Talk:Breaking Bad/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ChemistryViews

Latest comment: 9 years ago54 comments8 people in discussion

"In an article on ChemistryViews, Tunga Salthammer and Falk Harnish focus on the chemistry in Breaking Bad and its portrayal and plausibility.<ref name="chemistry">{{cite web |title=The Chemistry of Breaking Bad |url=http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/5416791/The_Chemistry_of_Breaking_Bad.html |date=December 3, 2013 |accessdate=June 15, 2014}}</ref>"

Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The concern is that the article doesn't address particularly the scientific accuracy of the show. Myself and several editors have felt this. Chunk feels it's relevant though. And his approach to assert this is not appropriate. I speak from experience. He's ignored numerous requests to bring the issue to the talk page, has yet to discuss the issue (but is willing to argue against it), and is now edit warring over another piece of disputed content. Rusted AutoParts 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Do you feel the source is reliable for the content provided? Does the content reflect what the source says? Is the content relevant or trivial? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The following paragraph (para. 7 I think) taken from the cited source does seem to suggest that the article discusses the science portrayed in the show: The financial aspects, the middle-class educational aspects and the influence of Walter’s new line of work on his personality, or the catastrophic effects of drug use [2], will only be minor concerns of the following article. The focus here is on the chemistry in Breaking Bad and its portrayal and plausibility.

Moreover, the following sections "Crystal Meth – The 'Chemical Star of the Show'", and "Starting an Engine with a Makeshift Battery!?" then seem to discuss in some detail the science behind the meth made by Walter and a particular scene where Walter apparently uses his knowledge of chemistry to start a dead battery." Similar discussion seem to take place in "Have Emilio's Body Disappear Without Trace", "Tuco and the Fulminated Mercury", "Entering a Chemical Warehouse with Thermite", etc. So, it seems to me that there is some discussion of the scientific accuracy of the show taking place. It's not the focus of the entire article, but it does play a significant part.

Maybe instead of completely removing what seems, at least to me, to be an acceptable source, a simple changing in the wording, such as "In an article on ChemistryViews, Tunga Salthammer and Falk Harnish discuss the plausibility of the chemistry portrayed in certain scenes of Breaking Bad." or something similar, would be more representative of the source. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not say, "...Tunga Salthammer and Falk Harnish, who are really good-looking and write pretty..." to that sentence? Because surely the readers need to know that too. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If their physical appearance and writing ability were relevant to the subject that's being discussed and could be written about in an encyclopedic way, then there would be nothing wrong with adding that information. However, I don't see how that is relevant to what we are discussing here. Again, the source is correctly attributed and appears reliable, so if the source is good, then we should try and figure out a way to use it and improve the wording. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: Just want to say that I am not a scientist, so I have no idea whether what is written in the CV article is accurate. The text in question, however, did attribute the information to the authors of the article; therefore, in a sense it is not reporting on the accuracy of chemistry used in the series per se, rather just that the fact the plausibility of the chemistry used in the series was discussed by Salthammer and Harnish in the CV article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Instead of senselessly removing valid content, someone should have requested to improve the text... or God forbid, do it themselves. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in an edit war with multiple editors and getting yourself blocked, you are supposed to take it to the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: One thing about the text in question is that is was added by this edit by Vbelus back on June 16 and it does not appear to have been questioned at all until it was removed by this edit made by Abductive on October 22. Would it be fair to assume that the information in question was acceptable per WP:EDITCONSENSUS between June 16 to October 22? Would it also be fair to assume that per WP:V#cite note-2 that the source cited was added in good faith, so that it would've better to discuss it's removal on this talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS instead of leaving the edit sum that appears to be more based on personal opinion than Wikipolicy. Furthermore, There seems to be a call by Rusted AutoParts and others for Chunk5Darth to prove that the information belongs in the article. However, it seems to me that there should also be solid policy-guideline based reasons for removing information cited by a reliable source and these reasons should be properly explained and discussed before said information is removed. The information was removed by Abductor and then re-added by Chunk5Darth. At that point, everything should have stopped and a discussion initiated here on talk by anyone else wishing to remove the information. So, I am suggesting that the information be re-added per WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus can be reached either way. The sentence is properly cited and for the most part accurately reflects what the source says. It should only be immediately removed if there are sound policy reasons for doing so. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is garbage. It says nothing and refers to itself. I am not objecting to the source being used somewhere in the article. But what good is a sentence describing the source to the readers? See WP:INTEXT. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Abductive. "Garbage" is subjective, isn't it? WP:INTEXT says that indirect speech and close paraphrasing can be used when loosely summarizing a sources opinion in your own words and An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question. so I'm not sure how the sentence in question did not satisfy that. It also says It is best not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. So, if readers are interested in learning more about what Salthammer and Harnish have to say, they can go and read the source. As I said above, if the source is good but the wording is problematic, then change the wording. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be reinstated for now, as it's been the status quo for some time. Seems to me the burden to convince is on editors wanting it removed. While I can understand the argument that the text says little more than that the authors have written about the subject, I think the remedy is to add a short line or two summarizing the authors' conclusions. Willondon (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that all editors have their own style, but I tend to think that unless there is something that absolutely can't be fixed that it's better to try and fix the problem and retain what can be retained, trying to improve it and make it better. Sometimes that's easier said then done for sure, but one person doesn't have to do it all. Maybe we can re-word the text as follows:

In their article The Chemistry of 'Breaking Bad' on ChemistryViews, Tunga Salthammer and Falk Harnish discuss the plausibility of the chemistry portrayed in certain scenes. According to the two, chemistry is clearly depicted as a manufacturing science without much explanation of analytical methods being provided. On the other hand, serious scientific subjects are intelligently mixed into the dialog in order to show a world where chemistry plays a key role. This is quite unlike standard TV/movie science fiction where the scientist is either a nerdy hero or a crazed madman and any chemistry shown is almost always highly inaccurate.<ref name="chemistry">{{cite web |title=The Chemistry of Breaking Bad |url=http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/5416791/The_Chemistry_of_Breaking_Bad.html |date=December 3, 2013 |accessdate=June 15, 2014}}</ref>

The above is just a suggestion and I'm sure others can come up with something better. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A tweak: The article is "Die Chemie bei Breaking Bad" in Chemie in unserer Zeit, translated at ChemistryViews. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent starting point, Marchjuly, thank you for that. Can this be reinserted now? Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I was bold. Willondon (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the names of the authors and the name of the journal; these are useless to the readers, since anybody who is truly interested can click on the ref. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. According to your cited policy, "[i]n-text attribution (...) can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." We need to retain those attributions in order to avoid seemingly making statements in Wikipedia's voice. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In no way does the guideline say, "name the journal inline". In fact, article WP:OWNER and edit warrior, you are in the wrong. Furthermore, the section is not summarizing a heady debate between academic heavyweights that requires the names of the researchers to be named inline. You have invented your own rule that a source has to be named inline because "We need to retain those attributions in order to avoid seemingly making statements in Wikipedia's voice". If the statements are so controversial, then they do not belong on Wikipedia at all. If the are not controversial, then there is no need to name people inline, since the readers have no idea who these people are. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, you should really cool off with the personal attacks, as I do not own anything but merely try to adhere to good encyclopedia standards. In reality, in no way does the guideline say "don't name the journal inline, and zealously remove every naming instance as if it were the bubonic plague". The guideline encourages us to add inline citations, unless you can show us where it says otherwise. The statements are not at all controversial, but the authors should receive the due credit, as described by your cited guideline. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On article talk pages, everyone needs to stop talking about other editors and focus on the editorial content of the article, per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you want to talk about each other's behavior, take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 14:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abductor: I don't think there's anything wrong with properly attributing an assertion cited in an article to the author(s) who made it. I also don't think such an attribution needs to be limited to summarizing a heady debate between academic heavyweights that requires the names of the researchers to be named inline. Just for reference I went to WP:FA to see what is done in other articles. FA's are considered to be the best articles on Wikipedia and are thus highly scrutinized by the community. I went to WP:FA#Media to start and found the following FA articles which all include wording similar, at least it seems similar to me, to what is being discussed here:

Deep Throat (episode)

In the "Themes" it says Richard Flannery and David Louzecky, in The Philosophy of The X-Files, compared Deep Throat's willingness to hide the truth of alien life to the cover-up of the My Lai Massacre and the trials following the Enron scandal.

Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)

In "Themes" it says Simon Riches, in an essay included in The Philosophy of David Lynch, has noted that the Red Room dream sequence is an example of the difficulty in rationalizing a priori knowledge—the "lack of empirical evidence that ... a faculty of intuition exists" in the mind is here represented by the "nonphysical", dreamlike Red Room. and The episode makes use of strong color cues and unusual camera angles—in particular, the brown color palette and low-angle shots used to represent the character of Leland Palmer have been described by Helen Wheatley, author of Gothic Television, as creating "a mood of domestic terror", which serves to cue the audience to his eventual outing as his daughter's killer.

Damien (South Park)

In "Themes" you get Matt Zoller Seitz of Star-Ledger said: "They aren't making fun of organized religion (though they have in the past). They're making fun of those who would turn religion into entertainment and entertainment into a kind of religion." and Religious writer Michel Clasquin said the abandonment of Jesus demonstrates, "Like many people in the real world, the faith of the town's people cannot withstand the hard times."

Carnivàle

In "Mythology", there's Matt Roush of TV Guide called Carnivàle "the perfect show for those who thought Twin Peaks was too accessible". and The Australian stated that Carnivàle "seems to have been conceived in essentially literary terms" which "can sometimes work on the page but is deadly on the large screen, let alone a small one. It's almost like a biblical injunction against pretension on television.

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

In "Themes", an entire paragraph, excluding the 10-word opening sentence, gives us this: As Ethan Thompson explains in his article, "Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire", the style consists of four crucial elements: humor, bodily excess, linguistic games that challenge official discourse, and the inversion of social structures. Cartman's body—his obesity and his inability to control his farting—exemplifies the grotesque. The boys swear throughout the episode, using words and phrases such as "fat ass" and "dildo", challenging the boundaries of appropriate language. Finally, the social structure of the town is inverted, as the episode focuses on the knowledge that the four boys have of the aliens as opposed to the ignorant and incompetent adults. Moreover, the aliens perceive the cows as more intelligent than the humans, inverting the species order.

I'm not saying that because other stuff exists somewhere else, it has to "exist" in this article as well. There are also probably many FAs that do things differently. However, it does seem, at least to me, that if such attributions were contrary to even the spirit of WP:INTEXT, they would have been removed from all of the above referenced articles a long time ago.

If the problem is that the wording uses paraphrasing instead of direct quotes, then may be through discussion a version acceptable to all sides can be found. But, regardless of whether it is a direct quote or paraphrase, I still think some kind of attribution is needed.

The only other problem policy problem that I can imagine regarding the current wording is that it is a copyvio. Are you saying the current wording too closely paraphrases the source and is, therefore, a copyvio? Personally, I think it is only a single sentence and as long as it properly attributes the source, it should be acceptable per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, but if you have such concerns then we should discuss them, since that is quite a serious matter. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

- I will be removing all such instances of useless verbiage as I find them. Do you really think the readers care about the names of all these random people? Nobody is being plagiarized; they are named in the footnote-style refs at the bottom of the page. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abductive: By "plagiarism", I am referring to the example given in WP:PLAG#Copyrighted sources only which starts out with Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as their own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution. This seems to imply that in certain cases only naming the source in footnote-style refs at the bottom of the page is insufficient per WP:PLAG. Moreover, WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism does list certain examples where in-text attribution is generally not required, but this does not seem to be one of them. In-text attribution of both author and source seems to be commonly used when referring to critical reviews like in Breaking Bad#Reception. This does not seem too different from what is being suggested here. In a sense, Salthammer and Harnish are "reviewing" the way chemistry is being portrayed in the show. Why shouldn't they be attributed for their review in the same way that the critics in the "Reception" section are being attributed for their reviews?

Is there any compromise which you might find acceptable? Would it be acceptable if only the authors' names were mentioned and not both the names and the article or vice versa? Is this a case of all or nothing with no chance of finding a compromise?

Finally, I'm not sure if it is our responsibility as editors to worry about who/what readers really care about when writing/editing articles. If that were truly the case, "popularity" would probably be one of Wikipedia's core content policies. I think the best we can do is to try and ensure that articles adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines whenever possible. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Abductive, next time you hurl the word WP:OWNER at anyone, consider WP:KETTLE. This kind of zeal is not suited for Wikipedia at all. Both myself and Marchjuly have extensively explained why your position here is wrong. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please limit your discussion to improvements to the article. Discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Suppose I say, "Addams considers Brown's view incorrect." In order to do that under WP:PSTS in order to avoid WP:OR, I must have a source by a third party, say Chapworth, that says that. One cannot use Addams as a source for himself, since as far as he himself is concerned, he's a primary source. The WP:POLICY (Policy!) says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So, for example, the quote from Donna Nelson at the beginning of the Scientific accuracy subsection is acceptable, since it uses a source that isn't her to bolster its claim that her contribution to the show is important. Next, the Mythbusters material is backed up not by a ref to the show or a YouTube clip of the show, but to a blog (which isn't ideal, but at least is secondary). Also, people who have reached notability are (at least) known to the readership and may also be given a bit of a pass. But then we get to Jason Wallach of Vice and Tunga Salthammer and Falk Harnish writing in ChemistryViews which is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In spite of such misgivings, I have said that these sources are perfectly fine as refs. But to put them on the same level as the show's scientific adviser or even Mythbusters is not encyclopedic. They are primary sources when referring to themselves, and the use of their names and journals does not advance the readers' understanding—unless it is to seed doubt about the value of what they are saying. Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the article by Salthammer and Harnish can be considered to be a primary source in this case. The article is not being used as a source to cite information in a Wikipedia article about either of them or their research as far as I can see. They are not as far as I can tell affiliated with the show in any way. They do not seem to be speaking for all chemists or officially on behalf of the show; They are just giving their opinion how they feel chemistry is being portrayed in the show. Comparing what they've written to the statement by Nelson seems a bit of a stretch in my opinion; Nelson is officially affiliated with the show and thus she would be considered to be a primary source with a potential conflict of interest. This is why her interpretations cannot be directly used per WP:PSTS, not because her interpretations are any more (or less) important than the interpretations of others. Now, if Nelson were to write an article about the portrayal of chemistry in some other TV series/movie which she has no official affiliation with at all, then she would not be considered a primary source and, therefore, could be cited and attributed directly.

I also don't see where any of the editors in favor of attributing Salthammer and Harnish are trying to claim their "views" are more important than the views of others; they are just saying those views should be properly attributed. No judgements are being made about whose view is more accurate or relevant and nobody is being elevated or demoted in status. Furthermore, no one is interpreting or synthesizing what Salthammer and Harnish have written; it was paraphrased which is exactly why it needs to be attributed. If they were quoted directly, they would need to be attributed per MOS:QUOTE, etc., right? In a similar fashion, paraphrasing also requires in-text attribution per WP:PLAG#Copyrighted sources only.

Finally, I not sure if being notable is a requirement for being mentioned in an in-text attribution. WP:NNC seems to say it isn't. Are you saying Salthammer and Harnish should not be attributed in the article simply because they do not have Wikipedia articles written about them? The in-text attribution of statements made in the article in this particular case does not seem to be contrary to WP:UNDUE, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. As for the reliability of "ChemistryViews", I'm not sure how it can be reliable enough to use as a reference, but not reliable enough to use for an in-text attribution. It either satisfies WP:RS or it doesn't. I feel it does, but you can discuss this at WP:RSN if you want the opinion of others. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ChemistryViews is not the source. The source is Chemie in unserer Zeit (described at de.wikipedia here).

If we judge it to be a reliable source for discussing chemistry, we state the article's conclusions as facts. If an article in Newsweek says the Moon is made of cheese, we say, "The Moon is made of cheese.<ref>(Newsweek cite)<ref>.

If, however, the source is not a reliable source for chemistry, we simply do not cite the material.

In general, the only time we say "Joe Blow says the Moon is made of cheese" is if a reliable source says that. We don't say "Joe Radio says Jim Carpetbagger is a moron" and cite Joe Radio. If The New York Times discusses Joe's comment about Jim, we say it and cite The Times.

In my opinion, then, we need to judge the reliability of the German journal. If it is reliable, we state its conclusions as facts, with the authors' names in the ref. If we judge that it is not a reliable source for chemistry, we do not include the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and clarification SummerPhD.

First, I have a some technical questions. I believe that this is the original article. Should the original's link be used for the "url" parameter and the German title be used for the "title" parameter? Should we treat this strictly as a non-english source from start to finish and make no mention of "ChemistryViews" at all or should we incorporate the link to the translated version found in "ChemistryViews" by using the "other" parameter and saying something like "translated by David Old Brand at (link)"?

Second, If we do not attribute the statement to any person in particular, then aren't we running into trouble per the example given in WP:PLAG#Copyrighted sources only? Personally, I see this as being closer to the "In-text attribution, no quotation marks, text properly paraphrased, inline citation" example given in WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism than the "No in-text attribution, no quotation marks, text summarized in an editor's own words, inline citation" example that comes next. In the "In-text attribution, ..., test properly paraphrased" example, it does seem that we are supposed to give proper attribution to Joe Radio when writing "Joe Radio says Jim Carpetbagger is a moron". Wouldn't we write "Joe Radio says, 'Jim Carpetbagger is a moron'" if we were directly quoting Joe Radio in the article? I am not so sure why we should treat paraphrasing any differently. FWIW, I did not add the text in question to the article; I only suggested it as one possibility. I was only advocating a return to the version before the information was removed the first time around per WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus could be reached either way and I still think that's what should be done. This is not an all or nothing issue for me. If the wording is an issue and a consensus that is acceptable to all sides can be reached through discussion, then that's fine with me.

Finally, I noticed that the first two sentences in the second to last paragraph in Breaking Bad#Scientific accuracy also cite the "ChemistryViews" piece. If the consensus is that "Chemie in unserer Zeit" is reliable, then these two sentences should probably be incorporated into the last paragraph in some way since they cite the same source. Likewise, if the source is deemed unreliable then all information cited by it should be removed. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: No, we do not say "The moon is made of cheese." We say "According to <source>, the moon is made of cheese.^[1]" This goes, again, to the issue of Wikipedia making statements that are, albeit not directly, in its own voice. We serve as a mere mediator between reliable sources and the reader. Therefore, clarity of attribution is of utmost importance. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

References

^ 1

You are mistaken. "The Moon is a differentiated body: it has a geochemically distinct crust, mantle, and core. The Moon has a solid iron-rich inner core with a radius of 240 kilometers and a fluid outer core primarily made of liquid iron with a radius of roughly 300 kilometers. Around the core is a partially molten boundary layer with a radius of about 500 kilometers.[37]" Moon#Physical_characteristics - SummerPhD (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of precision, SummerPhD. This would be the way we relay encyclopedic facts. However, since this is an analysis piece, the in-text attribution is imperative to the way Wikipedia communicates such information to its readers. I hope this clears up the confusion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The composition of the Moon is certainly encyclopedic. Similarly, the vast majority of encyclopedic facts in Wikipedia are conveyed without calling out sources in the text. If the journal in question is a reliable source for the facts cited, authorship is immaterial. If it is not a reliable source, pulling material from it is pointless. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: I wrote most of what Chunk5Darth added to the test, and I was trying to paraphrase, not summarize, what was in the source. Do you feel that authorship is immaterial even in cases where the text in Wikipedia paraphrases what is written in the cited source? I am only asking because some of the examples given in WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism seem to suggest differently and I used those as a guide when I worked through my suggestion. Also, some of the FA examples I have listed above for reference also seem to in-text attribute not only for the cited source, but also for the author. I am not saying that this means those articles are beyond a doubt 100% correct, but they were selected as FAs which means they were scrutinized by a wide array of experienced editors, doesn't it? If such an in-text attribution was unencyclopedic as is being claimed, then wouldn't said wording have been removed either during the screening process or later? I don't think Chunk5Darth and I are trying to argue whether the article was written by these two people and that it is about Breaking Bad. We are not trying to use the article as a source for itself or anything factual about the show. All we are saying is that the interpretations/analysis/opinions expressed in the article are not "facts" and, therefore, should be properly attributed in-text. Just for reference, today's (October 29, 2014) FA is Sonic: After the Sequel. In "Sonic After the Sequel#Reception" there are some in-text attributions being made for reviews/interpretations being given. These include Ponce called it "the best music ever" and "simply indescribable", opining that it raised an already high-quality product "to god tier".[21] Ponce wrote an article dedicated to the game's music two days later, clarifying that it equals or surpasses the quality of any other Sonic game's soundtrack.[24]. This seems to be in accordance with the examples in "Avoiding Plagiarism" that I have referenced above and seems a little similar, at least to me, to what we are discussing here. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abductive: This is a reply to your post given below in "Reliability of Chemie in unserer Zeit". What about the last three examples given in WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism? The source in those examples is a book by "Micheal E. Brown". The first two examples are "In-text attribution, quotation marks, most of the text properly paraphrased, inline citation" and "In-text attribution, no quotation marks, text properly paraphrased, inline citation", and directly refer to the author Micheal E. Browne in-text. The third example "No in-text attribution, no quotation marks, text summarized in an editor's own words, inline citation" does not directly mention the author but does say If the sentence (...) is distinctive in some way (if, for example, it represents an unusual position), it may require in-text attribution (Michael E. Brown suggests that ...) despite being an editor's own summary of the source material. The first two examples seem similar to what we are discussing because an in-text attribution is being given to Michael E. Brown even though his book is the cited source. It seems to me that what is being giving attribution in these examples is not the fact that Brown's name is Brown, but Brown's interpretations or opinions. Brown's book is not being used to tell us who Brown is, but that some person who happens to be named Brown, has the following interpretations or opinions about the subject being discussed. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The November 3 featured article was Bivalvia. In the first sentence of Bivalvia#Etymology, a scientist named Carl Linnaeus and his Systema Naturae are directly attributed in-text as being the first to use the term "Bivalvia". The only source cited to support this statement is Linnaeus' "Systema Naturae". The second paragraph of Bivalvia#Diversity of extant bivalves gives in-text attribution to Markus Huber and his treatise Compendium of Bivalves. The only cited source for the entire paragraph is Huber's Compendium of Bivalves. In Bivalvia#2010 taxonomy, the first sentence directly attributes "a new taxonomy to Bivalvia" to a piece published in the journal Malacologia. The only cited source in support of this is the actual article in Malacologia. All of the in-text attributions I've mentioned above were in the article in this version the day after it was promoted to FA in July 2012. All of these sources appear to be reliable, so if "authorship is immaterial", or this is a case of in-text attribution simply being used so that a primary source can be used to refer to itself, then it is highly likely all such mentions would've have been removed before, during or after the FA review process. I understand about WP:OSE, but there is also WP:OSE#Precedent in usage. These are FA articles which are supposed to be the best of the best, right? If such in-text attributions were simply violations of WP:PSTS and WP:INTEXT as is being claimed, then they wouldn't be used at all in FAs. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Chemie in unserer Zeit

A lot of the discussion so far has been regarding the need for in-text attribution, but as SummerPhD has posted out determining the reliability of Chemie in unserer Zeit is also needed simply because all of what is discussed above becomes a mute point is the source is not deemed to be reliable per WP:RS. The source appears to be cited quite a bit on German Wikipedia. A google search also gets lots of hits. It is published and it seems to have been started back in 1967[1]. It also seems to be part of the Wiley Online Library. Are all of the above enough to assume a reasonable degree of fact-checking or reliability? I'm not sure. The original language is German, which I don't understand, so I cannot tell if the source is a peer-reviewed journal or simply just some magazine about chemistry. Should we try to discuss this here or would it be more suited for something like WP:RSN?. Should we start a new talk page section if we are to discuss it here? Any suggestions or comments would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It was translated and posted by ChemistryViews, which seems reliable. Therefore, the original is reliable by WP:TERTIARY. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, as a translation it is just a translation of a secondary source. Therefore it is secondary. Each step removed from a source must offer analysis to make it the next level. So what the source is, is a secondary source about the accuracy of the science in Breaking Bad, and a "zeroary" or primary source when talking about the names of the authors. As such, it can be used in the article if it is agreed that they are correct about the accuracy of the science in Breaking Bad but their names are not relevant and cannot be included inline. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I initially responded to Abductive's above post here, I moved my post to the above section because that is, in my opinion, the best place for such discussion. I think we should limit our discussion in this particular section to whether the source is reliable per WP:RS. That is what we should try and determine first. Whether in-text attribution is needed or is acceptable is irrelevant if the source is not usable, so comments about in-text attribution should be left to the previous section. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Abductive, you are repeating yourself. While you are right in stating that the translation is secondary rather than tertiary, the fact that a WP:RS translated and posted the article is sufficient for deeming the original reliable as well. The authors' names are relevant because, as repeatedly stated above, we must give them their due credit because we use their work here. Marchjuly, I believe there is a clear concensus here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "consensus" here does not supersede the Wikipedia Policies that putting in their names violates. Furthermore, it is not by vote-counting (Summer PhD and me vs. Marchjuly and you being a tie anyway). The people get their "credit" in the refs. This is true of every single sentence on Wikipedia--all of them are supposed to be backed up by refs. If one were to go through and add the "credit" to everything on this encyclopedia, Wikipedia would become unreadable. Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't shown which policies it violates, because I personally quoted your own policy in support of attributing their names in-line. Back up your statements or quit. At this point, it's as simple as that. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I really think we should try and focus on the reliability of Chemie in unserer Zeit (hereinafter referred to as "CIUZ" in this post) in this particular section and leave the in-text attribution discussion to the above section. It appears that "CIUZ" is published by Wiley-VCH Verlag out of Weinheim, Germany. The English Wikipedia article is only a two-sentence stub, but the German Wikipedia article is a little more extensive. The company's "About Us" makes it seem that it has lots of experience when it comes to publishing scientific articles. It is also appears to be a part of the John Wiley & Sons publishing group which seems to further strengthen its claim as a reliabile source. I think it fair to assume that there's a reasonable degree of editorial control and fact checking implemented by the company over what is published "CIUZ". In addition, certain volumes of "CIUZ" are kept on file in the University of Georgia's UGA Library; it has an impact factor of .364 for 2013/2014 (which seems pretty low, but not sure if that means it is considered to be unreliable) and it gets quite a lot of hits with Google Scholar. "CIUZ" is listed in these two journal citation reports by Thomson Reuters: Journals in the 2014 Release of JCR (page 51) and Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded 2014 (page 31). I personally think this is enough to satisfy WP:RS, but I am willing to continue discussing if needed. Is this enough for us to reach a consensus on "reliability" or are there still some things which should be discussed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's enough. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a general comment on content, article topic and reliable sources: be sure to take into consideration the Wikipedia:No original research policy where it says "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. ", which means the source must directly mention the subject of the article "Breaking Bad". The show may talk about chemistry, and there are a lot of chemistry texts out there, but if they don't mention Breaking Bad directly, then it may violate OR. Take it to the WP:NOR/N board if that's the case. Dreadstar ☥ 16:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar:The article has the words "Breaking Bad" in its title, and its core subject is analyzing various moments in the series. Couldn't get more relevant if it tried. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I hadn't looked at it, just making a general comment.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

It has been over a month since any comments have been made regarding the reliability of Chemie in unserer Zeit. Nobody appears to be arguing that it isn't reliable—the primary argument appears to be whether it should be [edited to add missing word] directly referred [edit to correct verb tense] to in-text. So, I believe it's fair to say that the consensus is that it is reliable and can be used. The only issue remaining then is how to cite the source. I propose that we cite the original article as follows since it explicitly refers to the CV source as a translation of the original:
<ref> {{cite journal |last1=Harnish |first1=Falk| |last2=Salthammer |first2=Tunga |url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ciuz.201300612/pdf |title=Die Chemie bei Breaking Bad |language=de |format=pdf |date=August 2013 |journal=Chemie in unserer Zeit |volume=47 |issue=4 |publisher=[[Wiley-VCH Verlag]] |location=Weinheim, Germany |pp=214–221 |via=[[ChemistryViews]]: Translated into English from original as [http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/5416791/The_Chemistry_of_Breaking_Bad.html "The Chemistry of Breaking Bad"] by David Old Brand |accessdate=December 1, 2014}}</ref>.
This would look like this ^[1]

References

^ Harnish, Falk; Salthammer, Tunga (August 2013). "Die Chemie bei Breaking Bad" (pdf). Chemie in unserer Zeit (in German). 47 (4). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag: 214–221. Retrieved December 1, 2014 – via ChemistryViews: Translated into English from original as "The Chemistry of Breaking Bad" by David Old Brand. {{cite journal}}: External link in |via= (help)

Is this an acceptable way to cite the source? -Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC); Edited to add missing word and correct verb tense. Original changed from "should directly refer to" to "should be directly referred to". - Marchjuly 00:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Willondon (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This works for me. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"One of the greatest television series of all time"

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

With tedious predictability, my edit to insert the word "American" into the blatantly US-centric statement "Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time" was reverted -- no doubt by an American, certainly by someone who didn't have the common courtesy to give a reason. If this statement is to remain unqualified, it needs to be supported by sources from around the world, not just the US-centric ones currently provided. 109.157.10.246 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got a point there. This sentence has been discussed at length here. Not sure if there's some history on the US-centric angle already. Willondon (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's some article's which might show the appeal of Breaking Bad is not limited to US audiences and critics.

The New Zealand Herald - "For and against: Is Breaking Bad the best TV show of all time?".
The Daily Mail - Is this the best TV show of all time? Breaking Bad is back and Jim Shelley picks 12 pivotal moments that make it a modern classic
Metro UK - Breaking Bad is officially the greatest TV show of all time
The Guardian - Haven't we had enough of murder on the telly? (Not specifically about BB, but author does refer to it as the "greatest crime-drama ever made".)
The Independent - TV Baftas 2014: Breaking Bad wins Best International series
The Local - 'Germany can't produce a Breaking Bad' Quote: "In a roundup of 12 of the world's best TV series, Germany's top-selling daily newspaper the Bild did not place a single home-grown series in its list. All but one spot went to American and British shows such as Homeland, Downton Abbey and, of course, Breaking Bad."

- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time." These are just weasel words. Who says so? Then cite it. If you can't or won't cite it in the intro, then leave it out. Isn't it enough that the series has been acclaimed? Vague language like this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry. Frankly, it's a little embarrassing. --Rhombus (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, information in the lead that duplicates information in the body need not be cited. The article currently cites the claim in the very first sentence of the "Reception" section with a lengthy footnote. However, I agree that it is a heavy claim, so I'll duplicate the citation in the lead. Deadbeef 02:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Per the hidden note right there in the lead there seems to be some consensus against it. Deadbeef 02:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhombus: All of this was discussed and the rationale behind the statement is clearly laid out in Talk:Breaking Bad#Greatest Series of All Time??. FWIW, I did suggest adding citations to the lede per WP:INTEGRITY, but the consensus was that they weren't needed. So, the "note" referred to by Deadbeef was added instead. As for the "weasel words" claim, this too was discussed in the aforementioned thread, but WP:WEASEL says that such phrasing can be used in the lede "where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution" and when such views "are properly attributed to a reliable source .....[and] they accurately represent the opinions of the source." so the use of such words is actually OK in this case. Anyway, per WP:CCC, a consensus can change, but this one is fairly recent so I don't think bringing it up for discussion once again so soon (especially by simply rehashing arguments which have been used unsuccessfully before) is going to get too far. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time magazine

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

WP:NOTBROKEN says there's no need to pipe a link that leads to a valid redirect, which is the case here with Time Magazine. The problem is, in my opinion, that the name of the magazine is not Time Magazine; It's Time magazine. Perhaps one way to resolve this would be to simply refer to the magazine as Time in the article and wikilink that as ''[[Time Magazine|Time]]''. - Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, presumed uncontroversial. Done. Deadbeef 04:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The end result is the same for both ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' and ''[[Time Magazine|Time]]'', but technically the latter seems to be preferred per "WP:NOTBROKEN". Regardless, I'm not going to start breaking bad on anyone over this.

- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The end result is Time magazine, and the raw text is either Time magazine vs. Time magazine. The obvious preference is not to repeat the same words twice when we can solve it with a simple redirect. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a sincere question. Is the name of the magazine "Time", "Time Magazine" or "Time magazine"? The names of major works are supposed to be italicized per MOS:ITALICS, but I don't think this includes common nouns that are not part of the name. Is there anyway to keep the link to redirect without italicizing the word "magazine"? [[''Time'' magazine]] doesn't seem to work. If there's a way to make it work, then great. If not, then piping the link to avoid italicizing "magazine" seems to be the lesser of two evils to me. "WP:NOTBROKEN" seems to say that it is acceptable to change from a redirect link to the direct page link when it is preferred that the text in the article appear a certain way. In my opinion, that is what we are dealing with in this particular case.

BTW, the same thing is happening in the "Scientific Accuracy" section. The wikilink for Vice magazine is piped even though the redirect Vice Magazine leads to the same page. Do you think we should link to the redirect for Vice magazine as well? Moreover, it's also a major work and thus should be italicized. Would it be acceptable to change that wikilink to ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]'' magazine? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC:Should TV show episode articles link to other episodes using information?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a general question for all articles about tv show episodes, feel free to participate in the discussion! Rayukk (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be more background or just expanded general information on Better Call Saul here?--TijuanaBandito (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In Breaking Bad articles, I'm not in favour of including much of anything about Better Call Saul except that there is a spin-off and a few brief details about it. I started a discussion a while back at Talk:List of Breaking Bad characters because I had concerns about updating BB articles based on revelations in BCS. The consensus seemed to be that BB should be updated based on BCS. But let me cast my "no" vote here again. Willondon (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinion

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I don't seem to be allowed to edit the page. Could someone do something about the line above the fold describing Breaking Bad as "one of the greatest shows of all time"? --ShorinBJ (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I'm not sure what is exactly wrong. Have you noticed a formatting error? Do you feel the statement is inaccurate? If it's the latter, then this has been discussed many times before in both Greatest Series of All Time?? and "One of the greatest television series of all time" and the consensus was that the statement is acceptable and well supported by reliable sources. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well-supported by reliable sources? What sources? There's no citation. It reads like a personal opinion. --ShorinBJ (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not personal opinion as it's cited later in the article here as citations are not needed in the lead per WP:CITELEAD (there's even a hidden note in the article for this after said claim). Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There are 7 sources (Breaking Bad#cite note-greatest-88) cited later in the very first sentence of Breaking Bad#Critical reception which support the statement in the lede. Per WP:CITELEAD, citations in the lede are neither required nor prohibited. Since the lede is typically a summary of information in the body of the article, redundant citations are not always needed as long the same information is properly supported by reliable sources later on in the body of the article. Whether a citation is needed in the lede is determined by consensus, and as I said in my previous post, this has been discussed in detail before in the two talk page threads I linked to. The consensus was that citations for this statement were not needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating some of the information Drovethrughosts gave. I was editing while they were adding their post and didn't read it all until after I added mine. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be edited to reflect what is meant by "widely regarded", i.e. a number of critics made statements to that effect. "Widely regarded" sounds to me like it's the prevailing opinion of the TV-watching public. But I'd argue it's moot either way, because it comes across as a fanboy/girl's statement, which isn't the tone desired on Wikipedia per my understanding. --ShorinBJ (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't clasify it as a fanboy/girl's statement because that seems to imply original research which is not really the case since the sentence does reflect, at least in my opinion, what's said latter in the article and what the cited sources say. It may be the "personal opinion" of the critics in those sources, but the same thing could be said about any kind of movie/music/play/TV show review.

The lede is intended to be a general overview so adding too much detail, i.e., "said by so and so from so and so magazine/website" would not really be an improvement in my opinon. I will admit that the sentence does seem a bit weasely, but WP:WEASEL says such phrasing is acceptable in the lede as long as "the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." So, I don't think there's a clear-cut policy/guideline reason for arguing that the statement should be removed from the lede. Adding a source to the sentence might be an option, but this has been brought up before and the consensus is that such a thing is not needed. Personally, I could live with "Breaking Bad is widely regarded by critics as one of the greatest television series of all time." (Undelined "by critics" just for talk page discussion; Not needed if added to article), but I'm not sure if that's acceptable to others. Regardless, I think it's best to be careful and cautious in this case and continue to discuss. Consensus can change over time, but its going to take a bit of convincing since this is something that has been discussed quite a bit and fairly recently. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of a very small change, such as, "a number of critics it regard it as..." --ShorinBJ (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And I have to agree with ShorinBJ. Part of the problem is, not that it isn't necessarily "true" in some sense (although things like "greatest" are inherently qualitative and therefore objective truth about them is always ambiguous), but that saying that it is true in the context of a Wikipedia article immediately sounds like peacockery. We don't need to tell the world that this is it's greatest show of all time. I feel comfortable saying it is considered by critics to be a show of exceptional caliber, and that it has received a number of prestigious awards in support of that view, but the claim that it is even just "one of" the greatest shows of all time— even if several important people said they thought so once— doesn't make it inherently "true" because "greatest" is a subjective category. You can have the fastest man or one of the fastest men (as measured in milliseconds per unit of distance traveled), the highest flying piloted aircraft, the largest land mammal, the smallest insect, but in an encyclopedia you can't have the greatest show of anything, and certainly not of all time (what about future shows? Are they by definition going to be relegated to a lesser status?? Of course not). Look, the fact that this particular line has brought so many editors in for discussion suggests that it is kind of problematic. I read the line myself and I immediately went in to edit the article and change the wording (though I did not— yet). It isn't necessary to blow horn quite so loudly, and frankly, doing so actually serves to undermine the show's greatness (which I do not dispute, not one iota). Can we not agree on some wording that doesn't sound like it came from a fanzine but that still gets the point across? I realize there have been discussions on this already but I don't feel they addressed this point. KDS4444^Talk 00:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying of an error

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guys, it says under Season 4 that the minisodes "never came to fruition", but they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.167.194 (talk) 16:55, October 1, 2013‎ Edit: perhaps this commenter refers to season 2 instead of season 470.119.141.15 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Cinemascope

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section in Technical aspects contains the following sentence, with no further elaboration:

Although series creator Vince Gilligan and Slovis wanted to shoot Breaking Bad in cinemascope, Sony and AMC didn't grant them permission, which finally worked in favor of the series' reputation.

Could some knowledgeable person expand on this? How did not shooting in cinemascope (or rather, the production companies' refusal to allow cinemascope) work in favor of the series' reputation? Do we have sources to support this, or is this some borderline WP:OR? Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. The statement doesn't really make much sense. The series' visual style and cinematography are critically praised, but the idea of not shooting in cinemascope is the reason for it doesn't make sense. There's nothing in the source about that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Guinness correct?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The reporting of the Guinness achievement is a matter of fact, but something seems amiss; http://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/score/metascore/all/filtered?sort=desc shows it in 4th place in my browser. The other 3 are older, so unless there was retroactive revision... 70.119.141.15 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the Metacritic link lists four shows (including Breaking Bad) tied for first place with a score of 99. My understanding is that Metacritic scores can change all the time, so it's possible that Breaking Bad was the only "99" at one point. But even if Breaking Bad's rating drops below 99, the statement is still true that "in 2013, Breaking Bad entered the Guinness World Records as the most critically acclaimed show of all time". The sources in the article look reliable to me, and that's what really matters for wikipedia. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that accuracy is "what really matters" but I believe you'll agree that "truth" also matters. Here there's some shakiness as to the source's claim, as anyone with a browser can verify - even if it is from the veritable and famously careful Guinness. Doesn't that warrant a followup sentence? As shown, it implies a conclusion that is questionable.70.119.177.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Guiness does not say "all time" but the article does

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See for yourself in this link. They only certify it to be the "highest rated" as of the time of compiling the 2014 edition of the book. I am not an editor, so I'll leave the correcting to whoever reads this.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2013/9/breaking-bad-cooks-up-record-breaking-formula-for-guinness-world-records-2014-edition-51000/70.119.177.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete Walter's Death titles in this article or rename it.

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

You just spoiled the entire 5 seasons for me, and I didn't even read about the show, I just read the subtitles. Who cares if fans took out an obituary ad., rename it to "Real life spoofs" or something like that.

You spoiled 5 seasons for me, of quite possibly the greatest show of all time,. Thank you

69.115.241.207 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILERS. ("This page in a nutshell: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers.") If there is legitimate encyclopedic purpose in including a spoiler, we include it. Jeh (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You can include it, just please rename the title

that way if I choose to read into it, its my own fault. I was Skimming this Wikipedia article, and NOT reading into Seasons 1,.2.,,3,.,4.,5 or even the beginning.

You manage to spoil 5 seasons into a title, Just by reading a title please rename it., fan involvement!

69.124.68.107 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide a P&G-based reason for changing it, please cite it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not censored even for what many would consider blasphemy or obscenities; we're not going to change things just because we "spoiled" a show for you (a show whose final episode was years ago). And Wikipedia doesn't cater to fans' wishes. (You want wikia for that.)

Nobody is asking you to censor it. Just rename title (The content would remain unchanged)

Sorry, but if you don't want spoilers, don't look at "encyclopedic" articles about the shows you don't want spoilers on. Jeh (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Breaking Bad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

[1] 1

[2] Harnish, Falk; Salthammer, Tunga (August 2013). "Die Chemie bei Breaking Bad" (pdf). Chemie in unserer Zeit (in German). 47 (4). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag: 214–221. Retrieved December 1, 2014 – via ChemistryViews: Translated into English from original as "The Chemistry of Breaking Bad" by David Old Brand. {{cite journal}}: External link in |via= (help)

[1]

[1]