Talk:Greek (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Show's name section 2 Fair use rationale for Image:GRSSK.JPG 3 DVD and Season Discrepancies 4 Chapters or Seasons? 5 List of Greeks on the show

[edit] Show's name section

OK, Now that someone has took it upon themselves to delete the name section (again) without posting a valid reason, I will restore it again. And one more time, as stated tirelessly above, the Name section is not for the people who understand the Greek Alphabet and its English/Latin counterparts, but rather for the people who DO NOT. Being in a Fraternity, Kappa Sigma, I dislike it when people confuse us with "KE" when the letters actually stand for "KS." So until ABC decides to stop using the Sigmas in place of E's or Epsilons, please dont delete this section Thelegendofvix 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. A~B. QuinnHK 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it presents a valid point though even when stating something that is known it's nice to have references to back it up. I think it would help the article greatly, and prevent people from continually removing this section, if there were some published source marking the difference between Greek and Grssk. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, but wouldnt the Greek Alphabet, English Alphabet, and Latin Alphabet be sufficient sources of publication? However, I will take your advice and see if I can't find a legitimate published source. I just do not think that the New York Times, Atlanta Daily Journal, Fox News, or NBC would care to write an article about a misspelling.Thelegendofvix

• • It's still not necessary under this particular article. Really, it's not. --70.168.242.18 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, I think it is. Thelegendofvix 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I cracked up when I read this section because I'm Greek and I read and speak Greek - so I'm always telling people that it reads GRSSK. I'm really glad this is here. Maybe that way I won't have to correct people as often; those referring to the show, fraternities, or the letters in general. --69.154.67.28 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually this is undue weight and original research unless a reliable source has written about this in relation to the show. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox and while people making this mistake might be annoying, unless it can be demonstrated this is a genuine issue that has been raised by reliable sources it doesn't belong here.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't consider this to be undue weight. I think it is very relevant, considering that it's very expository and directly related to the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.50.93 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, look. The section says that "The name of the show, taken literally, is Grssk." This is just not accurate. When discussing the show, do critics and fans switch to the "Symbol" font and insert Sigmas? The only time the Sigmas are used is in the actual logo - it's just a font issue. I am going to at least change this line. I think that the entire section should be removed. It just seems like an "Aha! Gotcha" addition by language snobs. Williamloaf (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's settle this or find a compromise. This is not a forum to correct people's ignorance about the Greek alphabet. It's an article about a television show whose main demographic is high school/college age people. I truly believe the section is undue weight. "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This falls under this category. I studied Classics and know the Greek alphabet backwards and forwards, and I barely noticed, much less was annoyed by, the Sigma issue. Coupled with the ridiculous image, the section is just totally unnecessary. This is a matter of NPOV. There is a minority who believe that ABC Family is somehow duping everyone into thinking that they are using legitimate Greek, or that the logo is some sort of sham. The majority believe it to be a font/design choice, and no one can find an article about the minority POV. I am removing the section - if you want to put it back up, please provide a rationale according to Wikipedia guidelines. Williamloaf (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I see where you are going with your argument. However, if we wer to remove everything that a minority views as important from wikipedia more than half of the articles would be gone. Also, the fact that more users have added this section back than the number that have deleted it serves to show, at least for this particular section, that it is a majority viewpoint that feels this section should stay. I would agree with your point if this article had been added on once and then it was removed and that was the end of the story, but it has not. And, with that I will add it back on and will continue to do so. Thelegendofvix 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• But Wikipedia is not a democracy. The majority of people do not approve of George W. Bush, but does that mean a random sentenceadded to his article saying, "George Bush is a bad president" would be appropriate? Even if people "kept adding it on"? 70.255.90.64 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not making your point by simply adding the section in without explaining why. Will someone please just provide a good reason for including the information that is in line with Wikipedia policy? Seriously. Williamloaf (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The page has been protected from unregistered edits for a few days. Hopefully this will help with the dispute and lead to some discussion. I suppose my opinion is that the section be removed permanently, and the article be expanded and improved to where the tidbit about the logo could be included somewhere in it. Williamloaf (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• What if the section name was changed to a "goofs/editing mistakes" section? Then it could be open to expand more on the article than just the misconception with the sigma. People from the science community love to continually point out that Doc Brown (in Back to the Future) spelled and mispronounced "gigawatt," a mathematical unit of measurement. That was not original research, just something that was considered common knowledge (at least for anyone who took basic chemistry). If a character in a movie said that 2X6-2=8 (the real answer is 10 btw), and it was presented as correct, would we really need to document something with sources, professors, credible websites,etc that is common knowledge...that being how to correctly perform the mathematical order of operations?Thelegendofvix (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Again, it's not a goof or mistake - I doubt anyone in ABC think that they are using the Greek equivalent of an E. It's a clever thing they decided to do with the font. Again, there is absolutely no cited information here. Find a citation or it goes. You can't even prove that the official name of the show is GRΣΣK. The administrator who protected this saw this as original research. Williamloaf (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I never said that ABC knows (or does not know) if a sigma is an E or an S, but rather I am pointing out that they are presenting it in both ways...thus implying that the sigma is in fact, an E. And it is for that reason, that a company is intentionally being misleading regardless of whether it is construed as "clever" or not. And again, why do you need a source for material like this when you can simply look at an alphabet. So when I say "often times the sky is blue" do I need to add a citation to that too? No. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite I do not need a source if it is subject-specific common knowledge, which is what I have been saying all along. Thelegendofvix (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This section was taken away as undue weight and unnecesary. Wikipedia needs verifiable material. Granted most of wikipedia's articles don't have citations, or not enogh citations, this section has been cited out before, and unless there is a official Greek (TV show) website, citing this as a common problem, this is out. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • This is verifiabe material which is why all anyone has to do is compare alphabets, talk to someone in a fraternity/sorority/honor society, or speak with someone from Greece. Thus...
    • It is subject-specific common knowledge
    • According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite I do not need a source if it is subject-specific common knowledge
    • Undue weight is a matter of opinion, I respect yours, but believe more strongly in my own. I, and the other people who add this back on, do not feel that it is undue weight (otherwise we wouldn't bother) and the great thing about wikipedia is that everyone is free to come in and share theirs.Thelegendofvix (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It isn't subject-specific or common knowledge. No one is arguing that GRΣΣK does not equal Greek. We are arguing the relevance and non-NPOV of the information. We are also arguing against the idea that ABC is committing a grievous language error. So far, there seem to be a lack of registered users who find the information relevant and not undue weight.Williamloaf (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Two co-ordinators, who are both very knowledgeable in solving problems like this, have decided the section is unnecesary. And regardless of weather or not you believe in your opinion more strongly, this has been found useless. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Thelegendofvix, please don't re-insert a section under the premise that it is a "minor edit". Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, you can have a link to a website explaining the joke, missconception thing, but not a entire section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GRSSK.JPG

Image:GRSSK.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD and Season Discrepancies

I have noticed that according to IMDb, the current Greek season is nothing more than an extension of season one. This flies in the face of the season one DVD release that I have seen in all major retailers, both virtual and actual. Not to mention that it is known as Season two on ABC Family. Anyone have any idea why IMDb recognizes the new episodes as season one episodes? Anyone have any idea how to bring this to the attention of IMDb? dwilczyn 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chapters or Seasons?

Shouldn't those be Season 1, Season 2 instead of Chapter 1, Chapter 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.11.73 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Greeks on the show

Can people go over the List of fictional fraternities and sororities#Greek and update which of the GLOs are fraternities and which are sororities? Also add any other ones that aren't there...Naraht (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a list of "additional" greeks was added to the header and then deleted. I think that this list may belong farther down in the article. I would suggest limiting the list to those Fraternities or sororities who actually have characters speaking and recognizable. At this level, I think the Tri-Pi, Psi Phi Pi and Lambda Sigma Omega qualify and perhaps a few others.Naraht (talk)

A separate list is not needed at all. They can be mentioned, as appropriate, in the character descriptions and in the fuller character list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information on Cyprus-Rhodes University revealed in the course of the series, perhaps it belongs as part of a page for that.Naraht (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)