Talk:The Riches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	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.

Contents 1 Title 2 Characters 3 Dahlia's addiction 4 Running Time? 5 Language Content? 6 Slang/Lexicon 7 Dehliah/Delilah 8 External Links

[edit] Title

I'm pretty sure the title of this show is actually "The R1¢hes." Note the alternative characters in the name spelling.

Do you have a source? The references in the article use the regular spelling of the word. Rockpocket 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As you suggest, the promo seems to use the alternative spelling. I've made a redirect and mentioned the stylistic spelling of the title. Rockpocket 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's an i, albeit an un-dotted one, but an i nonetheless. Not a 1. I've changed the article accordinglyTrevorLSciAct 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

Newbie editor here. I'm working on character summaries. I'm following the basic format for Dirt (Dirt_TV_series), which does not currently have separate character articles--I know that separate character pages are pretty common, but I'm not sure if we're there yet with this show? Anyway, just giving a heads-up because, as stated, I'm a newb; and to let people know in case there is parallel effort going on. Also, question: if a character's summary necessarily contains plot elements (e.g., explaining Dahlia's drug addiction), does that section need to be spoiler tagged?--Thessaly 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! Using Dirt as an example would be a great way to go about it :) Generally, we'd rather expand a page and then split it off, rather than have a lot of stub pages (though your milage may vary on that one). Don't worry about spoiler tagging the character summaries right now. I think we're okay so long as we don't launch into hugely detailed explanations. Can't wait to work with you :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Committed first set of characters (main Malloy family). Secondary characters to follow. Critique welcomed, especially in the area of 'neutrality'. (I spend a lot of time on show discussion forums, so neutrality may take a while to get the hang of.) :) --Thessaly 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I'd already move the spoiler end template before I read this - not having a good day on this article today! Feel free to move it back if you prefer. Welcome Thessaly, your material seems good so far. Regarding neutrality in character bios, the major thing to do is avoid analysis of their behaviour or actions (something that is rife on forums). Often that means some of the more subtle aspects of their character can be lost, but thats how it goes. Rockpocket 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Let's see if I can intuit this identation trick!) Re: spoilers...due to my television-fandom/forums background, I'm fairly spoiler-phobic, and I'm fine with the summaries being spoilered (esp. while they are part of the main article). I'm also fine with whatever the consensus is--I'm actually not too familiar with wikipedia's treatment of television shows (I'll work on that). :) Thanks again. --Thessaly 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Added more characters; tried harder with the brevity. :) I included characters that either a) I know will play significant roles in future episodes, or b) (in the case of the O'Malleys), were part of a pivotal plot point in the pilot/premise. Totally unintentional alliteration there. I'm having second thoughts about whether the real (dead) Riches need their own bios, at least until we know more about them. Kept new character additions within the spoiler section. Not deeply invested in the categorization I used (the family, the travellers, and the others), just seemed the most natural for now. --Thessaly 00:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Buffers! They should totally be Buffers instead of Others. I'll go fix that. Also, I think the Riches should have at least a blurb. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought about a Buffers heading instead, wasn't sure if it would be too 'inside'. I do like it, though. (Should a brief explanation of what a Buffer is be inserted in the synopsis?) Re: the real Riches...my other hesitation is that I've lost track of what I know about them from the pilot, and what I know about them from episode 2 (which is being webcast early on Yahoo), and I don't want to *really* spoil people. :) --Thessaly 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dahlia's addiction

Most of the mainstream (i.e., non-blog) press I've seen has said that Dahlia's primary addiction is methamphetamine. Minnie Driver herself said methamphetamine this week on The View; here's an article with a similar statement: LA Daily News. That said, we've only seen her chug cough syrup, and start to shoot up something from a spoon. The latter has made a lot of people assume heroin, but many drugs can be injected, including meth. Until they explicitly say what she's shooting, I think we should keep it ambiguous. It's possible the show-runners will go a different direction from what they (and Minnie Driver) have stated, but the fact remains that we don't know what she was trying to inject.--Thessaly 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Running Time?

In the infobox it says the running time is 60 minutes, but the Pilot was 75 minutes and the second episode was 68 (both with commercials). Is the running time for future episodes going to be a more normal 60 minutes (with commercials) or should the article be changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cicero17 (talk • contribs).

The running time is for without commercials as per guidelines for infobox television. --PhantomS 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language Content?

Should mention be made of the abundance of the word "Shit" being used? I remember that South Park had a big publicity for this, though I havn't seen any other TV:MA things that arn't animated, so this may not be exceptional for FX.

The show's content (sex/violence/language) is very low-key compared to other FX dramas, some of which practically venture into the realm of softcore porn on a regular basis. :) That said, I don't know how content warnings in television shows are usually handled on wikipedia. --Thessaly 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources commenting on the language, there is no justification for us to comment. Rockpocket 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, no, we don't need to mention it. Other FX shows (Rescue me) don't have warnings, for precedence of doing nothing about it :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slang/Lexicon

I'm not even sure this sub-section is necessary. "Buffers" is explained elsewhere in the article, and "koosh" (sp?) is easy enough to figure out from context (the few times it's been used). If they had a lot of show-specific words requiring definition, I could see the need for this.--Thessaly 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Think of it as a precautionary measure. Irish Travellers in the real world, like all modern nomads, use a lot of their own terminology and even have their own language. We're only two episodes in, so it's impossible to tell at this stage, but it's likely a lot more of it will creep into the show. Besides, some people may not grasp the meaning of the terms immediately; it's inappropriate for us to assume that they will. --Slander 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Query? Is the show using Shelta then, or their own made up language? If it's the former, we can just say 'They use Shelta' and link up and be done. If not, we need to mention that while, IRL, they use it, on the show, they've fabricated their own. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its needed either (especially not to define Boss). My feeling is that the term buffer is pretty contrived by the producers and not really based in any realistic use by Travellers. Could be wrong, though. Rockpocket 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still really not a fan of the 'lexicon', but I haven't been around long enough to feel comfortable deleting an entire section. Input? (The 'Half Breed' definition in particular is problematic, because the show didn't actually define it other than to say that Wayne is 'half buffer'.) --Thessaly 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dehliah/Delilah

I'm hearing 'Delilah', but I've seen 'Dehliah' in other places. I'm not sure where to find an official source. The FX site kills my laptop. In any case, the hits from sources that seem more reliable (New Yorker) spell it 'Delilah', and my suspicion is that 'Dehliah' is an error that propogated via blog sites. Still, just making note that it's a (mis?)spelling I've seen elsewhere. --Thessaly 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the FX site (http://www.fxnetwork.com/shows/originals/theriches/, let the popup pop up, then under the "Meet the Neighbors" section) it's spelled Dehliah. I actually changed it in the article to Delilah because that's what I was hearing too, but maybe it's pronounced just like "Delilah" but without the second L sound, and we're just hearing "Delilah" because that's a more common name..? Make sense? But anyway, in the article it should be spelled the way it is on the FX site for the show, I think, so I'll change it back now. :) --AMK1211 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. That one was a head-scratcher. --Thessaly 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I've been deleting http://www.theriches-fans.com/ because the age, while beautiful, has no real content just yet. It's obvious a new page, and once it has more information, probably should be added. While WP:EL compliance appears not to matter in regards to this, a 'place holder' website does not add any useful benefit to the article, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. 71.39.65.90 has been warned. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)