Talk:The Chaser's War on Everything

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Chaser's War on Everything has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Note to all editors - You don’t need to add every stunt they do. The article is meant to have a general overview, not a list of everything they do. Per this material such as the ongoing list of ad road tests will be removed. If you wish to contribute, please write it in the episode guides. See List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes. Also, please do not add every segment that is shown on the show, especially one-off segments specifically based on an issue or event (i.e "Are RSLs harder to get into than APEC?").
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Election Watch

I have to question the section this segment should be in. It is going to be in every episode until the election is over but it will only be a short-lived segment obviously, but still, I do not believe occasional segments is the best place for it. Any thoughts? --Lakeyboy 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying it should be removed or upgraded to "Supporting" segments?  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Occasional segments, where it's currently located, is the best place for it IMO. — H2O —  08:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking in the meantime putting it in the Primary Segments because currently, it's a pretty long running segment that has and will be featured every week during the election campaign. After the election, I then say drag it back down to Occasional. --Lakeyboy 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a temporary article, it should be maintained the same. Per WP:DATED, it is suggested to avoid statements that will date quickly. While this has nothing to do with moving a segment, it should imply that moving it there is the same thing. This article covers the enitre "The Chaser's War on Everything", from Episode 1, so moving it to Primary would be biased (??) and untrue when looking at the entire show. Take things into context, if I looked at this page for the first time (after watching every episode) and saw Election Watch in primary segments, I'd quickly revert it.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The whole "Segments" section is unsourced...

...and should be removed. Seriously, this is the least notable part of this article, and is covered in a much better fashion at List of The Chaser's War on Everything episodes. I propose we remove it. — H2O —  08:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the episode list is that it only describes what happens in each segment, not what the segment is about. Having no references for a section like this in an article is perfectly normal for a television Wikipedia article. It is the same situation in many other television show articles that revolve around different segments. I have to say keep it, otherwise nobody would have any idea what the show is about unless they are fans like us guys here editing this article. --Lakeyboy 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
with the removal of the complete segments section, this could become the quickest ever good article delistment. keep it...because it deserves to be there. There is no better way to describe the show in depth. Jasewase 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lakeyboy and Jasewase. Leave it alone, please. DEVS EX MACINA pray 12:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't source what is in the show, it's like trying to source the plot of a film, but in my opinion it needs to be re-written, because now without the "Recurring themes" section, you are missing Ads/Trailers and Songs, which (especially the first) make a vital contribution to the show. I wouldn't oppose this section being split into another article, I would be more than happy to summarise it.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
who deleted the recurring themes without discussion? please dont sabotage our GA award... the themes have to go back, and for any future major changes, please start a discussion topic to outline the reasons to justify the decision Jasewase 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see it split into another article - perhaps List of The Chaser's War on Everything segments? — H2O —  23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on that now in my sandbox, but that won't remove the section.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Controversies

Who ever chaged all of the controversies so they couldnt be clicked on from the top of the aricle should change them back, so people who might want to read about the apec stunt or something can go straight there, also the same shouls be done with primary, supporting segments and recurring themes, espically recuring themes as they shouldnt be under occasinal segments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.130.88 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] split

Please see my new comment on spliting the article above.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  10:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one replies, I presume everybody is happy with the changes. (But when I do change them, then someone will reply, no doubt). Please check my recent comments in the "Split" section above.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMPORTANT: Opinions for major OVERHAUL of this article

In response to SpecialWindler's suggestion, can we please have as many people expressing their opinion here, in regards to the future direction of this article. Please give this at least a few days until decision is reached. Jasewase 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delay I think a major overhaul should be delayed until the off-season, when the show is not being produced and broadcasted. Should we risk losing our hard-earned GA to try and obtain a FA (which in my personal belief seems close to impossible). However, I have read the sandbox of the proposed changes, and it does look quite good and ideal for the article. Jasewase 06:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want an major overhaul, just 1) summarise the "Contreversy" section and 2) change the segments section to a "Show format". We can't lose GA for changes disscussed and reached conseusus, and if it goes into GA Review, then I will personally fix the problem. I don't mind waiting until the second season of the show is over (which may be the last), but for those who wish to see my proposed article see my sandbox  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  07:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion you are suggesting quite a significant article revamp, when you said that you "would like it to step up to FA standard" and that "unfortunately we are nowhere near that...some others (will be) long and tiring". There is nothing wrong in suggesting and implementing an article split as part of the major overhaul, but other opinions need to be considered also. Jasewase 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Yes, it is a significant revamp, but not an overhaul. Anyway, I agree that it need's consensus (I know Lakeyboy will be opposed ... but). Anything I do, in my opinion won't strip the article of GA status. Articles can't lose GA status on the basis it has lost information. Why do you think this article is "unlikely" of making FA.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply It won't make FA if it loses vital information. Summarising even to that extent which you have displayed on your sandbox is too far. It states in the FA criteria that "the article does not neglect major facts and details". Whilst is summarises it to a point where someone may know a vague idea of what it is about, it is something you would hear, say in a news summary on the television instead of an actual story. But I also say don't fix something that ain't broke. The current format of the article got us to GA so we should only improve on what we have already got. We may have to put in less work to get it to FA if we tweak with the format we have got now instead of making drastic changes which may not get any benefit in the future. (My opinion anyway). --Lakeyboy 12:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Well written It can be fixed by good copyedits. This concerns the prose, language etc. not the content.
  2. Comprehensive (does not neglect major facts and details) Well this seems to be where other Wikipedians have problems. While my suggestions will remove some minor content, it still leaves the major information and details. Mentioning alot of contreversies and going in depth on them, in my opinion is for another article (which I have already suggested a split). This is an article on "The Chaser's War on Everything" as the show.
  3. Factually accurate This can be fixed (by me) if a problem
  4. Neutral. Yes
  5. Stable. This is a problem if people dramattically change the article day to day. Note this doesn't count consusus made on the talk page.
  6. Lead It's a bit long for the article size, but can be fixed
  7. Headings/TOC The TOC (Table of Contents) is a major problem before with all the headings of the contreversy, and I don't think those small bolded text headings there are now, don't really work. The FA criteria states the TOC to be "substantial but not overwhelming".
  8. Referencing format Currently not satasfactory. For future people Do this.[1]. Or not this. [2]
  9. Images Some may need removal, but this can wait a while.
  10. Appropriate length I feel the need to mention this one "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Now I would call unnecessary detail some of the material seen in the contrevesy section.

I hope people start seeing my point, though I feel I am fighting a losing battle.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the obsession with GA status is blinding people here. It may be lost in the transition period, but ultimately if the new version is better, then over time it will develop into a better article and GA status will return.
I agree with SW that the controversies section could be cut down in the contents at the very least, otherwise by this time next year there could be 15-20 subheadings, and a massively long article. And yes, we can 'deal with that then' but isn't it a helluva lot easier to do so now so that the template is there?
Having said all that... I would suggest that waiting another month to initiate changes would be advisable, for three reasons. First, it sees the end of the election campaign, second the end of season, and third the conclusion of the court hearing. Randoms won't care about this article come December anyway. Then, once Decmeber hits, experiment with things bit by bit, rather then undergo a massive revamp all in one hit which is guaranteed to get opposition. GreenGopher 07:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: I'm under the impression that series 2 will be the final series of "War on Everything"  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  09:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Any reasons as to why? (this is purely off topic of course). I agree the show should stop while at it's peak - or at least be majorly overhauled - because it has become a bit repetitive in recent weeks, which is the price you pay for success and longetivity... but I've heard nothing to suggest they will be following this vague opinionGreenGopher 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well per this source (Go down the bottom and click "Listen to Chaser" under the "Chaser07" picture, which is a radio interview with Morrow and Reucassel, as of last Friday they hadn't signed with ABC, which is my impression that they don't want to do a third series. But it still implies that they may. I think ABC would want a third series. But ... I could be wrong.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ah ha! just to make this issue more complicated, this is my new article. created it today and its already 17kb :D Jasewase 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes very complicated. Because 17KB, is not very long and probably should have the other conteresies added. Though your article is well, I can't see it being expanded (though I've been wrong before), it probably should have the others.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with including the other controversies, the article becomes rather complicated, messy and i feel less important and professional. I chose to start a new article on the apec prank because it was FAR FAR more important, publicized and documented than the other stunts combined. also, i feel 17kb (update: now more than 23kb) article is fairly decent size, and that it shouldnt be merged with other stunts etc. Jasewase 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the new article also includes the other less notable stunts related to APEC. I hope people share my view that the APEC stunts were significant enough to warrant a new article. Jasewase 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Jasewase, I like your new article which focuses solely on the APEC prank and associated stunts because it expands on the information which is already in the main TCWoE article giving more depth than the main article can provide. Good job. But for the stunts section of the article in general, it should stay as is. I agree with everyone else to wait until the verdict of breaching the APEC zone is given before major works and overhauls to try to get it to FA. I am starting to fix some parts of the article to be more in line with the Wikipedia style guidelines for an FA article. --Lakeyboy 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply – could not agree more to be honest. As it stands now, WITHOUT the APEC pranks, the controversies are rather insignificant (i hate to say but its true). I feel, now with this new article, the extensive information related to APEC prank can be put there, and the other controversies left as is. A page featuring all the stunts would be inappropriate because the importance and content of the APEC stunt greatly outranks the other controversies. hope others see teh validity in my argument...Jasewase 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply, I see the validity and point, but it still doesn't stop the controversy section, being messy, slightly unsourced, POV (Why is Eulogy longer than others etc.), among other things make it too long. I don't mind if there is no split article (which is not what I'm protesting for ), all I would like to see is this article in better shape. Similar perhaps to my sandbox.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaser in South Korea

Right. Their war war on the Korean TV, but, actually, only APEC episode aired.

Infact, KBS aired the APEC episode as a part of highlights from public broadcaster around the world.

I can't provide any proper source for now but asking WP:KOREA will be better.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today Tonight story - 14/11/07

Saw a preview for an upcoming Chaser story on Today Tonight for the 14th. It's about ambusing Channel Seven studios or similar. Not sure if it's something major or not. None of the news services have reported it. Maybe it's just persuasive techniques going to my head. But anyways, we'll wait and see.

P.S, the election launch campaigns for labor and liberal are causing abit of controv. Craig and 2 others were detained so they couldn't do they stage decorating stunt at the liberal launch. --Lakeyboy 11:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Today Tonight's section could be something for the controversy/well known stunts section. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/14/2090128.htm?section=entertainment Madslocodemente 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It just finished. It went for bloody 20 minutes! It was just non-stop chat between Brian Seymour (Today Tonight reporter) and Chas with some discussion with Andrew Hansen. Notable enough to add to the Current affairs section of the article but not a controversy (yet anyway). And I'm still not sure if it will feature on tonights program. It most likely will. --Lakeyboy 07:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well because of the Channel 7 injunction against the Chaser team, they won't be able to broadcast the actual stunt unless it is lifted by tonight, which isn't likely. So instead, the Chaser team will talk about the incident, and do a mockup of the incident that happened in the channel 7 studios. I don't think it will be too big an issue unless they return fire and sue Today Tonight for assault. -- Permafrost 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show broadcast

Those who watched the show last night would have heard they had finished the 2nd season of the "War on Everything" (to go on to do 2 episodes of The Chaser Decides). Now that means, that UNLESS they officially announce that "War on Everything" will return, then it must presumed that that was the last episode EVER. So until they announce such a series or return, then words such as: currently, as of. should not be used.

I have reworded the lead, but some people may need to reword the article. It cannot be presumed that they will return next year.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think if the Liberals win the election (and as a result, maintain their control of the ABC Board), then we probably won't see another season of the Chaser. Hopefully, common sense will win out. Okay, enough non-article talk. DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section...

...needs to be broken down. We should start to set a bar for how major controversies should be, since they are pretty much weekly now. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but this I protested for before, with no success. Everybody seems to think it is nice. It is messy (and I could go on for hours). My proposed "Contreversy" section is in my sandbox (Under "Controversies" section - ignore the rest)(Its a bit outdated now (no seven contreversy).  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  10:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's OK for the time being, given the season is over. Might need to reconsider next season if it gets any larger. Recurring dreams 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll doubt there will be a next season, though.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We can't assume that the show will be cancelled yet. I honestly cannot see any reasons for the show to get axed. It is one of the ABC's highest rating programs, it's being syndicated to be aired overseas, the unlikelyness that it will move to a commercial network (especially after the seven network ambush). Only two real reasons why it might. The fact that some of the cast and crew will be sitting in jail for months or that as said above, the Australian Government will interfere with the ABC and cancel the show so they cannot hassle politicians anymore. It's all up in the air at the moment. --Lakeyboy (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Or possibly they get bored with the show and want to move onto another project. I'm not assuming the show will be cancelled. But you can't assume they will be back. Until they announce they will be back, you assume that the show has ended, not cancelled.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] APEC

now that the season is finished, i would appreciate if the regular contributors helped out the APEC pranks article, with peer reviews, edits, whatever - GA is not a goal, its a benchmark.

i have outlined some issues that may need to be solved, please see the talk page.

if you think i am being selfish, dont worry i understand :) Jasewase (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whether the show has ended or not?

There seems to be a difference of opinion between various editors about the show's ending. I have stated that November 14, 2007 was the last aired show, in the infobox. Several editors have removed that. Anyway, we need a discussion, because I don't want to have an edit war but I still think that the date should be there. So, my argument is:

  1. On the 24th episode of "War on Everything", they stated it would be their last episode for the year (except for the election specials)
  2. Therefore, it is the last episode of the show and it aired on November 14, 2007
  3. Now without a final date in the infobox, it is implying that the show is still continuing, which it is not.
  4. There has been no confimation or evidence from The Chaser or ABC that the "War on Everything" will return in 2008 (or beyond). So the claim of "present" is false.
  5. A show does not need to be cancelled to have finished. Trust me, the ABC won't cancel their top most rating show. Though they will have the Chaser boys at heart, and (in my opinion) adter what they have done over the last two years, deserve a break.
  6. So unless it will return in 2008, the show can't possibly be still continuing.
  7. If they confirm it, then it easily changed to present.

There is my argument. (The main reason for No. 4 is probably because Julian and Chas could be going to jail. You are welcome to argue back ... but if no one replies I will presume that there is no problems.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree I support the above statements. As said in the last "War on everything" that it was there last show and that they would be doing the "Chaser Decides" for 2 weeks. I see no problem with having the date of "War on Everything" ending being placed back up. --MattyC3350 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided I'm split in two over this issue. I think that it should have the end date because they just said at the end of the 2nd Chaser Decides episode that "we are probably going to take a break next year", possibly hinting that The War will not return and are thinking of new ideas and concepts. Then there is the issue that I believe is Wikipedia policy. According to the Template:Infobox Television description of the fields, it says that "last_aired The original airdate of the last episode. Use Present if it is ongoing.". I think we need to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Television on this issue to get a generalised consesnsus on what we should do about this.. --Lakeyboy (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As the Chaser Decides was shown last night, the show has (for now) ended. They said last night that they'll be off air for most of next year too. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, after all It won't return. (What a pity). Per this source [1]. The Chaser will not return to TV for a while. It dosen't confirm that the show won't return beyond that. I have made various changes to the article.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That link doesn't work for me - is there a backup or other source that agrees with it? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Theres http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22868031-5013560,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've added in that ref. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided I think that unless someone from The Chaser or the ABC themselves confirms that the show will NOT be continuing next year or beyond, we shouldn't just assume that the show is completely over, nor should we say that it is on this page. I say we should leave it as "it is unclear whether the show will return for another season" or something along those lines. Xchickenx (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's how we currently have it - we make it clear that it's uncertain. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree the article quoted basically says that for the first half of the year The Chaser boys will be off TV, and that the deal for future series is being currently negotiated, and is apparently approaching. This is not "canceled" by far.
It will be over when one of the sides says "it's over". This has not happened yet, and it doesn't look like it's likely to happen anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asn (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I'll start from the top.
  • they stated it would be their last episode for the year – "for the year", not forever. Unless they confirm the show is over, it should be presumed that it is continuing. For example, you wouldn't say that a person is dead if there weren't official reports of their death, as there would be potential BLP issues. I guess that a television show and a biography aren't really comparable, but I believe the same principle applies. The article should state that the show is still running, unless it has been confirmed otherwise. This news article states that the show will not be airing in the first half of 2008.
  • There has been no confimation or evidence from The Chaser or ABC that the "War on Everything" will return in 2008 (or beyond) – same as above, there has been no confirmation or evidence saying that the show won't return at all.
  • A show does not need to be cancelled to have finished. Trust me, the ABC won't cancel their top most rating show. – I'm not going to "trust you" on this one, I trust reliable sources, and reliable sources are required to be in an article to cite claims. The way I see it is that the article is saying that the show is cancelled because you reckon the ABC "won't cancel their top most rating show".
  • So unless it will return in 2008, the show can't possibly be still continuing. – as I have said above, unless we receive confirmation that it's cancelled or not returning, it's still running.
  • Spebi 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Hopefully we all agree that the following statement is true: "The show hasn't been confirmed to return, but it hasn't been confirmed that it won't return."

Thats basically the situation. The problem is deciding, for the sake of a Wikipedia article, whether a "Last aired" date is worthy of going in the article.

It clearly states twice in the article (1st in the lead, 2nd in the Broadcast section) that it is "unclear" whether the show will return beyond the stage show that they are doing in the first half of the year (which is The Chaser's Age of Terror Variety Hour).

Now I'll quote a reliable source as Spebi has pointed out (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22874141-7642,00.html) which states:

Andrew Hansen, Chas Licciardello, Julian Morrow, Craig Reucassel and one of the Chaser's founding members, Dominic Knight, will appear in the show, while Chris Taylor takes time off to develop new television projects for the team.

I bolded the point I want to convey. Now this seems to me that War on Everything won't return in the future, but is still dosen't rule out it being a television show in the future.

To Spebi's third point on the cancellation. At no point in the article do I reflect my own personal opinions, but I do understand. My opinion should not be based as fact and should/can be ignored. At no point in the article it states that the show was CANCELLED.

Alot of TV shows just end. CNNNN did, no-one noes why it didn't return in 04, but it is still open to return in the future, but it has a final date. So will this article have the same situation in a years time. Will it still have the "present" going when it's not.

By going "January 06 - " you are implying it is still going, BUT ITS NOT. Going "January 06 - November 07" does not imply that it cancelled in the context of the article.

That was alot to write, and I feel I can't persuade anyone but I'll keep going.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote you provided from the news article doesn't state that the show will stop being produced, at all. "Chris Taylor takes time off to develop new television projects for the team" – sure, but it doesn't mean that it's completely cancelled, or rather as you argue, not cancelled, but production ceased to pay attention to other projects. They may be taking time off to do that variety hour show, and return in 2008. At this point, I see no reason why the article's infobox should state that the show has ended, or ceased production, or cancelled, or whatever. Unless some confirmation comes to light regarding the show's cancellation, the article should not state that it's ended; otherwise, it only serves to mislead people into thinking that the show is cancelled when it is actually unclear. Spebi 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see it say anywhere in the infobox that the show has ended, and the article doesn't explicitly state that anywhere as far as I can see. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But before an editor removed it, it had "November (whenever) 2007" when now it has a blank space.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

i was watching the ten news tonight (24/3/08) and they ran an interview with Angela Bishop (Ten's Richard Wilkins) and the boys involved in the stage show. They said it's returning this year, no exact date tho. because they made a comment about returning with a new government in charge. Nic Car Bel (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] examples

In the "Segments" section, there are various segments (each under the sub-section being "Primary", "Supporting"," Occasional", or Recurring.). Some segments have examples wheras others don't. I'll use the "Supporting segments" section:

Pursuit Trivia, A Message from Osama Bin Laden, If Life Were A Musical and to an extent Mr. Ten Questions. They all have no examples.

Suprise Spruiker, Crazy WG, Citizens Infringment Officier, and Clive TSTLC. all have examples which were used in the show.

Me, personally, would rather them have no examples. But I would rather them ALL have or not have examples. Why dosen't If Life were a musical get examples wheras Suprise spruiker does. Or the other way round. The importance of the Segments section is not to use examples but to explain the segments.

If examples help then all should have them. But then raises the question of whether they are notable or not? Any comments??  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should maybe have one example of each (suggest you add them), but not broken up into some but not others. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "but not broken up into some but not others". Though, I don't mind doing it.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, you answered on my talk page. Thank you. Appreciate other comments.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

In case you didn't notice up top, this article now up for Feature Article Status.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs Australian English not British/American English.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What style it uses doesn't matter. If it uses American English, it needs to use it throughout the whole article. If it uses British English, the same principle applies. Although it is preferable to use Australian English in this article because of the origins of the topic, it isn't compulsory. Spebi 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've converted it to fully British English (except we use the Australian/American spelling of the word "program"). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean 'except we use the Australian/American spelling of the word "program"'? I changed the article back to using 'program' instead of 'programme' and you reverted that change... Barrylb (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that comment in brackets referred to your version, which I've since been told we shouldn't be using, rather we should use British throughout. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should use Australian English throughout and if that means some words are spelled in the American fashion and others in the British fashion so be it, as long as all uses of any word are spelled in the same manner. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and on Australian English it says "program is more common than programme" and on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) it says "In Australia, program is widespread in all contexts". Therefore we should use "program" not "programme". Barrylb (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABC

Just as future reference in this article:

  • 'ABC' (by itself) refers to the corporation (that owns the below).
  • 'ABC TV' refers to the station/channel, of which this show is broadcast.

Hope no-one has any issues with that, but the difference must be made, to be clear with non-Australian readers.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  06:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Half of Australia doesn't know what the ABC is anyway! Sorry, lame joke. Pezzar (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There also is an equivelent ABC in America (American B.. C..), so it must be said that it is Australian.  SpecialWindler talk  08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It only needs to be said once, after that it's evident (unless we note the US ABC, which we shouldn't need to do). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast and Vodcast

I have changed the title of that section, because at no point in the section does it talk about podcast.

But, I have basically no idea about podcast and vodcasts that I may have completly gone wrong, so if it needs reverting, please do.  SpecialWindler talk  10:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I just been to the Chaser's ABC website and there Podcasts/Vodcasts (whats the difference?) are not avalible anymore now the show is off the air. So not really sure if there would be much point to the section now. Only other item could be the YouTube clips that have been posted. --MattyC3350 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Chaser's War on Everything Segment tallyboard

Segment Season 1
26 episodes		 Season 2
24 episodes		 Notes
Firth in the USA 11 6 Includes a "Firth in Kenya" segment from "ep23s1"
Ad Road Test 11 10
In Other News 26 0
The Fixers 0 22
Current Affairs 18 11
The Surprise Spriuker 12 3 Includes A Segment Joined with Crazy Warehouse Guy in "ep26s1"
Crazy Warehouse Guy 12 3 Does Not Include The Song in "ep22s1"
Does Not Include Various Parody Ads Done in "ep3s1"
Includes A Segment Joined with Suprise Spruiker in "ep26s1"
Does Not Include Documentry in "ep26s1" and "ep13s2"
Pursuit Trivia 11 3
Mr 10 Questions 9 3
Subtitles - A Message From Osama Bin laden 8 1
Subtitles - Another Saddam Outburst 2 0
Subtitles - Meanwhile in Iran 1 0
Subtitles - Everyone Loves Abu 1 0
Citizens infringment officer 4 6
If life were a Musical 0 12 Does Not Include musical done in "War on 2007, best of" after Chaser Decides
Clive the slightly ... 0 6
What have we .. from history 1 2
famous face off 6 0
2.30 report 2 0
news according to fox 0 2
What you missed on Cable 0 3
Nut Job of the Week 0 2
Open Mic 0 5
Election Watch 0 5
Straight to DVD 1 0
Say What?! 1 0
Are RSLs harder to get into than APEC? 0 1
The Lab 0 1
And Time for another Andrew Hansen comedy song. 1 0
The Chaser's British Comedy Sketch 1 0

The above has been compiled by  SpecialWindler talk  08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be. (For the 50 episodes)

Apearences in 16+ ..... Primary
8-15 .... Secondary
3-7 ..... Occasional
2- ...... Not Used

 SpecialWindler talk  05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

when i created the primary and secondary it was referring to the content rather than the frequency, i.e: primary segment is one which the cast members present live in studio, while secondary are really short and pre-produced Jasewase (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I know and agree (meaning Crazy Warehouse Guy appears 15+ times but isn't primary), but I don't believe that Nut job of the week and news according to fox which have been shown twice each, should be there.  SpecialWindler talk  10:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series 2 vol 2 DVD

The reference that says that the dvd will come out on 13 febuary now says that it wont be avalible until the 2 april —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.104.184 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What a pity. The chaser boys are probably too lazy to do the commentary, or something. Thanks for saying, I (or any one else) wouldn't have noticed.  SpecialWindler talk  07:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The reference, Ezydvd has now been updated with a picture of the cover, perhaps some one could put this in the article, but it says nothing about the inclusion of the 2007 series of the chaser decides —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.104.7 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done,  SpecialWindler talk  05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, i went to pre-order it on saturday, and sanity chick said that its been changed to like 10th August or so. and she knew it was supposed to be April 2 as well, so she knows Nic Car Bel (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe with the charges now dropped we could see a much earlier release than August.... 124.183.167.58 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but it will take time for the ABC to re package it and everything. Though it should be June at the latest. I think the August date was just after the court case would have ended.  The Windler talk  06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The ABC page for the DVD has returned: [2]. Though it says 6th August.  The Windler talk  08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)