but I added a section about this, since this does appear to be a recurring theme, and I moved part of the "Life Threatening Illnesses" section to this, since they related more to this then to the latter. If anyone has any problems, you can simply just change it. Arilicious (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas

The Real World is going back to Sin City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.139.78 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. And welcome to Wikipedia. I left a message on your IP's talk page regarding the Verifiability policy. Also, please sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, where did you here that, and can you maybe give a source? Arilicious (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally confirmed by vevmo (http://vevmo.com/f254/the-real-world-back-to-las-5183/) can it be added now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.143.41 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

San Diego

RealityBlured.com reports that the 26th season will return to San Deiago.[3] The site is authored by Andy Dehnart and is generally reliable. It has been quoted in publications such as the Los Angeles Times [4] and Entertainment Weekly. Though the report goes by forum postings on Vevmo (which have been right about the previous seasons). I've added it to the lead section but just realized that it could be challenge, so wanted to start a discussion. —Mike Allen 03:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

The current "Parodies, derivatives, and references" section is unnecessarily large and contains trivial and non-notable entries. I would propose removing the following:

• The details of Chapelle's sketch
• "Morality Bites"
• She's All That
• Afterlife
• "My Hero"

Thoughts or comments? Some of the remaining material will need to be sourced, of course. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the references to the Nintendo commercial and MTV Canada trailer should go, because they're both unsourced, and in the case of the latter, I don't think self-references count, since that's circular.

But the Charmed, Scrubs and She's All That references help illustrate the show's influence. What criteria do you propose by which they should be removed? Why are the references in other films and TV shows relevant, but not these? Nightscream (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between illustrating the show's influence and including every single example of the show being used in other media. The Charmed mention, for example, is a throwaway detail, not a significant mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm asking you how do you propose distinguishing between the two. Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, one obvious criterion would be discussion in reliable secondary sources. Got any? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not needed for the content of works such as movies and TV shows, per WP:SECONDARY/WP:TVPLOT/WP:FILMPLOT. Besides are there are secondary sources for any of the ones you wish to keep? Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If we were discussing a plot section, you'd be right, but secondary sources are needed to prove notability. You're absolutely right about the lack of sources for the rest, though - I've amended the article accordingly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please do not revert the article during a dispute resolution discussion. Doing so constitutes edit warring.

Second, notability is not an issue here. It's a question of the show's influence. I don't think secondary sources are required for mentions in popular culture to illustrate this. Even if they were, other TV shows or movies referencing The Real World arguably are "secondary", because they're separate works independent of The Real World. A primary source in this case would be The Real World or MTV referencing itself, which is why I removed that passage that actually mentioned an MTV parody of the show. Nightscream (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert, you did; please don't accuse me of things I didn't do, particularly with unnecessary bolding. You brought up what I felt to be a valid point, and as it seemed we agreed on that point, I acted on it. As you now seem to be indicating that you disagree, perhaps it would help if you clarified your position.

The purpose of a "Popular culture" or analogous section is to demonstrate significant influences on popular culture. Again, as we don't want to include every single mention of the show ever, determining significance requires reliable secondary sources, without which we risk engaging in OR/ILIKEIT. Other TV shows or movies are independent of this show, but discussing them in terms of their demonstrating the significant influence of this show requires that we have secondary sources indicating their significance. Alternatively, what would you consider a policy-compliant method of determining what should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When two people disagree on some editorial point, they should discuss the matter, and continuing editing the disputed portion of the article to bring it in line with their position. Doing so is edit warring. You did that when you made this edit. So let's dispense with the "No, I didn't, you did" approach, okay? The bottom line is, if we're disagreeing on that matter, we don't edit the material until we've resolved the matter.

I don't know if there is a specific policy or guideline regarding Popular culture or Influence sections, which is why this seems to be a fuzzy, subjective area. Notability does not apply, because that only applies to the article's topic itself, specifically, whether it merits one. I've already requested that other editors involved with Reality TV chime in here, and put a similar notice on the Wikiproject Television talk page. Let's wait a bit, and if no one responds, I'll request 30. How do you feel about that? Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I felt we had resolved the matter, given that we seemed to agree. Perhaps you should be more clear in your written communication. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I would like to hear your answer to my question: what policy-compliant criteria do you suggest we use to determine what should be included in this section? I also feel that it might be helpful for you to take a look at WP:IPC, which, though an essay, has some useful guidance on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I just answered your question. It's the first sentence of the last paragraph of my last message to you above. Didn't you read it?

As for that essay, good read. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it. It doesn't offer an alternative opinion, so it seems that sourcing is the only method of determining what stays and what goes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I'll request 3O. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you disagree, but you've not presented a viable alternative. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My position is that the works you think should be removed from the section should stay. Your position is that should not. That has already been established by our statements here in this discussion. Since there is no clear policy or guideline on this, or at least none with an unambiguous application/interpretation that we can both agree on, the proper course of action is to solicit opinions from others in order to resolve our disagreement. "You have no viable alternative" is just self-serving spin and rhetoric, and another example of the antagonistic tone your seem to take when others disagree with you. We'll wait and see what others have to say on this. Nightscream (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You asked me to present criteria by which to determine what stays and what goes, and I have done so. I've asked you to do the same, and you have not. My statement was thus entirely accurate. I would request that you refrain from unnecessarily inflammatory commentary, as it is not conducive to discussion. Nikkimaria (talk)

There is nothing "inflammatory" about expressing what I observe in your behavior, and from the start, I have observed a dearth of civility, or any sense of compromise or even the barest spirit of collaboration or friendliness in your approach to disputes. I find you to be incivil, and manipulative, and this includes both your self-justifying rationale for edit-warring, and this latest spin of yours. That's not inflammatory, it's just my observation. Criticism of one's behavior, in and of itself, is not "inflammatory", simply because you do not like it.

I asked you for criteria for inclusion/exclusion because you were the one who decided to remove some works from the section, and not others, and without explaining how the former is indicated by WP policies or guidelines, and the latter is not. In other words, I was asking you for the criteria by which you decided that some merited inclusion and others did not. I, on other the hand, did not do this. My position is that all those works should remain because they all go to the show's influence, so I don't have to explain any cherry-picking on my part.

(Unless you're talking about the Nintendo and MTV Canada passages. I assume you're not talking about those, but if you are, I provided my rationale in my first message at the top of this discussion: The MTV Canada thing would be a self-reference, and the Nintendo bit was unsourced.)

Also, please do not break up my messages by inserting portions of your responses inside them. It makes it more difficult for me to keep track of which messages are mine at a glance, and it's easy and tidier to keep them all in one piece. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and calm down. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I can offer my humble opinion, I would say that the list as it stands now is too long. I would suggest that any items that are not supported by secondary references be removed. That should be a good standard to remove the trival ones. Eomund (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

All the ones on the list are supported by primary references, with the exception of two near the bottom. By that criterion 20 of the 22 ones listed would be removed, bringing the list down to two. Do you think that's reasonable? Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Are secondary sources available that are not currently included? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Updating 'Denver' article

The page about The Real World: Denver (a long with a lot of seasons) do not have any episode descriptions. I've been watching the episodes online, and I am adding episode descriptions. Although I have only added 3 so far, (mainly because that's how many episodes I've seen) I aim to finish them as soon as I can. Please do not delete them from the page, I am working very hard on them. Thank you. Arilicious (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)