Talk:Next (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Grammar stuff

"Next" is not a verb. One cannot "next" a person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a MTV show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.255.236 (talk • contribs)

One Can not "Buy a Vowel", Yet since it's the terminology the game show uses... 69.207.42.15 (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kill?

umm they don't "kill" the contestants, they NEXT them—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.245.124 (talk • contribs)

[edit] SCRIPTED

I personally think this show is fake and scripted. I feel sorry for the actors that make fools of themselves by being in this rediculous show. Mtv needs to stick with the music....and live th dating shows to some other network because room radors also sucks....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.63.230 (talk • contribs)

I heard from my friend, that this show is completly written cause of one of the crew members from Date My Mom also works for this. This meaning that all her shows are written.

This is used as a doorway for aspiring actors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.125.101 (talk • contribs)

there not all actors, people from the show did come to my college over a year again and I did try out. I did get a callback in december but I couldn't do the day my "date" was set up Sirevil 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Olympic Tae Kwon Do gold medalists Ashish Sharma and Justin Velilla starred in an episode. They both got the ladies. The ladies were so seduced by Ashish and Justin that they spent well over three hours before asking them out on a second date. They both politely requested for the money.

Who are these two people? 'Ashish and Justin'. They do not seem to be actual medalists or even famous people of any sort. Can someone either correct me or the mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.67.18 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Needs Serious Clean-up!

Hey everyone, this whole article needs work. There's tons of original research, and that's against Wiki policies. The language in the main article is redundant (how many times do you need to explain the way the money accumulates) and has very little organizational structure. I'm removing the entire trivia section as it is because there isn't a single cited claim in there. If you want to revert it, go ahead but remember that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If there's no citation backing up what you're saying, it's going to get deleted. It may be interesting that Pumkin was on this show and Flavor of Love (among many other shows actually) but it's not worthy of an encylcopedia. If you can cite a reliable source that talks about her appearance on both of these shows, we can discuss it. For now, just note that even her imdb entry doesn't include her involvements in Next, Blind Date, or any of the other shows she's been a contestant on. Mikeliveshere 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. Still lots of OR unfortunately, but I'll be on the look-out for good reliable sources that talk about this show. I'm actually fairly sure I read something regarding "strategies" that might be interesting, but I think that might have just been a blog. Mikeliveshere 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIVIA

Who the hell here deleted it? I was going to add that Darreyl from XPosed was on it.74.195.3.199 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCRIPTED AND FAKE

The show is scripted and fake so of course people that were in Date My MomExposedParental Control are going to be on this show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.43.166 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Stop Trippin'

I don't think anyone has a problem believing that much of the show is phoney. The problem is the lack of WP:verifiable sources that state this. Wikipedia is about verifiability. It is not about what our friends and relatives tell us. Shaundakulbara 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


So where do you think those "verifiable" sources come from? I'll tell ya -- they come from people! People who have been on the show or people that are involved in producing the show. Just because these persons do not have a Ph.D. or some fancy title does not make them any less legitimate.

The problem with the show is that it presents itself to the public at large as live or unscripted, when nothing could be further than the truth. Prior to hearing what my cousin told me, I thought the show was the real deal, though most of the "contestants" preety lame or stupid.

People have a right to learn the truth behind the programming. Wikipedia is not just about facts & figures like an atlas, it is also about peoples' real life knowledge and experiences on a very wide range of topics.

I would have logged in under my 'wikipedia' login name, but I have forgotten it and don't have time to look for it.

  • Fine, whatever. You obviously have no understanding of the criteria for inclusion in a Wikiepdia article nor do you have any desire to learn. If not interested in our guidelines why should we be interested in your opinions? You edits have been reversed and will be until properly referenced. Shaundakulbara 07:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


So who died and made you King? Who are you to decide what goes into an article and what does not? You're just another user just like me or anyone else. I feel that your "edits" are completely and totally disingenuous. I understand Wiki's policy on verifiability. But because this article deals with a TV show and because there have been no publicized articles or statements about the show (other than the MTV website - which doesn't tell you anything about how the show actually runs) some leeway should be given. Otherwise no information could be posted on this topic. I would also point out that, stictly speaking, none of the source information for the material mentioned in this article has been provided, either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.13.97 (talk)

[edit] References

According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes it says:

Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Thanks. Shaundakulbara 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, who deleted the trivia section of this article. Because I wanted to include some more stuff. Well not necessary trivia but whatever the it was initially called. I wanted to add actors or lawyers who appeared as well.74.195.3.199 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Episodes

Even though the show is over for Season 3, new episodes are being filmed to keep up with the commercial for those that missed it. Next executives realised the show was being shown all day on 2/10/2007 and wanted to keep it fresh before production on S5 started and numerous breaks and/or pre-emptions. Season 5 will begin after production of both Dismissed Again and Exposed series 2 begins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.9.240 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] sIGNED IN

I signed in but i can't make comments. When I want to edit th epage it opens a file which is fucked up. What do I do?Rocky 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of NextOrNot

I believe the NextOrNot section should be included. It seems to be part of the show, and something that they're promoting. It was removed as vandalism, which I really don't think it is. Any reason why it should be removed? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, it looked like spam to me. I reverted it because the user had also added it to 2 other articles that are often spammed, and did so in the same way as those spammers did. I didn't notice that it was related to this article.
    The domain is indeed registered to MTV, and it does seem relevant to this article, so I think its fine to include it here.
    The reason it said vandalism was because it gets tiring typing "rm spam" a dozen times a day...
    --CoJaBo 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Nextimg.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)