Talk:Arrested Development

Article fails FA criterion #3

The article fails FA criterion #3, because Image:ArrestedDevelopment S1.jpg, Image:ArrestedDevelopment S2.jpg and Image:ArrestedDevelopmentS3.jpg have no fair use rationales for this article. – Ilse@ 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented out these images. – Ilse@ 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have fair-use rationale added now, and have been uncommented. -- Bovineone 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to archive some of these entries

This talk page is rather long. I think some of the discussions need to be archived. I read through WP:ARCHIVE; however, I didn't see any standard criteria for determining what to archive. Discussions that haven't been active for a year or more, maybe? Please give thoughts. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Older than a week is long enough. Darrenhusted 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your work! I did a little more re-org -- the archives box is now autogenerated, and we should have an index of archived / current talk page topics generated the next time User:HBC Archive Indexerbot runs.--Iknowyourider (t c) 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was just starting it off, I don't think that much talk is generated anyway. Darrenhusted 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Table in "Characters" section

I'm removing the table in the characters section because it seems redundant. The first time I saw it, it had three columns: Role | Full name | Portrayed By. But "Role" and "Full name" were identical (each simply had the name of the characters), so I merged the two as simply "Character". But now that I see that the character names and respective actors are listed underneath the table, I see no reason why it should be there at all. If there are any problems with this, please discuss it here. Pele Merengue 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about the usefulness of that table myself. Agree with removal. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article no longer appears to be of top quality. Anyone want to defend against me? --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. One blatant reason is that there are unsourced statements. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're right. Upon rereading the article, I wanted to pepper several sections with {{fact}} tags. Iknowyourider (t c) 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just performed a cleanup on several sections of the article, adding a couple of references relating to the series' development (which were also present when the article was first given featured status, but was mysteriously not present in the article's prior condition), and removing unsourced statements and unencyclopedic sections at will. Can't we further improve the article and clean up the offending sections, instead of just sending the article over to featured review? I personally think we could easily clean up this article to featured status; it'd be a much better step forward. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fixing it is much better than sending it over to review, but I'm wondering if anyone is up to it. It's a well-written factually accurate article; it is incredibly under-referenced. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I think we could improve the article and reference it further, perhaps. Are there any specific areas that need working on right now? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Some characters are listed as more than one appearance when they only appeared once, Wrench and Nellie being two examples. Darrenhusted 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the example you noted; let's be bold and correct any other such contradictions in the article, if there are any left. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Should recurring roles be in order of most episodes, Barry at the bottom of the list seems odd. And are guests beign listed alphabetically or episode order, at the moment is seems to be a mix of both. Darrenhusted 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently they were being listed alphabetically in terms of their surnames, apart from a few instances, so I've just fixed those right now. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hey there,

I put in the change to 'Futures' on Arrested Development, linking to the fan-petition for an Arrested Christmas Special in 2009. Sorry for doing so without properly getting to grips with editing.

I was wondering if you could help me legitimately get my site referenced on the Wiki page.

I feel the site, www.aresteddevelopment2009.com , is worth inclusion in the article as many visitors to the Wiki page are coming to find out if the show is still broadcasting or if there's a chance the show could come back - I know from my statscounter that a vast number of visitors come from WIki each day (about 250), all helping to give te show's fans a shot at a reprieve.

But in terms of justifying inclusin for Wikipedia (rather than just my own selfish gains), I think a case can be made. There have been 10+ news articles about the 'uprising', as one calls it, I've attached the two biggest ones, one is TV Squad, the second by an Associated Press reporter

http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/07/27/how-about-an-arrested-development-christmas-special/ http://www.centredaily.com/entertainment/story/163061.html

I feel it's currently the most relavent information about the show's future, and I think it's important that Wiki helps give out the information. I'm just hoping you might be able to give me some informed advice as to how to get the site mentioned without crossing Wikipedia's guidelines for entry - even if it's just a mention on the external links panel.

Thanks for your time, Ed

eddiewrenn at fastmail.co.uk (I'll also check on your talk page in a few days)

The fact that there are reliable sources mentioning the petition might mean it's notable enough to warrant a sentence in the article, maybe under the "Future" section. Thoughts? Iknowyourider (t c) 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We could add a sentence about the general attempts fans have made to form petitions, only if we could find suitable references to back it up, however I'm not sure whether this particular petition (or any, for that matter) needs to be mentioned in the article. Has there been any official response to this petition, and has it been particularly successful, if at all, to gauge such a response? If not, then that's just what it is, I'm afraid: a fan petition, which has had no effect on the series' actual future. Even if there are a couple of articles and blogs mentioning the petition, that alone does not make it particularly notable or important enough to add it to the article, since there hasn't been much of a reaction. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't try persuade you further, other than to add that every day 100 to 200 visitors to this article found it a handy link, and I would call this the most active petition around. If there are any moderators here who love the show, I would appreciate any advice as to what steps to take to make the petition worth s reference. Losing 100 signatures a day is a big shame for me.

Sorry, Ed. I love the show as much as you do, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I've removed the link for the reasons I outlined below. Please see WP:SOAP for the relevant posting guidelines. -Juansmith 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tense?

Asking the question since another user appears to disagree with me. What is the justification behind using the present tense to describe a television program that is no longer in production and no longer airing new episodes? Vidor 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TENSE. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's talking about a show 'coming alive' when you write about the events and stories in it. I have no problem with "Uncle Oscar is George Bluth's twin brother" and the like. I don't think that implies that a television program that manifestly is no longer in production should be referred to in the present tense. What with it actually being over and all. If it IS meant to imply that we should refer to a show no longer running as if it is actually still running, well, that's quite bizarre.Vidor 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree WP:TENSE doesn't necessarily read that programs no longer in production should be referred to in the present tense, it seems that other "exemplary articles" listed in the fiction Manual of Style are pretty consistently written this way. There aren't any other examples of a not-currently-in-production television series that's written this way, but there are two examples of not-currently-in-production series (of some sort): The Adventures of Tintin and Red vs. Blue. (The fiction MoS doesn't seem to explicitly address this point itself.) There are also some other current FAs about not-currently-in-production television series written this way: Cheers and Firefly (TV series). --Iknowyourider (t c) 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fictional article tenses. Iknowyourider (t c) 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it doesn't make sense to use the present tense in phrases like 'the show is filmed in...' when referring to a show that is no longer in production, and hence other phrases should follow.Liquidcow —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) here's an idea- we put it in past tense because the show is no longer in production, and because %99.9 of functioning human beings will refer to it that way. how does that sound, Vidor? 71.60.151.41 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, just because it isn't in production doesn't mean it ceased being a show and became something else, which is what past tense implies. Even if a lot of people would refer to it in the past tense that doesn't make it correct. It is a show, saying it was is simply incorrect. --TM 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

G.O.B.

I think that in order to refer to the character correctly, G.O.B. should be called Gob - without the capitals and punctuation. In episode credits he is referred to as Gob, and in the first episode of season 3, a letter addressed to him calls him Gob. Obviously, a reference should be made regarding the fact that his name stems from the initials of his full name, but for accuracy's sake, I think we should be using Gob. Out of courtesy, I mention it here, but if there are no problems, we should change this soon.fg 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The captions say "Gob" and the DVD box says "Gob". I will change it unless someones objects. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also concur. 144.139.119.135 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, both on this page and on all the episode summaries - "G.O.B." feels awkward and is not consistent with what the show seems to officially use to refer to him. His character page mentions that his name is usually written as "Gob" but then proceeds to write it as G.O.B. for the rest of the article. I think this should be changed as well. --Itsdvw (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A little more for the "Gob" side: the shooting script for the episode "My Mother, the Car" uses the spelling "Gob" when he is referred to in dialogue. (When his character speaks, the text is preceded by his name in all caps (with no periods), just like MICHAEL and any other name.) Alan smithee (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Music question

Whenever Oscar and Lucile are together a song plays in the background, I think the lyrics are "oh my oh my". Anyone have an idea what song that is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for the name of the dreamy love song played in the first season when Michael thinks about Marta. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.90.87 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Christmas special petition

At the end of the "Future" section, there is a line indicating that a fan petition has started for an Arrested Development Christmas special in 2009. This fact is cited, so I left it in. However, immediately following this, there is the following line: "Sign it at http://www.arresteddevelopment2009.com!" I removed that line, per the posting guidelines. See WP:SOAP for details. -Juansmith 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It also now has over 9000 signatures. 58.108.121.193 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also endorsed and linked at the-op.com,the most authoritative AD reference site, and the originators of Save Our Bluths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.42.244 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie

do you think there can be a section about a possible movie? http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/12/06/jason-bateman-refuels-hope-for-arrested-development-movie/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.244.132 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. Wait for more definitive sources than just cast speculation. For example, a statement from Mitch saying a tentative script has been written, or that it's currently being submitted to several studios, things of that nature. Basically, make a section when it gets past the "speculation" stage. --76.189.243.21 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the notability guidelines for films says that the article should not be created until filming is confirmed to have started. -- Bovineone (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A section is not an article; notability guidelines only apply to article subjects, not content. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFO: Not firmed up yet, but..

So we just got done with an interview with Jeffrey Tambor. I asked him about the possibility of the movie after hearing bits on the Early Show about that. Here is how he said it went down: He (Jeffrey) was watching Keith Oberman and Keith stated there was going to be a movie. Jeffrey said that was the first he had heard of it and caught him by surprise. He made a few phone calls (I am under the impression one was to Mitch Hurwitz) and did confirm the project. It has not started shooting yet and he has not even seen a script, but Jeffery was glad to see this happening. He said he felt as though there was still more to be told on AD.

Thats all the info I have

Just so that people are aware that news may break on this. Good news!! ---

Re: Bateman breaking the news to E! on Feb 2, it first broke on the XM radio show, with the audio link here: http://boomp3.com/m/5b8402ad7fbe If you see what date it was uploaded. I think it broadcast Fri, Jan 31. It was after hearing that, people were waiting for someone to follow it up, which E! did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.42.244 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a page for Arrested Development (film), it's my first page so I may have jumped the gun a bit and it's barely two sentences. I saw a link on Michael Cera's page for it, but it just went to the the TV show page, it's also announced on IMDB. Sorry if I created it before it should have been made! Broooooooce (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This is quite an embarrassing oversight on my part but I was just reading the movie section on here and it provides many more details than the page I have set up for the film. Given that this project may not come to fruition, I don't want to migrate information over to that article without a consensus and guidance from the people who watch this page. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to plug in a line under the subheading that links to the film page, something like Main Article: Arrested Development (film). Would this be appropriate? (see my user page for details on where my head is at!) Broooooooce (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's been a few days; I'm adding the link. Broooooooce (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Or not, someone else beat me to it! Broooooooce (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hip hop group

Confusion inevitably occurs with the title "Arrested Development" as many are referring to the hip hop band. While there is a disambig page for this article, somehow, over-zealous fans of the TV series keep removing reference to the band suing the producers of the show. This is a notable event that occurred. It specifically relates to the program. I challenge any misguided TV series editor to remove it again. If this occurs, I will take it to a vote. 203.57.241.67 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Encise

Please refrain from "challenging" and disparaging other editors, and usually matters are solved through discussion rather than voting. Personally, I agree that the lawsuit is notable, and have never removed that bit of information. However, I find it is out of place in the lead, since it really isn't that relevant when introducing readers to this show, and I'm not sure where else to put it. I think this may have been why it was removed in the past, if that is actually where it was removed from. Would you be against moving it to the end of the development section? Giving it its own section seems unmerited now since there is only one sourced sentence and nothing seems to have come of the lawsuit. --TM 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the mention of the lawsuit should be moved after "Critical Reception" because that really seems to make sense as far as importance of sections go. Racheltwu (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that placement, I was just trying to find an existing section where it would make logical sense to place it, and chronologically it would fit with the development section in my opinion. Although it now has its own subsection, once I, or someone else, removes the unsourced sentence (if it doesn't get sourced) it might look odd to have a whole section for two small sentences; this is the only minor concern I have now. --TM 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is still before "Critical Reception". Should someone move it? Also, it doesn't mention the specific outcome of the lawsuit and I'm interested to know what happened. Does anyone know and could they add it?144.139.119.135 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section

I think this part should be removed probably:

"In episode "The Sword of Destiny", Tony Wonder (Ben Stiller), a magician, mentions "some band has got the rights to Use Your Illusion" referring to him not being able to use the name "Use Your Illusion" for a future video release of illusions performed by him, instead calling them "Use Your Allusion II". Guns N’ Roses released a pair of albums: Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II."

It doesn't really fit in with the music section as it isn't really talking about music from the show. It could possibly go under a trivia section or something like that somewhere (probably under the specific episode the joke occurs in). Also, even if the sentence should stay, it is long and should be shortened I think. I had to reread it a few times because it uses the word illusion and allusion a lot. Racheltwu (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Show Can Be Watched Online at Hulu.com

I want to point out the fact that although the show has been canceled, Fox has agreed to show the Arrested Development episodes on its joint venture website with NBC called Hulu. Currently, all of the Season 1 episodes are available to watch with short 15 - 30 second commercial clips embedded. The first 5 episodes of Season 2 and 3 are also available on Hulu.com. Should the fact that Arrested Development is still available to watch through a new online medium be worthy of acknowledgment in the article? Please let me know. Gabbers511 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ALSO now available on itunes. - Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.47.20 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Incest

(this is unverified research, so I'm putting it in discussion instead of the article.)

There are also some incest themes between Michael and his older brother Gob.

Gob (giving Michael a big bearhug): If you feel something moving down there, it's just the dove in my pants. (dove walks past on the counter) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not disagreeing, but haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.248.5 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an article which talks of the incest in Arrested Development, so it is no longer unverified --Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual Articles

I wasn't sure where else to post but I'll do it here: If anybody has seen the articles on separate AD episodes, they'd notice that they are well... terrible. I've been attempting to clean them up, as they are unsourced, contain goofs, trivia, original research, POV and pointless Fair use images. I've deleted most of the bad content (so far only on season one) but user:Danski14 is readding the trivial content, so I wanted a few opinions with policy based reasoning, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just took a very brief look at a couple of the edits you've made so I'll chime in with my limited opinion. Fair use images are on the way out of WP so there's no point debating that (although "pointless" is pretty inaccurate, completely subjective, etc.). As always if there are uncited claims they can be removed or putting up a cn tag for a bit before removing are both fine according to policy/custom. POV needs to be modified to NPOV, trivia (if "important") should be integrated elsewhere if possible rather than removed as you probably know. My main issue of contention is that with the running jokes sections you eliminated the one aspect that gave them organization by removing the tagline/idea associated with them, transforming the section from a coherent list that mirrors the other episode articles to what appears to simply be another trivia section of disparate pieces of cruft. Can I ask what your motivation was there? --TM 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you're removing those sections entirely, so scratch that last question. --TM 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally I removed the tagline/idea because I found it to be very strange and uncreative formatting and was merely trying to reword it, it still had the content, just in a full sentence instead of an inconsistent title and point form explenation that provided little content for anyone not familiar with the show. Eventually I decided that it was just too much trivia and removed the majority of the things integrating a few of them, but most of the things just explained jokes and it made the articles seem like a fan page. The Dominator (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Episode based Running Jokes is pretty pointless. I think that on this or it's own page it would work better... but still quite trivial.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the only useful thing in the episode articles was the foreshadowing, unfortunately alot of it was obscure therefore qualified as OR. The episode notes had some useful out-of-universe info and so did the character cameos, but the rest belongs on fan sites. Is there any place online that I can access ratings of past episodes? A reception section would do the articles some good. The Dominator (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BELOW IS THE TALK PAGE FROM THE MERGED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (FILM) ARTICLE AND THE DISCUSSION BELOW RELATES TO THAT ARTICLE RATHER THAN THIS ONE

Film Article (now merged here)

WP:NF

Before creating this page, I neglected to read WP:NF which states that a film that has not been confirmed as shooting by reliable sources should not have it's own page. WP:NF goes on further to say that failure to meet the guidelines specified is also not a criterion for speedy deletion. So I guess this page may well be in limbo until the film comes to fruition or other parties intervene! In the meanwhile, I will continue to update the article; I just felt I should start with an apology for jumping the gun on this one! Broooooooce (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally it shouldn't be here, but I'm such a big AD fan that I don't have the heart to take it to AfD. So let's keep it! The Dominator (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add

http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/archives/2008/04/an_arrested_dev.html Alia Shawkat confirms cast involvement + script writing

- Done! Thank you for this source. Broooooooce (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source. And here's another one! Again it's with Alia Shawkat

Teenflare.com: Well there’s a stir on the internet about a potential movie. Do you know anything about that?

AS: With the publicity of Juno, Jason Bateman started spewing rumours that there was going to be a movie. When we wrapped, [Jason] said, ‘watch I’m going to make sure a movie happens’. He’s just like the best advocate for Arrested – as everyone is. But he really just created a rumour, which now may be starting the actual production of it. Mitch [Hurwitz, the creator] spoke to everyone to make sure they were all on board and everyone is, so I think they’re going forward with it. Ron Howard is down to [direct] it, so I think Mitch just has to write the script… Teenflare.com: And you’re on board? AS: I’m definitely on board, yes. [2]

- Done! Thank you for this source as well. BTW: You should try and sign your post by adding 4 tildes at the end of what you've written! (~~~~). Broooooooce (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Brooooooooce, when I have some free time I'll go through the Wikipedia training pages and get start doing this properly. But until then(!), thanks for your help - hooray a movie!! Edd 86.137.129.54 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the AD film article was the very first page I created. It was merged into this article until actual filming begins, in accordance with WP:NFF. Editing is not all that difficult once you get the hang of just a few basics; the biggest obstacles I had early on was just finding the proper way to format things--references and the such (WP:CITET, fyi). My first advice to you would be to register your own account, it takes about 30 seconds. If you have any questions, or need help with anything at all, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd be glad to help in any way possible. Broooooooce (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again! More stuff! More 'for your info' rather than new information. Just sharing the wealth! http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/arrested-movie-developing-maeby.php Ed 82.35.47.20 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

- Done! This is rather significant because it confirms that Hurwitz had agreed to start writing the script. Broooooooce (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/05/arrested-develo.html seems to use our article here as a source. They don't say anything new, but we are even mentioned explicitly. Broooooooce (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"...You want me to be explicit??" Anyway, congrats! Good work Brooooooooooooooooce. From, your webstalker :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.47.20 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie confirmation reverted

I noticed that you (82.35.47.20) added that the movie had confirmed and you referenced a source. I had to revert it because the source you listed was 404 and I could not find it when I searched on google, even by the authors name, the article name, and the site that is referenced seems like a business site rather than an entertainment news kinda place. Can you link to the article here please? Thanks. Broooooooce (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Broooooce, sorry, someone phished me on my own site, trying to get me to post their fake page, and I forgot I sent you a link here. But, on a better note....... http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/06/what_a_fun_sexy_time_for_us_jason_bateman_confirms_arrested_development_movie_to_shoot_next_year-2.html

Hooray!

Ed

See, I read the link and it says that shooting is confirmed later this year, but the quote they use doesn't do anything but contrast the differences between tv and films. Is this information sourced anywhere else? Broooooooce (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Google News: "Arrested Development"! http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=arrested+development&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ln AND ALSO http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1590059/story.jhtml 86.132.217.74 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove reference to Prom Wars?

I don't want to start a game of undoing each others edits- but i strongly disagree with undoing my edit, which itself removed irrelevent references to other projects Alia Shawkat is working on. When actors take part in these press junkets and other work promoting a project they often try to make comments like this, which may or may not be true, just so there is a mention of the project they are promoting. Wikipedia is not a space for people to promote things, nor is it a space to comment on breaking news items. A reference to a not-very-notable film project, and a link to its wikipedia article, is absolutely not relevent in the context of a possibly forthcoming arrested development film. I could not see any improvement in the prose when the reference was reinserted.

Continuing on this subject, I think the entire ADfilm section should be edited to be more concise. Do we really need a running commentary discussing every new reference to the new film project? As it stands, it reads more like an article on the ongoing history of the rumours surrounding a possible Arrested Development Feature Film. I realise this article on the film has probably generated enough publicity to help the film start inching into development stages which, as a fan, I think is fantastic, but we also have a responsibility to ensure the article remains as objective as possible and to ensure it does not become skewed by these current news items. Draemelius swift (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That single sentence is placed there to frame the next three quotes from Alia Shawkat. It provides a perspective on just why she would have so much press coverage to begin with; it also makes for better prose by preventing the article from reading like just a list of quotes. I strongly disagreed with you removing (or in essence, undoing) my edit to begin with. As for press junkets and what not, I had no such intentions when I added the text. I simply wanted something that read a little more pleasantly.

As for "the ongoing history of the rumours surrounding a possible arrested development feature film": People want this information. Once the film starts shooting or gets shot down, the shape of the text will change. I wouldn't be concerned with it right now--lets just let it play out rather than get all up tight about something that won't matter very long anyway. I believe the article is fine just how it is. Broooooooce (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the articles, and in particular watching the video clip, it seems clear the interviewers ask/press her about a film (in particular Alia: "I don't want to be the one to talk about it" Interviewer: "Will Arnett and Jason Bateman have openly talked about it", and in the video. I think it should stand for the minute as those quotes are the most recent in two months, and are the closest to verifying the movie is on it's way. The moment a press release is issued, we can delete all of them, but until now they appear valid and without motive, imo. 82.35.47.20 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor ReWrite

I edited the entire page this morning for content and consistent formatting and punctuation. I removed unnecessary duplicate hyperlinks and first names and ensured that naming conventions and punctuation were consistent throughout. I also removed quite a bit of unnecessary text. Please try and be consistent and mindful of the style when editing this article. Lastly, I also copy/pasted the page to my userpage in case it is deleted due to WP:NF so that it can be recreated later and the text can be reinserted into the TV series article meanwhile (it had been removed under the incorrect assumption that it was copy pasted from the film article; the opposite is true). Broooooooce (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be deleted just like that, there would be an AfD debate, just don't add the runtime, that just serves as provocation to deletionists who want to eradicate all future film articles. What are you basing that on anyway? It could just as easily be 70min as 200min. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On IMDB, the film has an estimated run-time of 100 minutes. I know that it's mostly BS because the script apparently hasn't been written yet, but it could be an indication of what they are aiming for and it is sourced and is noted to be an "estimate". If you think it's a better idea to leave it off, then I have no problem with that. Thanks for keeping such a close eye on the AD film article :) Broooooooce (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't trust IMDb with that stuff, who knows why it says that, to take my best guess; IMDb's program needs to include runtime and if one isn't entered it default goes to 100min? Anyways, as I said, it serves to feed those who'd (somewhat rightfully so) wish to delete the article, just like it would feed them if the article kept repeating the phrases "has been rumored" and "might be" or "seems to be". Though, I think we could expand it into a decent article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and agree. Good lookin' out. Broooooooce (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be series's? As there is one series rather than that being plural? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, I'll look into it. Broooooooce (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/possnouns.html: "If a singular common noun ends in s, add 's—unless the next word begins with s. If the next word begins with s, add an apostrophe only. (This includes words with s and sh sounds.)

• The boss's temper was legendary among his employees.
• The boss' sister was even meaner.
• The witness's version of the story has several inconsistencies.
• The witness' story did not match the events recorded on tape."

Looks like you were right. Broooooooce (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A detailed discussion on the Wikipedia policy can be found at Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound. Alan smithee (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so I guess both are acceptable, I always add an extra 's' to singular nouns, but I have no prejudice against the other way and in this case series's or series' doesn't really matter, in fact the latter might sound slightly better. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Where are the refs for all the quotes? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first, next to last, and last paragraphs, they are noted -- these are paragraphs that I collected, wrote, and sourced. The other quotes in the article came from the AD TV article which someone else moved over here and their sources are mostly mentioned within the paragraphs that contain them. For example: In the Olberman/MSNBC paragraph, the quotes came from the show (apparently). The 2nd and 5th paragraphs aren't properly sourced and I will try and find the means by which they were obtained. Broooooooce (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec} Well, all quotes should have a ref after them, even if it means using the same ref in one paragraph; "It's up to Mitch.", "It's something we're very interested in doing, but only after the writer's strike, and only if the powers that be approve.", "Yeah, we're currently in talks . . ., "a round of sniffing [had] started." and "[believes] Hurwitz wants to [do the film]," all need to be sourced. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All but "It's up to Mitch" and "put the wheels in motion toward a major motion picture." are sourced. If the inline mentions of where the quote came from (TV Guide, Late Night With Conan O'Brien, etc) aren't good enough, then I suggest hunting down a link to transcripts from the shows or publications and linking them. As for the first two that definitely need citations, I will try and track them down. Broooooooce (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the sources don't exist, just that it needs to be cited directly after the quote per WP:CITE. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to enlist the help of the original authors on the TV article for help tracking down the two sources that we don't have already. I will read up on WP:CITE and try and make the article conform to stylistic guidelines. Broooooooce (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I was looking through old revisions of the TV series article and found some sources that had somehow gotten lost! Still gotta find "it's up to Mitch" though. Broooooooce (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job! The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=e56-kBlYs6w for video of the actual Olberman MSNBC report. I didn't quite know how to source this so I just used the news template available at Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It doesn't link to anything, but I don't see how it can because I couldn't find a text transcript anywhere. Broooooooce (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that one, it is possible to use "cite episode" to cite the actual report, not sure if that's what you did, just don't link to Youtube, it's a copyright violation, I guess you know that, I've left a bunch of sources below, see if any of them are usable. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as you were editing this page, I found that on the template page and was in the process of using it for the Conan quote, I also found a site with video of the quote http://tv.popcrunch.com/will-arnett-on-february-25-conan-obrien-video/. I'm not sure if I should start an external link section at the bottom and add this link as I'm unsure of whether it would infringe on copyright. I knew better than to add the youtube video ;) Broooooooce (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're allowed to add a link to any site that infringes copyright, the one you linked seems to do so, though I could of course be wrong. It's better not to link to it at all, and you don't need to link to it to use it as a source, it's the same thing as with citing a book, the book just needs to verify what is said in the article and editor's are not obliged to make every source accessible to the reader. But by all means make an external link section. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

AH, you've edit conflicted me again =0

Here are a bunch: [3][4] [5][6] [7] [8] I know that some of them might already be in the article, but hey, it's a start, personally I like to use the WP:CITET templates, as they format the stuff for you, and I think that </references> should be substituted with {{reflist}}. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it! Everything is cited properly (at least so far as I can see). Couldn't have gotten the last of it without one of your sources, and another couple provided me with new content for the article. Thanks. Broooooooce (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, accessdate just means when the ref was added to the article, so all accessdates today should be 2008-04-13. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just pasted the references from the old revision of the AD TV article, I didn't even look at that ;) Broooooooce (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, I thought that you found the dates in the actual sources, very well, oh and when you don't have all the fields filled out, just remove them from the citation templates, not a major thing, but it saves some room and bytes. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Right on, and don't hesitate to give me advice as I am new to all of this and have learned a great deal already just from this article! BTW: I like the two column reflist. Broooooooce (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ABOVE IS THE TALK PAGE FROM THE MERGED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (FILM) ARTICLE AND THE DISCUSSION ABOVE RELATES TO THAT ARTICLE RATHER THAN THIS ONE

Mockumentary.

A mockumentary is done so that the viewer can't tell it isn't a real documentary, there are moments and jokes in Arrested Development that do that, but for the most part it uses a documentary style, but doesn't pretend to be real. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To put things simply, a mockumentary is a fictitious documentary. Every mockumentary is shot like a documentary, but is completely fictitious. AD is shot like a documentary, but because it is entirely fictitious, it is a mockumentary. Both terms are accurate, but mockumentary is more accurate. --TM 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TheMidnighters (TM). Can we stop editing this until there is some sort of consensus? It's seems like a rather minor issue that could be easily solved with a bit of dialogue. Broooooooce (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a mockumentary (a fake documentary) and a something that is sort of filmed in a doumentary style. The basic conceit of a mockumentary is that this really is a documentary. There are a couple of jokes in the show (cameras being banned from the court, missing footage), however, for the most part the cameras don't "exist", do you really think that people would let the camera into the room when they are having sex, breaking into an office, hiding in a attic. If you think that Arrested Development is a mockumentary, you don't understand what a mockumentary is. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a valid point. I find myself back on the fence on which would be better. I decided to look around online to see which other sites may have used the term mock/documentary as a descriptor, and I found this: http://www.mutantreviewers.com/arrdev.html, which calls it a psuedo documentary, and then goes on to say it is filmed in a documentary style. Then this: http://www.boxxet.com/Arrested_Development/Clark_and_Michael_Best_New_CBS_Show_Not_On_TV.10bbsq.d which calls it a mockumentary/documentary, and then this- (nevermind, link is blacklisted--probably spyware or something) says that it has a mockumentary feel similar to that of This is Spinal Tap. Given all of this, I now prefer "Pseudo Documentary." Can we agree on this? It really is rather small and I don't want to see an edit war break out over a word that most people won't think twice about when reading the article anyway. Broooooooce (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To further illuminate my preference, let me note that AD lacks the little one on one interviews with cast members that are a staple of documentary/mockumentary film making (A Mighty Wind, Sicko, The Office, etc, etc, the list goes on forever) so I take a bit of issue with it being classified without qualification as either. Why not Pseudo-Mockumentary you ask? From my brief time searching on Google, more sources leaned toward comparing it with documentary style film making than with mockumentary. That's my take on it at least. Broooooooce (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for pseudo-documentary or, preferably, simply state that the show sometimes incorporates devices used in documentaries (archival footage, reference to cameras, etc.). --TM 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Is that cool with you, Duggy? Broooooooce (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we wouldn't refer to shows such as The Office, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, or 10 Items or Less as mockumentaries, would we? That being the case, I think "documentary-style" can do just fine. Umzingeli (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph, calling it neither a mock or a doc. I did say it incorporated documentary style aspects, the reason I didn't say mockumentary style was because they share the same aspects when filming, and documentaries came first; a mocumentary is shot in documentary style, but a documentary is not shot in mocumentary style, if that makes sense. Broooooooce (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm happy with the changes. I had been thinking about the to-camera thing, it's interesting that mockumentaries all seem to do it when not all documentaries have to-camera pieces. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Producers

Does anyone know who the third season producers were? IMDb doesn't have a complete listing so I thought I'd look here but I note there is no crew section in this article.--88.108.242.173 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Guests section

I just removed a lot of entries from this section as it was basically becoming a list of all secondary characters, regardless of the actor's "celebrity" status. I can see that the issue of who is a celebrity versus who isn't isn't something that can be determined objectively but I think most, if not all removals were warranted. However, many entries or removals could still be borderline. Any thoughts? --TM 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well my edit was reverted without discussion, so I guess I'll try to justify it further. Currently, the celebrities include Michale Bartel [9], Bronwen Masters [10], Abraham Higginbotham [11], B.W. Gonzalez [12] and Justin Lee [13]. I'm not trying to be a dick but if we want a section to list every single secondary and minor character credit then can we just rename the section? Having it say "Celebrity Guests" is kind of inaccurate. Besides, we already have an entire list for all the recurring and minor characters, which states who portayed them, in addition to an IMDb link for those interested in an entire cast listing. Is it really encyclopedic to note in the "Celebrity Guests" section that Abraham Higginbotham played "Gary the Office Hand"? --TM 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than wrestle with a criteria, why not just rename the section. I find the links to the minor characters to be of use and would like to see them remain. Broooooooce (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So you actually want to list every character ever on the show in the main article? --TM 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the current list to be excessive and speaking from a functionality standpoint, I've often followed those links and I rather like having them. Broooooooce (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)