Talk:The Riches

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)

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)

Suggested Character Addition: Ken (Dannegan?)

Under the article's section, Characters:Travelers:Ginny Dannegan, is mentioned her slow-witted brother, Ken. Recent episode-plots suggest future recurrence of this character: the addition under "Charachters:Travelers:Ken Dannegan" may be appropriate.Caen 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You can always go and add this sort of thing. He's definitely at least a minor character, and he affected the beginning of the series pretty heavily. -Thespian 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters: Dead People

Last night when looking at this, I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a section for Doug and Cherien, as there is a lot of information about them that's trickling out about them ("We're Jewish!"), that will be different from the stuff about Dahlia and Wayne. It should likely be marked with a spoiler tag, since everything they find out is pretty much a surprise as it comes. I'm at work right now, but if no one else does it, I'll do it tonight or tomorrow. Thespian 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been agreed on before that the real Riches deserve some blurbs. Speaking only for myself, it's just been laziness preventing me. So go for it, no objections here. :) --Thessaly 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Added. Needs work, but its there to start on. I'm at work, not at home, so some specifics about the ex-wife, money he'd hidden, and such, which are on the TiVo but not available to me here aren't included. Thespian 19:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask about the assertion that Doug obtained his fortune by illegal means - so far I haven't seen anything in the episodes to indicate he was crooked. He is doing a pretty ordinary thing for divorcees - hiding money from ex'es. Unless anyone can give me any dialogue that shows he is a crook (apart from being a lawyer!) then it should be removed.Mmm commentaries 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

We have seen Dahlia take more than cough syrup - her neighbour (and main supplier) has given her pills - she stole drugs from the dentist etc etc.Mmm commentaries 21:41 17 March 2007

At the time I wrote the comment you are responding to, we had only seen one (2?) episodes. One, I think.--Thessaly 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: This was clarified as being meth as of episode 4. --Thessaly 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

Well, I think there needs to be something. What I'd really like to see is some documentation of Pavee language & culture as depicted on the show, and preferably how that differs from from real-life Pavee. For example, the show implies that all Pavee in the Malloy clan are con artists/grifters/etc, however several sites online (including the wiki page) indicate that this is largely an urban legend. (Although maintaining such a section might be hard based on the current state of the wiki entry. Its seems that there are not a lot of experts in Pavee culture contributing here. ) For example, in the 4/23 episode, they showed all the mirrors being covered/hidden and the clocks being unplugged after a late night phone call. It would be nice to know if that was a real tradition, Pavee or just Irish. I recall my mother mentioning her mother doing something similar, but she claimed her heritage as being solely Irish with no Pavee traces. Also there was a toast used by Dale in the same episode that sounded like it might be the Cant. But I can't be sure, both because I know 0 about Pavee culture and I also didn't hear it very well. 72.72.195.36 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

What's going on with the current fansite URL revision war?--Thessaly 06:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure ... The link was pretty much dead back in MARCH. Can someone review? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Two editors who don't really have much experience outside of The Riches have been deleting each other's external links and entering their own. Neither site is particularly fleshed out; they both have very little content, and nothing beyond fan forums (which are active) and some descriptions of recent episodes. Neither adds much (I reviewed them both on Friday, I believe Rockpocket has since then), and while I tend to inclusionism (and this is hardly a page about the United Nations), neither site really had anything. Because of the bickering, I removed both per WP:EL, as well as (to be fair) the Cake or Death Riches subsite, which I believe was superior to both the warred over links. Subsequently, they both added their own links back, and there was at least one removal, but nothing has been said about the removal of Cake or Death, which is, I believe, revealing.

Rockpocket, who is an admin and has been editing this page occasionally, stepped in after I asked him to, and seems to believe my actions were correct. Both editors have been warned that they risk being blocked if they continue their sniping, and until the fan sites add more than just mostly empty pages and a forum, the best decision at this time (which I have noted in the External Links section in a comment) is to refrain from adding fan sites until they offer more expansive commentia than what we have already created on Wikipedia. --Thespian 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough I think :) and that was very much my initial thought a couple months ago. Of course, we're assuming people will pay attention to the comments. I supposed we'd best keep an eye on it for a while. Checking the site, it hasn't been updated, except as forums, since March anyway, and the forums are mostly spam. This one should defiantly be removed! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed support Thespian's actions, as clearly the common sense way forward. I hope both editors will respect WP:EL forthwith. Rockpocket 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rockpocket and Thespian for helping me to understand Wikipedia better. I hope one of you will take the time to go through my edits and read through my comments on each of them. I have always stated a perfectly valid reason for removal of another site and I have also kept them from overwriting other links. It appears that I got somehow pulled into what you guys called a war without even knowing it, by removing spammy links. I feel sad, since this will leave a mark on my history that I don't think belongs there. My last removal of Ecollier2012's website was due to his unethical practices on building his forum. When he first added the forum to Wikipedia he had about 20 posts. One week later it was about 250 posts in over 5000 threads (how is this even possible?) and now its over 5000 posts in over 250 threads (apparently he fixed his cheat, but the content is duplicated all across the forum). I feel somewhat sad that other websites got removed also, but I can fully agree that this was the best decision to put an end to all this. The site I initially added has indeed a lot of good content that cannot be found elsewhere. The episode recaps are done inside the forum, to give the visitors a way to interact. Check it out, and maybe at a later point you feel that it is indeed a good site to be listed. Once more I encourage you to read through the reasons I have provided for each edit, instead of just bumping in and deleting stuff I didn't like, I have also restored deleted links that I felt provided good content. One of my strengths is the ability to find things online fast and I wanted to put this to good use by keeping the EL clean. The only thing I cannot agree with is the fact that I am seen by Rockpocket as one of the offenders (hence I ask to take some time and go through the history). I think I have done a good job finding out when another forum all of a sudden became abandoned and contained mostly drugstore and casino spam. If those webmasters would have spent even a little time reading my comments, they could all have had great sites. By removing those spam links I have now been put into the spotlight as one who fights edit wars? Steve110

Here we go again. I'd revert but I'm trying to get popups working correctly at the moment. user @ 59.101.160.16 has already been asked to stop.--Thessaly 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats just low. Someone (please compare IP locations to mine) is spamming the site I once submitted in order to hurt the owner or my reputation on Wikipedia. This is just low. I cannot believe how nasty some people can get.Steve110

I have just contacted the owner of that site. Apparently the same IP (59.101.160.16) has also tried to spam his site. He has blocked the entire IP range. Steve110

Don't worry about it. If it continues, I will block the IP. Rockpocket 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it won't do much good. He used multiple addresses from the following IP Ranges: 59.101, 61.68 to spam that guys website (resolve to Queensland and Victoria). Incident: http://www.therichesshow.com/forum/post-721.html#721 Steve110

If we continue to spammed from multiple addresses I can either block the range, or more likely, protect the page from being edited by IP addresses. Rockpocket 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Drugs

In Episode 3 Dehliah/Delilah actually mentioned Crystal Meth and Speed. Steve110 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Dahlia, not Di Di. --AMK1211 06:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject LGBT studies?

er, why? 71.104.3.185 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because one of the children appears to be a transvestite, I suspect. Rockpocket 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe Eddie Izzard himself would be the first person to tell you that transvestism doesn't necessarily imply an alternative sexuality. 71.104.3.185 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, which includes transvestism. Rockpocket 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know both what LGBT stands for AND what "transgenderism" means. And transgender doesn't "include" transvestism no more than heterosexuality "includes" femdom. They're on different planes: transgender is a form of gender dysphoria, and transvestism is just a sexual practice.

I'm not griping or anything, but I just think it's kind of odd that it would be considered to be in the scope of LGBT studies. Certainly isn't doing any harm, I spose. 71.104.3.185 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that it says, 'within the scope of', not 'part of'. The project is part of WikiTV, but falls within 'the area covered by a given activity or subject' (American Heritage Dictionary) so far as LGBT project goes. It is mildly relevant; Eddie has referred to himself as a cross dresser and a 'male lesbian', and Sam has been addressed. So while it isn't in the project (won't be rated as part of it, etc), it's mildly related and people in that project are likely to be drawn here ;-) Thespian 22:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

According to our article "Transgender is generally used as a catch-all umbrella term for a variety of individuals... included in this definition are a number of well known sub-categories such as transsexual [and] transvestite." I guess the LGBT Wikiproject considers transvestism under the scope of their interest in transgenderism. I was a bit perplexed when it was first added also, but if it draws more people to contribute to the article, it can only be helpful. Rockpocket 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shooting Linda

Ipstenu: Look, she was continuing to nag him after he shot her, and the injury was just in her shoulder. I had no problem with you deleting most of my additions; they were too lengthy for such minor characters. But you're getting awfully OWNy on that one sentence. 'It is unknown if she survives' makes it sound like there's a chance she won't, and no one watching it actually believed that that scene, played for comedy and the tension of Wayne not being able to get to stop the wedding, was going to result in the death of a comic foil. --Thespian 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aro? I didn't think I was getting Owny. I was trying to be accurate. She was shot. She was hurt, but we don't know if she lived. That was the first time I put in 'It is unknown if she survives.' which was an attempt to try to address the factual situation from a different angle. If I was being owny, I'd just do a straight revert. But. Here's what we know: Linda was shot by Mick.

That's it! Did she live? Did she die? We don't know. Sure it was comedy, but this is a black comedy (they killed people off in the first episode!) so death? Can happen. What's wrong with saying 'we don't know if she lived'? If it annoys you that much, can you come up with an alternative that still addresses the fact that she was shot and we have no idea if she lived or died? 'We do not know if she survived those injuries' maybe? People will read 'she was shot' and go 'what happened?' By putting in 'She was injured' you imply that she lived, when we don't know that. Just as you (rightly) pointed out when I removed the line, 'she was shot' can imply death and life. Your revert only implies she lived, and we don't know that. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if she lived, we don't know if she died, we don't know if she recovered and went on to feature on American Idol. All are speculation. Lets stick to the facts we know - she was shot and injured - rather than pontificating about what we don't know. Rockpocket

Which is why I put in "It is unknown if she survives her injuries." now. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is speculative. We know she was injured. There is no reason to wonder if she survives or not. Your phrasing implies something different from what we actually saw (which is to say, she kept bitching, "You shot me!" and she smacked him after getting shot, not someone whose survival is unknown).

Additionally, I asked you not to revert to your text until we reached consensus in talk, because you're the only person putting it that way, undoing at least two other editors phrasing of the incident. I asked you to leave the edits made by someone else, not me, went ahead and reinserted your text, which is what I mean about you being OWN-y. --Thespian 21:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in different text. Being bold. Anyway. I think that leaving it as 'she was injured' makes it less spec that saying 'her fate is unknown'. I still fail to see how the addition of that is being inaccurate. If anything we're alleviating inference by outright stating 'yeah, we dunno.' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if we are unsure about something or if things are "unknown" why do we have to explicitly write that down? If I were to write down everything that is unknown I could easily fill a few more pages. I won't touch the article since it doesn't make that much difference, but I fail to see the relevance of stating the unknown. By saying she was injured her fate was also unknown and if the stories develops one way or another it could have been added easily Steve110 (talk|contribs)

The reason I encourage putting it in is the same reason that Thespian suggested I not leave out 'she was injured.' It implies something that we may not intend. And I agree with that sentiment. It's been en vogue to say 'So and so's fate following falling down the stairs is unknown.' This crops up in comics, tv and other 'real time' articles (that is, an article about something that is ongoing). If we were writing about this as a show that had aired 10 years ago, I'd suggest we say 'The outcome of Linda's injury was never revealed.' It provides as much closure on the situation as is possible, and answers the inevitable "What happened to Andre?" question when you're forced to end a write up with 'And she was shot.' I know that I immediately ask "What happened? Did she live? Did she die? Did someone forget to finish a sentence on the article?" Here, we're able to answer to the best of our ability. They gave us a mild cliffhanger, and I feel it's dutiful to report that. If they show us Linda later, then it's easily 'She survived her injuries to <bitch at Mick for years to come>.' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point and thats why I added the injury in the first place (to clarify things). I just figured that it read a bit more like a news clip this way, but you make a good argument.Steve110 (talk|contribs) 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eden Falls vs. Edenfalls

So what is it now? On the official FX site i read Edenfalls. Most other sites (including Wikipedia) simply refer to Eden Falls which doesn't make it right though. Steve110

No, you're correct here, Steve. It should be Edenfalls, all one word if the official site labels it as such. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ipstenu, can you verify this? I have only found very little reference (except the one big red button that says Edenfalls (somehow the official site is just confusing me with all its Flash gimmicks). Steve110

That link is a big hint ;) In something easily linkable, though, WARNING! This link reveals plot information! TV.com has it as Edenfalls. tv.yahoo.com has it as one word, so does my DVR. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I *think* a sign for the subdivision in an early episode read "Edenfalls" as well, but I couldn't begin to tell you which ep. ;)--Thessaly 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Burns

Maybe my memory is going bad, but I thought that it was Hugh who pointed out that Jim was gay and not Chunky K. Is my memory failing or did I remember it correctly? Tanner65 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim said something nasty to Chunky, and she shot back a comment about him being gay, which caused the whole table to freeze, except for Hugh, who got all jokey-obnoxious about it. --Thespian 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pete

This article makes no mention of the new arrival of Pete or the mystery surrounding him. It also could use an update about Hugh now being married. Also the neighbor lady was at Hughs wedding reception. Wasnt she the Realtor when Doug purchased the house?