Talk:Smash Lab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

New[edit]

This is a new show. I will expand the article as more information becomes available. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode 1[edit]

In this short article, episode 1 is described twice. One time as involving crash barriers in a highway, and the next as dealing Rhino Linings. The episode on December 26, 2007 involves Rhino Liners, but is it actually considered Episode 1? Amazingracer (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's episode 1. I forgot to put the source in the article, so I just added it now. It's also here. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

The criticism is unsourced,(I added the note, but wasn't signed in,oops) and I fail to see how its product placement. Rhino Liner aside, the average consumer is not going to be buying concrete to stop a speeding car or trying to wrap airplanes in Kevlar. They just seem to be taking stuff thats used everyday and taking it to the extreme. Amazingracer (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this show is an attempt to copy Mythbusters. But they forgot to give it any personality, charm, or sense of fun. I love Mythbusters, but I think this new show is absolutely horrible. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the criticism from Discovery Channel's forum for the show. Couple of threads on how bad of a Mythbuster ripoff or it's just a Rhino Liner product placement. The link is to the thread with the most post. Xraymind (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that that link. It comes in very handy for sourcing the criticsim of the show. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with Wikipedia, every article has a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. When people read the article, that is the first thing that they go to, and only get an opinion on the topic instead of the facts. What is the point of citing a message board on Discovery Channel's website as an accurate depiction of what people think of the show. The show came out yesterday and there is nothing in this article about the cast, the idea, etc, just "Criticism" from a few people who post to a message board. This article is needs to be NPOV.Butters7 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to the article. That's what wikipedia is all about! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Well, I added a section called "Praise of the show." Unfortunatley, I was unable to find any information to put in the section! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is essential, but you can't exclude criticism just because people will read it first. If they're going to skip straight to that section, that's their choice. Ilikefood (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section has been removed. Besides the weasel words, WP:OR, and the fact that per WP:RS, forums do not count as reliable sources. They have been removed. Amazingracer (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section has been removed. AND NOW IT'S BACK. Seriously, who the flaming hades keeps trying to shill for this program by deleting all the content? Yes, a lot of the content is negative. That's because of the nature of the show itself. Removing the criticism of the show basically means that you're removing the very thing that makes it worthy of a WikiPedia entry.
You have completely missed the point. None of the stuff in the criticism section is sourced, and the sources that were provided are unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a vent for people to post their opinions on the show. Unless anyone can find REAL sources for the criticism, it needs to go. This is NOT what makes it worthy of an article. AND do not delete my talk entries.Amazingracer (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Criticism section has been re-removed. It has been made very clear that forums do not count as a source. If negative reviews from established critical sources is found, this would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.142.14 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem we have here is that everything that's said in the Criticism section is true - but:
  1. It's phrased very badly and unencylopedically.
  2. It's unsourced. It's occasionally possible to turn a blind eye to unsourced statements - but not when they are such controversial statements. References to blogs and forums are explicitly disallowed.
We aren't here to express our opinions. We can't say "this is crap" - but we can say "so-and-so said that this is crap". So someone has to undertake to find some reviews of the show in places like newspapers and magazines. Then you can say "John Doe, the respected TV reviewer, said of the show "...lots of nasty things..." in his review for such-and-such magazine on such-and-such date[12].".
So I think we should simply delete this section UNTIL someone can come up with some solid referenced proof that the show is crap. (And *boy* did it stink!) SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Steve, I agree the criticism should be there if it exists in a reliable source. I am by no means trying to defend the show (It wasn't all that great, IMHO), but to keep random people from simply stating their opinions are fact because of a forum post. Amazingracer (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism has been re-added in. The new criticism section is based more on information directly from the two episodes available. However, as this is a new show, it will be some time before any sort of printed newspaper or journal reviews it. The mission of our encyclopedia is to provide the best information available on the topic. Until more reliable sources appear, forum posts should be considered acceptable for information about how viewers feel about the show, and the fact that these opinions (not facts) are viewers opinions has been noted and cited. Simply removing the criticism section says nothing about the reception of the show, and is in no way giving the best available information available. Over time, the forum posts can be replaced with more credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.103.99 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have re-removed the criticism section. WP:V (please go and read it) specifically says that you can't use "forum" systems as references or "External links" for Wikipedia articles: "...self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." When you remove those unacceptable sources you have a totally unreferenced section - which, because of it's controversial nature, should certainly not be left in the Encyclopedia. Again, per WP:V : "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." - note that..."editor who adds or restores material" (that's you...not me) is responsible for finding "a reliable, published source" and "forum postings" are "largely not acceptable". WP:V is a "policy" - not just a guideline - you are required to follow it. I think the rules are quite clear.
There is little urgency here - Wikipedia isn't here to review TV shows. We are here merely to report the facts that are independently verifiable (per WP:V). Let's wait until we can point to specific criticism in the press - then we may consider reinstating this section of the article. Saying nothing about the reception of the show is just fine when nothing on which we're allowed to rely for information has yet been said about it. Remember - we are not here (as editors) to write about how we feel or how we see people in a forum system feeling. We are here to report facts from acceptable sources. So until there is something "out there" that passes the WP:V test - then there are no facts to report.
Meanwhile - I saw another episode - and it still stinks to an unholy degree. Surely there must be a published review somewhere. SteveBaker (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Criticism has been re-readded in. At least half of the criticism section contains direct analysis of the show's contents, which should be regarded as fact and not opinion. While offhandedly dismissing all forum posts calls into question many articles citing internet news, including Linus Torvalds and Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate (both cite forum and mailing lists), reverting the entire article misses the point of the criticism. If someone has a problem with the forum posts, edit them out and leave the fact, not revert the entire article.
I have reverted it again per WP:V. Forums are not a reliable source and cannot be used under any circumstances, this is policy and the so called 'criticism' remians a personal view and not appropriate. Please also see WP:N on how to create a balanced article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
One man's "direct analysis" is another man's "original research" ("analysis" without solidly referenced facts violates WP:NOR). Just because there are other articles that incorrectly violate WP:V by using forums as references doesn't make it right. Please bear in mind - it's not just me saying this - it's a core Wikipedia policy. Once again - I ask that you please read WP:V - it is absolutely clear on this matter. Please let's not turn this into an edit war, because the result will surely be that the article gets semi-protected and then you won't be able to edit it AT ALL because you do not appear to have a user account in good standing. Replacing this section in CLEAR violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies and after several warnings is considered disruptive editing - and that won't go uncontested. Your chances of getting this section to remain in the article for any amount of time without fully acceptable references are ZERO, Edit warring over it is just a waste of your time and ours. SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

This article NPOV, and many unsourced statements, including weasel words, and WP:OR. I made approriate changes to rectify the problem, but one editor has decided to continue to revert changes. If you would like to rework the section and base it on sourced facts, feel free to. But basing a section on discussion board posting is frowned upon. Amazingracer (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet since anyone can edit wikipedia to make it so it sounds like your going to have a hard time keeping it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.166.232 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really - the number of people who agree with the guidelines and want a neutral encyclopedia by far exceed those who want (for whatever reason) to push their own agenda. Sooner or later the article will settle down into a reasonable style. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion, I didn't get a sense that the NPOV issue has been resolved, so I've tagged the article. It is in general not up to quality standards, and I think that this NPOV debate has stalled further development. Thoughts? Kialari (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, i don't see any POV issue with the article at all. It only lists descriptive facts about the show, there is barely any POV there at all. It's fair to say the article could do with work but there is no real issue with POV, so i assume this was a misunderstanding about what NPOV policy is about. --neonwhite user page talk 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, what I should have added was POV-check. The point I was making is that the repeated conflict about NPOV is preventing further development, since it's become obvious that an edit-war is going to prevent anything from changing. I won't bother with the POV check tag, I'll let one of you with something vested deal with it if you're interested. I happened upon the article by browsing. Kialari (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Which edit war are you referring to? --neonwhite user page talk 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism Section[edit]

  • All text must be sourced. That's a core policy. Forums are not a verifiable source, opinions of random poster on a forum are of no importance. If it continues to be added without discussion, consider posting a warning on the talk page of the user doing it. --neonwhite user page talk 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can see in the above talk, I have explained this. In my removal of the content, I point to the posts here. It has mainly been anon IPs doing the reverts, but I will start issuing warnings. Thanks for the advice. Amazingracer (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's anon IP's then i suggest requesting semi-protection. --neonwhite user page talk 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a minute - you have this entirely the wrong way around...look at the history for Jan 1st. The person who (correctly IMHO) removed the criticism section was an anon-IP (71.196.142.14). The person who put it back again was a logged-in user (Niyant) who (in good faith) interpreted the removal of a large percentage of the article as vandalism. That user happens to be fairly new to Wikipedia - and thought she was doing the right thing by protecting the article from large-scale blanking....it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption because 71.196.142.14 didn't leave an edit summary. The reason I stopped by is that I'm helping Niyant to learn the ropes via the adopt-a-user program - so it won't happen again. Semi-protecting the article wouldn't have helped that situation...in fact, in the case of what happened on Jan 1st, it would have made matters worse! SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, admins dont generally semi-protect if they can see productive edits by ips. --neonwhite user page talk 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea at this time I dont really see a need for protection. The page hasnt been changed since my last revision, so it should be fine. Amazingracer (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Protection of this page was requested and declined. RFPP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talkcontribs) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism (again)[edit]

Would it be out of line to perhaps say that there has been a widespread dislike for the show according to its userboard? This would not be citing individuals directly, but rather using the concensus on that board as the basis for a cite. We have to put something, because when ya get right down to it, people do dislike this show and there are valid problems with the concept and creation. Boydannie (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No - that would not be alright. The 'userboard' is a forum system and those are EXPLICITLY banned as references in WP:V. You can say anything you like (within reason) PROVIDING that you have a source for it. WP:V lays out very clearly what is and what is not a valid source. Sadly, Forums and Blogs are NOT ALLOWED! So if you can find some reliable source (say a web site that has TV reviews written by reputable reviewers - or a magazine or newspaper that has reviewed the show) - then you can absolutely report what that says. But you CAN'T report what someone posted to a blog or a forum because that person (or those persons) could be representatives of their competitiors or they could be random people who happen to hate the producer. Perhaps 10,000,000 people watched the show and 9,999,950 of them loved it to death and the remaining 50 went to the forum and said that they hated it...or...who knows what? So blogs and forums are OUT - we need reputable reviewers with a known track record.
You're right that the show was crap (again!) - and I'm sure a lot of other people disliked it too - but without a proper reference for that fact, we can't say so. I'd very much like to see something written about that - but unreferenced commentary is not allowed and blogs and forums are not valid references - so if you wrote something like that, I'd be forced to revert it.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vp Asks for Criticism[edit]

Hey, could this source be sited as criticism to the show, as it s written by the Discovery VP overseeing the show, and i see this also as an open admission to how crappy this show is. http://blogs.discovery.com/smash_lab/2008/01/an-open-letter.html

LordFransie (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, blogs and forums are not verifiable even if it did actually state what you are claiming. See WP:V and WP:SYN. --neonwhite user page talk 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, this is the posting by the VP, not a letter that a random joe posted. This is also on the official discovery site, which you couldn't post on unless you were an official at discovery. can you just check the source for me, as i am new, but I believe that this would be a verifiable source.LordFransie (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are largely not verifiable sources unless we know for sure they are subject to editorial control. see WP:SPS. The source does not say what you are claiming. It is merely a message asking for feedback. I don't see what use it would be to this article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the hassle then, i'm still new. LordFransie (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a LOT of criticism about the show. While I understand Neon white's concerns about sources, there should definitely be a section on criticism of the show. This article is not fair and balanced without such a section. Bob238 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well, BUT can you source it? Everyone keeps saying the show has been critized, blah, blah, blah, fine then source the criticism and be done with it. So far the only source that people keep providing are the Discovery Channel forums, and that is NOT a source. So far there are no NPOV problems with the article because there is no extreme praise for the show either. If you want a criticism section though you have to source it. Amazingracer (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LordFransie was right about the show being percieved as crappy... I read the comments on that page and out of possibly 50+ comments, there was not a single comment praising the show! Ilikefood (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


It's funny... This show is bad enough to draw widespread (albeit unsourced) criticism, but not bad enough that anyone's written a real review of it... Til that happens, though, there's no justification to including such a section. -Juansmith (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no real evidence of "widespread" criticism. --neonwhite user page talk 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's one article from a daily newspaper. Does it count? If not, who are the mighty Wikigods who judge the credibility of news outlets? http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/03/11/DiversionColumn/Tv.Show.Has.Long.Way.To.Go.To.Catch.Bank.Robbers-3262342.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.21.16.1 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Nearly As Bad As The Show[edit]

Can't anyone who cares enough about this show even muster up the energy to write a decent article? I couldn't care less, so I won't be improving, just complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.166.151 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

why bother? It won't last past this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.10.48 (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why even bother complaining in the first place?Amazingracer (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it's worth complaining about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.71.239 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh god... looks like there's a second season! What are the Discovery execs thinking?! 26 July, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaperman (talkcontribs)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that some people dislike Smash Lab because they don't laugh at all (or show much personality)? (unlike Mythbusters). Ilikefood (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a forum. Wikipedia is not a forum - Keep the discussion relevant for the improvement of the article. Thanks--James Bond (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism should be added[edit]

Many argue that this show is terrible.

Would it be acceptable to write in the article, "Posters on Discovery Channel's blogs <ref>link to blogs</ref> have extensively criticized the show."? --Bowlhover (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably. Ilikefood (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

14th episode?[edit]

Somebody keeps adding a 14th episode, but the link to the Discovery site shows only two repeats on April 19, and no more airings within a month. Maybe it's finally being put out of it's misery. Of all the shows, only the magnetically braked escape seems remotely usable in the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyross (talkcontribs) 12:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alex Weprin of broadcastingcable.com reports that Smash Lab has been granted a second season. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1380000138/post/940024694.html
Is it a notable source? Ilikefood (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I, lacking the title of Wikigod, am unworthy to make that judgment. I humbly defer to those on high to grace us with their all-knowing and righteous judgment of "notability."
I found a link on the Discovery Communications press release page mentioning it as a returning series for the 08-09 season. I added it to the article. Andyross (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Production company should be cited[edit]

See above --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Catch-22[edit]

This requirement for citation of claims has no application when applied to areas of opinion. That is what the discussion section is for, the main page is for the fact-checkable areas. Unfortunately you can't wrap the universe into a neat little box and label everything just because you want it to be that way. There are so few people that think this show is fantastic, that they aren't statistically significant enough to justify removal of a criticism section. We aren't talking about a scientifically verifiable subject here, we are talking about a bad show, and no double-blind study will ever exist to shed light on this. "Professional" reviews are simply opinions with window dressings. Just because someone is famous does not make their opinion more valid on subjects such as this.

Basically the requirement for citations is impossible to substantiate because of the nature of the material covered. Instead of parading wiki-rulebooks around, maybe it would be more helpful to simply identify that the wiki-rules need to be refined for areas such as this.

I love standards, but trying to apply them in areas where they aren't relevant is a fools errand. It is also disingenuous to omit such a widely accepted opinion, even if the view is invalid. The fact that a position is popular is enough to at minimum concede it's very existence. Such is the case for racism, antisemitism, and misogynistic tendencies. They exist, they are widely viewed as wrong, and they are opinions worth noting in spite of their popular invalidity. Additionally, the reason people are offended by this show is because even a layperson can see that it is not conducted in a valid scientific way. Do we need to list specific instances, which can be verified by watching the show, where they jump to conclusions or fail to adhere to widely accepted scientific standards? Will we then invalidate the finding just because it's regular people pointing out the facts?

If the rules don't allow for such a widely held viewpoint on a non-scientific subject to be mentioned, then it's the rules that need refining. In science there are no unfalsifiable positions, and when there is a lack of definitive proof, the leading hypothesis need to be listed for consideration until a valid theory is reached. Please don't let rabid adherence to the letter of the law blind you from why the laws exist in the first place. Wikipedia is good, please help it be better by making it better, not acting like a computer and adhering to a limited if-then-else mentality.

We can do better, so lets try to do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin0641 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately this article has apparently become the pet project of some irrational fans of the show and so, while they allow dissent on the discussion page, they fervently remove it from the article content. As you can see from the article history and discussion section, any appeal to stop this falls upon blind eyes. The second season may generate enough interest to start yet another edit-war, but ultimately this article won't improve unless someone is willing to deal with its guardians. The majority of us who have attempted to improve it obviously don't have anything vested beyond mild academic interest. The show and this article aren't urgently important, and so rather than waste the energy the issue has repeatedly been simply dropped. Kialari (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I found one![edit]

I found some critism that is a CREDIBLE SOURCE. *gasps from the Wikigods*

http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/03/11/DiversionColumn/Tv.Show.Has.Long.Way.To.Go.To.Catch.Bank.Robbers-3262342.shtml

It's a NEWSPAPER. CREDIBLE. I'm posting it.

67.166.57.119 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Haha, that one ^ up there ^ was me. Forgot to log in! I really did post the criticism section, too. It's perfectly okay and sourced. YelloCello (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section[edit]

This crap needs to be reworked. That line that stated bluntly why the show was supposedly canceled was obvious bullshit. I'm sure there are many negative comments about the show on the internet. Great. Good job. Super duper. But saying that does nothing for the article and is being falsely represented here as either expert or consensus. I could just as well say that there were many positive comments about the show and quote one of the positive reviews. This crap is just shoehorning someone's opinion into the article. Since bias apparently means something around here, I actually hated the show even though I'm defending such a terrible wiki. Whoever wrote this article must have also written the show.207.118.34.63 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tense[edit]

Shouldn't the article be in past tense, as the Original Run section implies it ended in May 2009 or is there a question over it being picked up?Autarch (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smash Lab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)