Talk:Bones (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 trivia? 2 Zack or Zach? 3 Boreanaz being typcast 4 Vandalism 5 More Detail?

[edit] trivia?

Maybe a trivia section? Toomanysidesofme 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zack or Zach?

According to site its Zach but here http://searchingbones.com/2006/08/30/is-it-zach-or-zack/ it says Zack. Its not the first time that the site has been wrong. They got Rebecca's name wrong too.Toomanysidesofme 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would view the official site as being a more reliable and reputable source than a random fansite, TBH, so I would say stick with that until it's either changed, or a more reliable/definite source comes along. Mike Peel 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The subtitling usually says "Zack". Jtl 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boreanaz being typcast

If David Boreanaz had ever played a detective investigating a supernatural murder-mystery before as he did in the Bones episode "The Man in the Morgue," then I'd have to say that he was at risk of being typcast, luckily he hasn't... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.150.123.197 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some idiot, pretending to be funny, vandalized this page. I made a small change by removing some words. Thanks.--Kim Kusanagi 07:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Detail?

As Bones now has a second season, maybe it would be worth making a seasonal guide to episode, with lengthier explanations of the episodes and more information? (eg. See Lost Season One) Personally I feel this would be appropriate as I don't feel Bones needs a page per episode, but needs a more detailed account of the episodes Mtowers 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone would be willing to do an episode-per-episode breakdown, that would be a great idea. A lower-maintenence idea would be to do seasonal plot arcs -- "Themes" or "Broader Plot" or something. Since a lot of the episodal material is of the Law & Order brand (tune in whenever you like, little will have changed) lots of episode detail might not be worth the effort.

Bellhop080

Bones doesn't really have seasonal plots, other than the parents issue, and a few minor others. I'd be willing to do it after I get the DVD, and I'd keep episodic reviews of Season 2 episodes on my computer until I've written the Season 1 ones. But if someone were to share this with me it would be of great benefit (especially for Season 1) Mtowers 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. I'd recommend that you add content to the episodes list on this page for now, then split the seasons off into their own pages once they've got more content in them (and write broad season synopses at that point). I wouldn't worry about the order you add the info in - the page doesn't have to be put together in order. Alias (TV series) is a good example of what should probably be the ultimate aim - that show is also very episodic, although it does have some links throughout all of the episodes (more so than Bones, though). Mike Peel 07:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike, but right now we aren't sure how long Bones is going to be around for, Fox is pretty much unpredictable. If it goes on past season two I think we should aim for a Alias Page added in episodes Summaries like Lost. I'll be happy to help with season one. I have most of the episodes taped so I can rewatch them and write longer summaries. For themes and such, we could have a cultural references, maybe a section on the only plot arc, Brennan's parents. There is alot we can do. Toomanysidesofme 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As a dissenting voice, why put that much detail into the table? The season one table seems a lot cleaner, and doesn't require the spoiler tag. It allows someone to identify the episode, get a general "gist" of the episode, without giving away plot details. The highly detailed first entry I found annoying for those reasons - now it is worse because you've expanded the entire second season table this way.

If people want plot synopsis, they can always go to TV.com. Alternately, if you really want to document a high level of detail, replicating TV.com's effort, you might consider forking off episode articles.

Right now, the second season table is unusable to the reader who wants to scan the episodes to see if the series sounds interesting, but doesn't want the stories explained to them, thus spoiling the drama.

I'm not saying that the synopsis don't have places on Wikipedia - but it probably is better forked, or linked, rather than placed in the show's main summary article. That way the reader can choose the level of detail they want to be exposed to. - Vedexent (talk) - 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I added my own expanded summaries not revealing the ending. I don't know about the level of spiolers. My summaries aren't it great detail.Toomanysidesofme 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is someone planning on doing the same to season one? Right now the two seasons are treated unequally. I think that either the second season should be pared back down, or the first season expanded. I still don't like the lengthy descriptions and think that expanded details should go in a separate article - perhaps something like is done with Torchwood? - but at the very least the two seasons should treated equally. - Vedexent (talk) - 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing season 2 currently (except the first episode this season wasn't mine), I'll do season one too when I get around to it. If someone has the time, feel free to do it. Toomanysidesofme 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Her on-screen chemistry with her "partner" Agent Seeley Booth is uncertain and confusing at times, leaving the viewer perplexed, but never bored." I think that this is an objective statement and the wording should be changed -- the "leaving the viewer perplexed but never bored" part.