Talk:MythBusters

For the archive of this talk page, see Talk:MythBusters/archive1

How does MythBusters get their ideas?

Mostly from common urban myths and questions from viewers. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if someone adds the word "proven" or "disproven" alongside with each myth on the list? --SunTzu2 13:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Would spoil the show somewhat. I explained the outcome of their attempt on the Alcatraz escape myth on the Alcatraz Island page, but it was relevant. It could also encourage others to list every single myth they put to the test. Besides, some myths would need the scientific explanations given in the show mentioned as well, simply labelling them as proven or disproven would not be sufficient.--DooMDrat 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since it's possible to scientifically disprove something, hardly ever possible to prove something, the language would be misleading. --BartBee 02:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well we could put a Spoiler warning and move all the myths tested to the bottom of the article. We could state the testing of a myth in more ambiguous terms then "proven" or disproved" such as "verified" ,"busted", ect. We could briefly state the result of a test in one sentence. --BerserkerBen 16:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The show's not purely scientifc, since they aren't doing repeated trials of their experiments. And they don't always create a good control group on their show. --Madchester July 7, 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Actually, they do try to make the experiments as scientific as possible, but the limits of TV (specifically time limits) means that they can't show all the extra groundwork or repeat tests they do. --VederJuda 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the show, they usually label them "busted," "plausible," or "confirmed." Maybe someone could link to a site that lists the myths and their outcomes (and of course tag the link with a spoiler warning)? Win777 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should have talked about the Jaws myths in where it is or label it.

Could you explain further?--DooMDrat 13:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article could use a bit of restructuring, as the table of contents is more than halfway though. --Ignignot 19:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling. Grammar. We've already been through these things. The myths should be phrased as statements, not questions. Make sure your spelling is right, ESPECIALLY when making links or you just create dead links.

And please, for the love of god, make sure about the confirmation status before entering it! I've had to clean up three false "confirmed" or "busted" mentions after reviewing the episodes in question! Existentializer 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First guys i think we have all done a really good job in reorganising and rephrasing all the "myths tested" section. I would also like to clarify that in the bullet replacing the car fuse myth on the programme they tested whether it could happen in a normal car, and found this to be impossible. They then tested whether it was possible with higher gauge/capacity wire which would never be found in a car. This was when the bullet penetrated the passenger compartment, therefore the overall conclusion was Busted on this one although they did make the comment that it was "waiting to happen". Gfad1 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they replaced it with the possible wiring the current could run through if the car were having other electrical problems which may have been the reason the original fuse would have burned out. Never at any point did they replace the wiring with something it could not conceivably have run through. I went back and rewatched the episode to check. The verdict was "Plausible."

Clearly you didn't rewatch the episode as i only saw it the other day and it definately said busted as i remember being suprised that they said busted rather than plausible. Maybe we can let the people at the fansite have the final word. This clearly says MYTH BUSTED [1]Gfad1 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the wikipedia admins decided to propose the Season 4 page for deletion. Please take part in Talk:MythBusters_episodes:_Season_4 and let's see if we can get that straigtened out. ---Thoughtfix 07:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the links to the Build Team members keep getting deleted. That makes sense, since they've been deemed not notable enough for an article.

Earlier today, a link was created to karibyron.com, then quickly reverted. I don't understand why this was so, given that a similar external link (to Robert Lee's page, in the first paragraph) remains on the page.

Is this consistent? Neither Lee nor Byron have Wikipedia articles, and both have external promotional sites - why should one be favoured over the other? - Captainmax 01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the link to Lee's sight, and have now removed it. Both Byron's and Lee's sight are listed in the external links section. I felt it was redundant to link in the article, and because I beleive it is faux pas to have external links in an article. Kari Byron was once an article, but it was deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron, then redirected here. Does that clear it up? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, that looks about right. Captainmax

Why are the names Kari and Tory still linked to their respective, yet deleted, pages? They just link back to the main MB page. If we are not going to have pages for them, why do we still have the links? Also, reading over the deletion vote page for Kari, I have to wonder why a random "big-bust" model gets a page (a la Maria Swan) but television personalities like Kari and Tory, who arguably have contributed a bit more to the entertainment industry, are frowned upon?

It looks like someone changed the layout of the names, and deleted my comment asking that people discuss the issue here before linking the names. Someone later linked the names. I will delink, and add back the comment. The thing is, there is very little you could write about them. If you can find info that makes for a better article than "Kari Byron is an artist living in San Francisco, and is on MythBusters", try recreating the article. As for the model you linked to, someone created that only a few weeks ago, and it looks quite POV. It will likely be cleaned up or deleted before long.--Drat (Talk) 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Kari, Tori, and Grant should have their own full pages because they're active and recurring cast roles with their own histories and contributions. However, there should be a seperate Mythbusters/Additional_Cast page that should include:

• Scottie Chapman
• Christine Chamberlain
• Heather Joseph-Witham (Folklorist)
• Robert Lee (Narrator)
• Buster

• Eric Gates (Rocketry expert / JATO car, Swing 360, Confederate rocket revisit)
• Frank Doyle (Retired FBI agent and explosives expert / Concrete dynamite)
• Jim Long (Pro Archer / Split arrow revisit)
• Caddilac Ben (2 episodes)
• etc.
• etc.

What do you all think? That should help pacify the "Don't delete Scottie" crowd and give others some well deserved credit. Can we get some votes on this one or get it started? --Thoughtfix 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. EVula 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to Mythbusters/Additional_Cast and will start populating that page soon. --Thoughtfix 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I made the page and added data. PLEASE HELP! :D I am out of time today --Thoughtfix 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to a proper page name, List of additional MythBusters cast members, with some changes as appropriate. I also added a link to the MythBusters template.--Drat (Talk) 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

firstly i can't spell ignorance. but I was watching the chicken cannon episode, the first one that is. and I noticed that they said for a second that this "myth" originated from canada. well being a canadian I know that this is no myth. it's a sketch comedy bit called the chicken cannon news. It's of the political humor show, the royal candian air farce. in the show they will take some politician or celebrity usually canadian and fill a cannon with food and common house hold items. for instance when bc premiere Gordon Campbell was arrested for drunk driving in maui. they would put a martini in the cannon and say "because he likes the sauce" and then put in cheesewiz and say"you know you want it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Farce

• No, it isn't a myth. There does exist a similar device which is used to test impact resistance of airplane windshields. It was less of a myth-busting episode and more of a "let's see if we can do this" episode. Kerowyn 09:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The myth had nothing to do with whether or not a "chicken cannon" exists or existed, it is known that such devices exist; they were testing if frozen chickens did more damage than thawed chickens. There are several variations of the myth, all of them start with some company or military wanting to test their aircraft against bird strikes, so they go to another company or country's military; the Royal Canadian Air Force (not "Farce") or NASA are popular sources, and borrow their chicken gun. They use it, only to find the chickens are destroying the test planes; when they ask for help, the response was to "thaw your chickens". The "Air Farce" crew patterned their chicken gun on the concept, with the obvious intent on hilarity. -- VederJuda 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section is getting too big, or is it just my imagination? :) Maybe we could remove some, like "Aluminium, I love you." and "It doesn't have that stayintheredness"

Yeah I agree, and I've seen it happening before in other articles. So I decided to move it all to Wikiquote already. I do think that it would be nice to keep at most five quotes in the article, a few ones that really capture the spirit of the show. ☢ Kieff | Talk 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least keep Adam Savages infamous "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" quote. Most Mythbusters fans would agree it's one of the most memorable quotes from the Series period.

Quote though it may be "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" was Adam quoting a line from a movie (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/dungeonmaster/). It seems strange to not give credit where credit is due, but I notice that the information I added a while back regarding the origin of this quote was promptly wiped from the page. Perhaps it's not appropriate information for the "quotes" section, but not mentioning it's true origin would be akin to attributing "I love it when a plan comes together," to Jamie.

I agree, I arrived at this page because I was searching for exactly that info. But it's in the talk page, not the article.

Hm, the article and quotes are not linked correctly. This pages links to "MythBusters", while the article on wikiquote is actually "Mythbusters". I'd change it, but I don't know how.

Oops, my bad! Thanks for pointing that out. This has been fixed. ☢ Kieff | Talk 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the quotes section with a little warning for editors. I picked 4 quotes, two from Jamie and two from Adam, that I think describe the show well. If you disagree, well, just tell us your opinion over here. ☢ Kieff | Talk 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone check what episode this quote from: "I don't think Jamie is an evil genius. I don't think he's evil nor a genius.", and add it to the Wikiquote? Might have been "Salsa Escape", but I think Adam had aluminum foil around his face.

That was with the Microwave Myths Episode. The Episode where Jamie inadvertantly made a refridgerator that cooled the water with the components of 4 Microwaves instead of superheating water.

Thanks, I remember now.

Can anyone tell me the origin of "Quack, damn you!"?

It's from Episode 8 — "Escape From Alcatraz, Duck Quack, Stud Finder".--Drat (Talk) 00:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a warning, people are still adding new quotes.

Yep. I changed "Note:" to "#### ATTENTION ####" and moved to the bottom of the quotes. I hope people will notice it that way :| ☢ Kieff | Talk 22:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a few cases of flawed or incomplete experiments that they've done. Is anyone working on compiling these?

Check out the Epsiodes link at the bottom. --Cantthinkofausername 07:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This can go in the "Revisiting Myths" section I created if you'd like. Should that go under the Format section too? Thoughtfix 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen them accused of being a bit brief and not thoroughly testing a hypothesis.--86.20.223.168 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Origin of the show" it used to say:

Of note is that, despite rumours, Jamie and Adam are NOT gay lovers, though it does appear so in numerous episodes.

which I, on basis of NPOV, changed to:

Of note is that, despite rumours, neither Jamie nor Adam are gay—in fact, Jamie has been married for almost 20 years.

which in turn was nuked by Bueller 007 on grounds that it had nothing to do with the origin of the show.

Upon reading the first quote, my reaction was also to just nuke it. However, some quick Googling revealed that it is a quite common rumor that they are gay, in particular in Jamie's case, something I didn't know. (So I guess my gaydar is either broken or working exceedingly well.) This is emphasized by the fact that they often have to answer the question when interviewed, see for example [2] and [3].

In fact, in the first interview, Adam says (jokingly):

And we heard word from Discovery on Saturday, and that what they said was, "These are just the geeks we were looking for!" But apparently among themselves they wondered if they could do a show with a couple of homosexuals from San Francisco.

So putting a sentence along the lines of what was removed by Bueller 007) under "Origin of the show" might not be so far fetched.

One might argue that it would be better to put this information on Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman instead. However, those pages are pretty short at the moment, so putting such a statement there would give the subject undue attention.

I think we must clarify such a common rumor. What do you think?

–- Woseph 18:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of their sexuality is better addressed in their individual articles. Adam Savage states he has twin sons. I do recall reading that Jamie Hyneman has been married for 20 years, but it's not in the article. --waffle iron 19:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree that it's better to put such information in the individual articles instead. However, as I said above, those articles are pretty short at the moment, and putting in a "By the way, he's not gay!"-statement (or whatever) gives it undue attention. I believe being the father of two (and divorced, as I understand it) and gay is possible, so that information is not sufficient (in the case of Adam). Again, I think we should keep in mind that it is something many wonder about (although I'm not one of them) and the question pops up in interviews. Hence, it's reasonable to assume that our readers want accurate information about the subject. The information about Jamie's marriage is in the first interview linked above. -- Woseph 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be mentioned at all. Apart from only being rumoured, who is it doing the rumouring? Ill-informed and silly people who need to get a life! In this day and age it should not matter whether someone is gay or not, it's just a non-notable aspect of their private lives that should not be subject to this constant billing-and-cooing of idiots. We never bother to mention that someone is heterosexual, so why is any other sort of sexuality important? The only time it's worth mentioning is if the people themselves make a deal about it, and that is a key part of their PUBLIC persona. These people who titter behind their hands and spread gossip are very boring, need to drag themselves into the modern age, and not be given legitimacy by having their titterings repeated on Wikipedia! There, rant over... Graham 22:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jamie and Adam do infact mention this rumor in their book and Im pretty sure that I have seen this mentioned in interviews online. If it's notable enough to be acknoledged and be placed in the official book it should be notable enough for wikipedia. 155.212.229.242

I think a good addition to the article would be a picture from Cement Removal, of Adam holding the truck fragment. Put it next to the bit about that particular myth, in the Vehicles section.--Drat(Talk) 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On recent episodes, the current build team (Grant, Kari and Tory) are listed alongside Adam and Jamie in the intro (Who are the Mythbusters? segment) and now the narrator says they have a combined "50 years" of experience. The entry should change to reflect this, I think.

--Smylere Snape 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the credits for that episode and Adam and Jamie are credited as hosts and the other three are 'builders' or something very similar. It's nice that they got added to the featured cast.
--waffle iron 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is a list of injuries really encyclopedic? I think it would be more appropriate to mention that sometimes in the course of experiments people get hurt and give a few examples. This isn't supposed to be a fan site, it is an encyclopedia entry. --Ignignot 14:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agreed. Edit how you see fit then.--Cantthinkofausername 10:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. It needs trimming badly. It's gotten way out of hand.--Drat (Talk) 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited out a buncha of them, and kept some of the noteable ones. Definately keep the "Am I missing an eyebrow" incident. --Cantthinkofausername 09:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing out the part about poision oak, as it's not really an injury, it was part of the myth Slimdavey 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about something along the lines of List of Mythbusters injuries? Personally, I'd like to see such a list compiled (and I think it would be an encyclopedic entry), but a complete list certainly doesn't belong in the main MythBusters article. EVula 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would be a good idea. It would be probably be considered a list of indiscriminate information, if the current list couldn't already be considered so. We would have to justify the importance of such information, and when it comes down to it, it does seem like fanpage material.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument could be made that injuries are a normal part of the show, and tracking them wouldn't quite count as "indiscriminate information." I'm not personally making that argument, I'm just throwing it out there. EVula 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed that the information about the UK/European version of the show has been deleted. Why is this necessary? I can see that the paragraphs about the Australian and the German versions are still here. Therefore, I think that the information should be returned (maybe with changes). --Megara 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the official seasons? Discovery channel seems to be billing the new epsiodes since this January 2006 as the start of a new season, but that is not how the shows are broken up in the articles here. Also, the Discovery Channel store is selling a "Season 2" MythBusters set that features 13 episodes, but according to the articles here season 2 actually has many more episodes.

What is up with this inconsistency? Can anyone help make some sense of this? - It is now common practice to break up a season into two pieces, with a "mid-season break" in between. Networks are actually now marketing DVD's in the half season variety to maximize profits. Another good example of this is Battlestar Galactica, which released the first half of season 2 in December titled "Battlestar Galactica: Season 2.0." The second half is titled "Season 2.5."

I took the poll on the Mythbusters website, and it says that episodes 1-24 is season 1, and 25-49 is season 2. That means we're just starting season 3 right now. flip619 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC-8)

We go by production seasons (that is, according to the production company). The way the episodes are arranged is according to the MBs themselves. Discovery usually repackages them into different airing seasons because of the number of episodes (this is also how it's done with, say, Futurama), which may vary locale by locale (so while it's season three in Canada, it could be season five elsewhere, even if they are referring to the same episode - recall that in Archimedes Death Ray, Jamie refers to the Ancient Death Ray as being in season 2, and according to Discovery, it's in season 1. kelvSYC 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims Robert Lee is an American who replaced the previous Australian narrator. Actually Robert Lee is also an Australian, but he speaks with an American accent.

http://www.mythbustersfanclub.com/html/narrator.html

Not sure how to fix this.

Carl Kenner 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles states:

"One additional broadcasting is in Canada, on Discovery Canada. It is shown almost daily, with no voice overs or any other modifications, and is the same version that is shown in the USA.

British Discovery Channel, which is broadcast over Europe, replaces Robert Lee's narration with their own."

I don't quiet understand this. Robert Lee is credited at the end of every episode, at least on the Nordic version of Discovery. And if the original is without narration, how can this be replaced?

And this: "The German Discovery Channel airs the show every day including voice overs for the characters and the "narrator". The free to air station RTL II also shows it with German voiceovers." Why are there quotation marks around narrator? Perhaps they completely replace the narration with their own? Tskoge 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Discovery Channel is probably showing the US version (I guess translated?). But here, In Bulgaria, we get the UK version narrated by Robin Banks (also included in the credits) with subtitles, and Robert Lee's name is never mentioned. As far as I know, the original version IS narrated (by R. Lee); the above statement just tries to explain that in Canada R. Lee's narration is not modified by any means. I have no idea why "narrator" is in quotation marks, however, it may mean that it is the ROLE "narrator" in the series. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth busted... It turns out that I somehow managed to confuse Robin Banks with Robert Lee. The person credited as narrator in the end credits as shown on Discovery Nordic is Robin Banks. Tskoge 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottie Chapman is also a Build Team and should therefore also stand in the Mythbuster box. http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/meet_main.html?clik=fanmain_leftnav --MKM 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is a former member, no-longer on the show.--Drat (Talk) 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes but former cast still count.Quolnok 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone can write more than a couple sentences without having to "waffle", go for it. Otherwise, you may as well just put a very small bit in this article.--Drat (Talk) 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to write about Scottie's involvement in MB and Monster Garage without waffling... kelvSYC 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this extensive information really important?--Drat (Talk) 10:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list could certainly be reduced since most of the entries simply say it's shown on the Discovery Channel in the respective country. Just say "Myth Busters is show on The Discovery Channel in ..." and list the countries. There goes the bulk of the list right there. Imroy 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --Ignignot 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with it.--Drat (Talk) 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the reduced version is now incorrect, as the german version neither shows on discovery channel but on RTL2 nor Robin Banks as a narrator but voice over instead. - Actually it is fully dubbed.

And while I'm on it, doesn't "In some countries, the English speech is either subtitled in the relevant language, or the narrator replaced with a person speaking the relevant language" apply to basically _all_ TV/movie exports? Just nuke this useless statement. (It's almost wrong too, as it makes no sense replacing just the narrator.)

This section is getting out of hand again. Was it really even necessary in the first place? How many articles on TV shows actualyl have sections listing what channels it is on in each country?--Drat (Talk) 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting beyond a joke. WP:NOT a TV guide.--Drat (Talk) 12:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reasonable objections in two days, I'm going to remove the section.--Drat (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery added three shows to the iTMS, and Mythbusters was one of them. With only six episodes, it is still in its infancy, but I hope this will grow. While I think it should be noted in the article, I'm not entirely sure where it should go (or when it was officially added), and I'm on my way out the door. So, this is more of an "FYI" sort of thing for other editors, I suppose. EVula 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be interesting to add. Kinda makes me wish I got a full-sized iPod instead of my nano - with Homestar Runner on there too. --Thoughtfix 06:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I was one of the idiots who plopped down 400 for my 60gb video. The video features of the "iPod video" are completely laughable. Though I do love the storage space, I use it for backing up all my user account files, lol --mboverload@ 06:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyneman himself replied to an Email I sent him about some information I was seeking for this article. An exerpt: The Wikipedia breakdown of the show seems very well done to me; the best explanation of the show I have seen. There are a few discrepancies but it's good. Good work, people! --Thoughtfix 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One word (in a sense two): Kick-arse!--Drat (Talk) 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this show up in quotes then get reverted. I've seen it show up in various sections then get reverted. The specific way of saying it and the repeated appearances of it in the shows may dignify a common theme (similar to "traditional Mythbusters fashion") but it may be just too cheesy for it's own Wikipedia mention. Thoughts? ---Thoughtfix 06:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 06:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really worth mentioning it. By the way, please start new discussions on the botom of the page, instead of hidden among the others.--Drat (Talk) 06:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! ---Thoughtfix 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>Traditional MythBusters fashion >>Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

Both of these sections have subheadings, but are totally and thoroughly explained in the article only a few pargraphs above. They really don't need to be repeated. I suggest that these sections should be deleted, or the original mentions should be deleted or shortened with a (see below) TheHYPO 04:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - there is some redundancy there. Take a stab at what you think is best. ---Thoughtfix 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the main reasons I redited the article. Nightscream 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a clean-up of this? As the series progresses, this section will undoubtably dominate the article. --Thoughtfix 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten way out of hand. I've removed some of the additions.--Drat (Talk) 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the list starts getting way too long, I think a separate article should be created for the Mythbusters' injuries and mishaps; just leave a couple of famous and classic examples on this page and link to the rest in the header. --flip619 (Talk) 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting beyond a joke. It's getting time to split it or kill it (as fancruft). I, granted with some regret, am in favour of the second option.--Drat (Talk) 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed getting to long, but I added Tory's bike mishap as it has been sourced in MB/TV show sites as one of the most memorable scenes (or scenes of mishap), behind the Adam's lip/vacuum mishap. I'm in favour of splitting it off rather than scrapping it. -Dvandersluis 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This mishap was deleted, but I've readded it as, as I mentioned above, it is one of the favourite mishap scenes to fans. –Dvandersluis 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create the actual article, what exactly should we name it and which accidents should be left on the main page? Flip619 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that injuries on the show are noteworthy enough to merit their own article, but if you guys insist, I would say that only the most memorable and visually dramatic should be left in the main article, like the one where Adam lost some of his hair. Nightscream 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know when season 4 will start? -Ravedave 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say what is in S4 - the MBs still have a few shows left in S3, IIRC from the MB fan club message board. In either case, if the MBs say it's in S4, then we say it's in S4. kelvSYC 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buster. Please stop sticking Buster into the Cast section. It's an inanimate object, guys. A prop. Not a member of the cast. Use of Buster belongs either under Format, or in its own section. I opted for the former.

Retesting old myths. There is no reason to insist upon the wording "The MythBusters are not above..." It is only necessary to mention that they re-test old myths when criticisms of the experiments are made, or when new info is provided. Phrasing like "not above" is superfluous.

Confirmed/Plausible/Busted. Please stop reverting this paragraph. "Deemed" is far more formal and encyclopedic than "call it." Nightscream 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Buster, yes it's an inanimate object, but I don't think it really fits under Format; I personally don't think having a subsection under Cast is a problem in this case... –Dvandersluis 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buster is inanimate, but the MythBusters seem to have given him a sort of "unwilling volunteer" personality, making Buster a pseudo-person, and therefore a Cast member. I had also reworded the C/P/B paragraph to bring each designation to the front, placing all the more complex qualifications at the end. I re-split the Format section by topic, so that two different things aren't placed in the same paragraph (like mentioning Buster under the "oogie-boogie myths"). Finally, I colorized C/P/B it its topic sentence to match the convention used in Wikipedia's MB episode synopses. Flip619 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it fits under Format is because Format is where the procedures on the show are dicussed. Since Buster is a part of the experiment process, it belongs there. He does not have a personality, is not a person at all, and is not a cast member, IMO. (I don't recall seeing him mentioned in the oogie boogie paragraph.) As far as the colorization, does it really have to match that article? In that other article, it serves a specific purpose for the reader who scans the article vertically. Here, it doesn't really serve any purpose that I can see. What does WP policy or its Manual of Style say about this? Nightscream 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, Buster's person-ness is in question, so I think his section should not be moved around until we can get a better consensus. He is mentioned in the paranormal paragraph: "Paranormal ideas...the MythBusters use their crash test dummy, 'Buster'...myths that are not likely to be explored...". Because paranormal concepts and hazardous restrictions are placed within the same paragraph, it is unclear what the topic of that paragraph actually is. The WPMoS recommends against colorizing text, especially red-green (a color-blind acessibility issue), unless it contributes to the article or aids the reader. I opted to colorize the text because it was the convention used in the WP MB episode synopses articles, which might help the reader know what to look for. (I did not choose the colorization convention used in the synopses.) I believe that the C/P/B designations should be emphasized in some way, since the whole point of the show is to bust, find plausible, or confirm urban legends. If the colors do seem to present a problem, I have no conflict italicizing the designations instead, but I think that they should be emphasized in the article somehow, so that they aren't lost in the rest of the text. Flip619 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the person-ness of an object that is not a person could be in question. As for the paragraph you refer to, that is not the "paranormal paragraph." If you read it, you'll see that it's the paragraph on the LIMITS of what the MythBusters will not or cannot test. They don't do paranormal. They don't put dogs in microwaves. They don't test myths involving the human body if they're too dangerous---hence the mention of Buster. The topic, therefore, is quite clear.

And while we're on the subject of Buster, please stop inserting more and more details into the section on him. I removed some of them becuase the article was WAY too long. We don't need to know that someone in an episode nicknamed him "2.0." We don't need to know exactly which parts of the original dummy are still part of the current one (especially since there are now others). We don't need to know the exact episode in which he was burnt. Let's strike a balance between generalities and some specific details and examples, okay?

As for formatting the conclusions, I recommend boldface. Nightscream 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it does not seem clear that the limits paragraph focuses on the limits of the MB's experimentation parameters, especially since the paragraph starts with "Paranormal ideas...". A good intro sentence can fix this, but I think it would be better to keep similar ideas together, not have what they test on Buster or ballistic gelatin in the middle of what they refuse to test at all. Also, as I understand it, Adam and Jamie do not have the final say on what gets cut into the aired show - that's the job of the Discovery Channel editors - they just get myths to test and DSC films, edits, and airs it; I've taken out Adam and Jamie in the first Format paragraph to make sure we're not introducing possibly false information. Flip619 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an Intro sentence is a fundamental rule of writing a paragraph. I disagree with what you think the paragraph "focuses" on, since you're not supposed to just read the first sentence of a paragraph and then stop there if you want to know what a paragraph is about--you're supposed to read the whole thing--but yes, an Intro is a good idea. Good call. :-) Nightscream 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all this clean-up and combining of the "History and Format" section, it's become more difficult to read. I thought this article was MUCH better when we had more sub-sections of "format." Specifically: "Traditional Mythbusters Fashion" which described 1: replicating the myth then 2: replicating the results. It's still in there, but buried. Anyone else with me on that one?

Agreed. –Dvandersluis 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: the Format section reads like an essay (and not a very good one at that), and it would be clearer to split History and Format into something like History, then Format with subsections, including: what they test (and not test), how they test it, and how they designate conclusions. Flip619 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy the idea of subsections on Buster-Plausible-Confirmed, and on Buster, but beyond that, I don't think there's a need. There should be a middle ground here. I mean, a subsection on the myths they test? A subsection on what they do not test? A subsection on how they test it? C'mon, that's overkill. Nightscream 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was to split the Format into its fundemental queries: What? How? and Why?; What they test, How they test it, and Why they test it (to bust, find plausible, or confirm myths). Subsectioning the What and How parts makes this distinction clearer (we've already sectioned off Why). I had named the How "Traditional Mythbusters Fashion" (I believe this is a quote from the narrator) because it refers to the two-step process by which the MBs have always tested myths: replicate the original myth as described; and if that fails, expand the parameters until the original's outcome is duplicated. The What part can stay as the section introduction. Also, since we seem to have so much information on Buster, and since we can't find an agreeable place to put his section, we should probably give him his own article, or place all his information back into the List of additional MythBusters cast members. That way, Buster won't be placed in the main article, but the information on him is not lost either. Flip619 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs can split off the broad strokes of their activities quite well; this doesn't have to be done with entire subsections with headings. The two-step process, for example, is described quite nicely as is. Whether such a thing is mentioned by the narrator or describes something they've "always" done is not the point. That level of detail simply isn't necessary. Similarly, mentioning that the Mythbusters were doing it "The MythBusters" way when Buster was destroyed by explosives is not necessary. A simple mention that he was destroyed in an explosion is sufficient. Similarly, I removed the conclusions from the short list of myths test under Format. The conclusions are not pertinent to that passage, because that passage merely seeks to list some myths. It does not have to give the conclusion, which as it was written, made reading it more clunky, IMO. As for Buster's place in the scheme of things, I personally don't have an opinion on whether he is noteworthy enough to merit his own article, but if you want to create one, I encourage it. That does not mean, however, that he should not be in the main article, as you suggest. Some mention of him would seem to be appropriate. It's just the level of detail that we disagree on somewhat. Nightscream 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Rereading the article, it does seem that What and How are mixed, and it doesn't look like there is an easy way to separate them. Although I would prefer to subsection off How, it is also fine the way it is presently. I thought that the conclusions to the short list of Whats made the section awkward as well. I like how you left in the question mark links =) Also, if we create the Buster the crash test dummy article, what details should be left in here? Flip619 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how Buster is used in this article, and on Busters own article, flesh out his history, his rebuild, etc, etc.--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article today for the first time in several days, and it looks really good, guys. I like the order in which the various sections of Format were changed to, and using a screenshot for the main accompanying image, and moving the Skeptic cover to the Popularity section, for example, is a good choice. Kudos! Nightscream 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although no MythBusters appeared on the program, a 2005 episode of Good Eats titled Myth Smashers tested cooking-related myths in MythBusters fashion. As portrayed on the episode, host Alton Brown wanted to use the term "Culinary MythBusters" - but his lawyer would not allow it because of copyright infringement. (Later in the episode, he called a myth "busted" anyway before stopping himself.)

You can't copyright a title. I don't know if you can copyright a show format and if that might have been the problem. Conceivably trademark is meant here—presumably MythBusters is a trademark. Without any references, though, it's hard to tell. Anyone? JRM · Talk 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that being a valid argument. You can mention a show all you want, but when you use a derivative name, it could be crossing the line. EVula 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So If I casually say "Oh, are you gonna be a Mythbuster?" to my friend, will the Discovery Channel will come to my house and sue the pants off of me because I violated a trademark??--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they might if you created something (a good, service, or media) and called it "MythBusters" or something similar. But it depends on how prominently you use "MythBusters" and to what degree your use "dilutes" their tradmark. You should read up on what a trademark is and what they're about. --Imroy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a reference, and the fact that fear of "copyright infringement" doesn't appear to make any sense in the context, I've changed it to "trademark infringement". If anyone can provide a source for what the unnamed lawyer actually said, please do so. JRM · Talk 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On tonight's episode, was Grant looking at the Carnot cycle article? --Paul Soth 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calorimeter (for sure) was show at 18 minutes in. -Ravedave 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially noted on Talk:Calorimeter. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck happened to the wonderful semi-comprehensive episode list article, which had the episodes, myths tested, and results? I know it was moved because a lot of the redirects say they used to point there, but I can't even find what title it was at when deleted, so I can't look at the AfD.

Nevermind, I see now, it was split up and is linked from the infobox. Still, I think there need to be more prominent links from withing the article. Actually, List of MythBusters episodes should be a list of the season articles, and MythBusters episodes should redirect there, not here.