Jump to content

Talk:Numbers (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Math correctness

[edit]

As a soon-to-be Master's degree holder in Operations Research (applied math & statistics - exactly what the series is supposed to be about) I'd like to comment on the "mathematical correctness" of this series: It ranges from acceptable to (mostly being) horrible. The "mathematicians" advising on this show must either be 1) ones concerned with theoretical math only, 2) not mathematicians at all or 3) their advice is ignored by the writers. Any Operations Research student with at least a Bachelor's degree could do a better job than they in suggesting algorithms and calculation tools for the series. The mismatch between the real-life-problem and the math method used is often so grave that I personally find it a repulsing experience to watch the show. What is even more disturbing that a well- reputed math company (Wolfram ) is the main consultant and should know better. Tikru8 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2011 (EET)

Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Remember this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The writers did admit somewhere that they took the maths that the consultants came up with, and then had to modify it so it wasn't too heavy-going on the viewers (dramatize it). The equations shown throughout the season are 100% accurate though, according to the writers. This was discussed in an interview i read somewhere, can't remember it now. google would have it 144.173.244.153 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the writers statement about the formulas is a good indicator of what to expect, and the "Alice in NUMB3Rland" article written by one of their consultants provides more clues:
  • The FBI plot is already in place, and the writers want mathematics to go with it. The placeholder “math” in the draft is often nonsense or jargon; the sort of things people with no mathematical background might find by Googling, and think was real math. Since there’s often no mathematics that makes sense in those parts of the script, the best the consultants can do is replace jargon that makes us cringe a lot with jargon that makes us cringe a little less.
  • Andy chooses about a quarter of my suggestions and forwards his interpretation of them to the writers and producers. The script gets changed ... and then the actors ad lib something completely different (“disjointed universes”: cute, but loses the mathematical allusion; “Kasiski exam”: I didn’t mean that kind of “test”).
  • I met that episode’s writer, Dave Harden (who assured me they’d fix the “Kasiski exam” error), and producer/creator Nick Falacci, who told me that what’s great about NUMB3RS is that the math isn’t jargon... and didn’t seem fazed when I expressed shock that he thought it wasn’t jargon. Cheryl was very generous with her time... in which she mostly explained why talking with mathematicians would be a waste of their time.
I watched the first two seasons this week, and have to agree with Tikru8. Some examples:
  • An unnecessary pyramid scheme turns a simple skimming operation of bank accounts into a complex absurdity requiring twice as many transactions and losing half of the money.
  • Instantly recognizing a four letter word hidden in a transposition cipher, without knowing where the other 200+ letters should go? Something he explains by "pattern recognition"...
  • Looking for a bullet that went approximately straight up, with unknown velocity or weight: they search, calculate with new values, search, calculate again, search again... An optimal search pattern would start from the center, searching ever increasing circles, regardless of what values you assume. Calculations won't change that, but if you really want to know a maximum radius you don't reduce the calculation to a function of muzzle velocity and inclination: their estimate of roughly half a mile was a ridiculous overestimation because they ignored air drag; determining factors are: weight and caliber which together determine the sectional density; the sectional density and form factor determine the ballistic coefficient; the ballistic coefficient with muzzle velocity and inclination will give you the maximum range.
  • A harddrive from a burned computer is removed, plugged in a new one. It doesn't work, so the top is screwed off; the platters aren't moving, the heads are positioned outside of the platter diameter. Now she starts swirling some light emitting "magnetic head", half an inch from the stationary platter surface while looking at the screen, and yes, lines of data roll down the screen?!?
Hard to take the show seriously after that... Ssscienccce (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Epps, the only mathematician on the planet who does all his work on a blackboard, or on a clear screen! The only mathematician who writes arrays of decimals on a blackboard as opposed to a spread sheet on a computer!

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The website link given in the right side bar is, effectively, dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.89.109 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title wrong

[edit]

It is incorrect to name the article "Numbers". The substitution of "3" for the "e" was always part of the shows title. I'll paste a link to CBS as a reference at the bottom. If I can figure out how to rename, I'll do it myself, or perhaps someone else would like to do it. Of course, perhaps someone disagrees, but in this case correcting Numb3rs to Numbers is actually incorrect! Link: http://eyelab.cbs.com/update_02_05/index.html BashBrannigan (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Numbers is not the name of the show. Enigmamsg 04:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, per MOS:TM we should not be substituting letters with numbers however the title is styled: "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". The show is called "numbers" not "numb-three-ers". See Se7en, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not substituting anything. The show was always called Numb3rs. It was never called Numbers. Look at the CBS website. Enigmamsg 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Netflix lists it as Numb3rs as well. For what that is worth. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it's listed as that everywhere. That's the actual title. The example of "Se7en" is different, because they had alternative names. The movie poster on the page even says "Seven". Numb3rs is never referred to as "Numbers". It's not a matter of the preference of the trademark owner. There is no "preference". Preference comes into play when there are alternate spellings. That is not the case here. There is only one correct title. If you're not going to use the correct title, you may as well call it "asparagus". Enigmamsg 22:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". "NUMB3RS" is NOT standard English, and in standard English, it is pronounced "numbers". --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here are links to The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, Deadline, Chicago Tribune and The New York Times referring to the show as "Numbers". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first factual error the New York Times has made, that's for sure. They got the title wrong. I think CBS would know the name of their own show. Enigmamsg 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason, then, that iPhone, for example, is titled the way it is? I don't think that is standard really. And please, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, I am just trying to get a handle on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is at MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. As for the reason, you may have to search the archives. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I add something here? I just looked the show up both ways. When you type "Numbers" into a search engine, the search engine lists everything from numbers to the biblical Book of Numbers to TV by the Numbers. To find the show, you have to use the designation "TV". When you type "Numb3rs", you find the show itself.

By the way, TV Guide uses "Numb3rs" in their TV listings and TV news. So do The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Chicago Tribune, and the New York Times. (The first page of the New York Times search results also use the convention.) The Library of Congress lists "Numbers" as a variant title and "Numb3rs" as the official title. When you do see "Numbers", it usually is an author's personal preference and not the official title, such as Deadline TV editor Nellie Andreeva's use of "Numbers" after her objection to CBS' use of "Numb3rs" for the show's title.SciGal (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought of two other things that may help resolve this issue. First, it seems to me that changing the title from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) violates Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME,WP:PRECISION, and WP:CONCISE policies, as the change necessitates the disambiguation. The WP:COMMONNAME policy seems to suggest that the spelling to be used is Numb3rs, which, by the way, is CBS' official spelling as determined by the United States Patent Office. Second, if you can help me, those of us who know that Numb3rs is the correct spelling need to find an interview or an audio commentary in which Numb3rs creators Cheryl Heuton and Nick Falacci specifically stated that they deliberately spelled the title Numb3rs. (I'm doing it also.) SciGal (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the "official" title is. We use standard English. Again, "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if you get here by typing Numb3rs, then you have been redirected and you have found what you need, so there is no problem. That's what redirects are for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed your RfC as it was incorrectly placed, and was not neutrally worded. You're probably better off trying a WP:RM --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Why should it be moved when there is a disagreement over the correct spelling of the title of the show?SciGal (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be worded neutrally, which it wasn't, and it wasn't properly completed. You also !voted for both oppose and support! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an RFC probably isn't appropriate - try a WP:RM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that it isn't worded neutrally. It conveniently omits the fact that WP:MOS guidelines are crystal-clear as to what the title should be. This is an attempt to circumvent the normal procedure of proposing a change to the guidelines and allowing the preferences of a handful of editors override site-wide precedent. Such a scenario, while not impossible, would require an unusually compelling argument. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get a third opinion here as both sides insist that they are right.

Besides, there seems to be a debate for a guideline change over at MOS:TM, of which we both are participants. We really need some guidance to prevent future edit wars similar to this one.SciGal (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What should we call this article?

[edit]
!votes tied exactly. Both sides have strong arguments, WP:RS vs WP:MOS. The WP:COPYEDIT thing seems to be pure essay (although changing it during this discussion is bad form). Going with Numbers (TV series) based on the outcome and apparently long time stability of Talk:Seven_(film)/Archive_1#Old_requested_move which is in the exact same boat (See also Korn Kesha but notable counter example Yahoo! and Wham!). Also found Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11#Stylization_vs._reliable_sources and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_11#Non-standard_titles_and_.22stylized.22_renditions The alternate title should certainly be a redirect and mentioned in the lede per Se7ven.

Additionally, I personally found several reliable sources using the "standard" spelling, and these sources seem of a higher editorial quality than those previously discussed. [1] [2] [3] (although I admit I also found some other sites using the Numb3rs spelling)

The general question may be worth bringing up as a wider audience RFC to resolve the conflict between MOS and RS.

I have opened an RFC on the wider question, available here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#RFC_to_resolve_conflict_between_MOS:TM.2C_MOS:CT_WP:TITLETM_WP:RS_WP:COMMONNAME

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As you can see in the above section, as of 29 July 2013, there has been a disagreement over the spelling of the series' name, especially when used in the title of the article. Some editors feel that the series should be spelled Numb3rs, as it is used by many reliable English-language sources. Other editors feel that it should be named Numbers (TV series) as the alternate spelling is nonstandard English. We would like input as to what to name the article. Should it be named Numb3rs or Numbers (TV series)? SciGal (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Oh and Numbers (TV series). Per MOS:TM. -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we do not source style, but rely on our own WP:MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Threaded discussion

[edit]
  • I can't find any objections in WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS, and when it's a question of formatting, WP:TITLETM would apply: Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.
If I google numbers tv series, the only page about this show not titled Numb3rs is wikipedia. So Numb3rs seems the appropriate title. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLETM defers for MOS:TM for more detailed information. But in any case, here are links to The Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide, Deadline, Chicago Tribune and The New York Times referring to the show as "Numbers". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can find articles calling it Numbers, but I doubt it's the most common usage. I did search for "numbers", not numb3rs...
MOS:TM tells us we should write Toys "R" Us, not Toys are us. The Number (disambiguation) page lists it as Numb3rs, and looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Numbers_(TV_series), the few articles I checked also use that notation. These should all be changed if your interpretation of MOS:TM is correct. Or perhaps, as WP:R mentions: "If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed."
Other examples of titles that are not standard english: Salt-n-Pepa, Salt N' Pepper, Boyz II Men, Boyz n the Hood... Ssscienccce (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are comparable, as they are all pronounced as per their spelling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Toys 'R' Us" example is certainly not any kind of an argument for moving the page to "NUMB3RS". "Toys 'R' Us", not "Toys Я Us". Hence, "Numbers", not "NUMB3RS". Simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Sinden, check my comment about the web sites that you cite in the talk section above; those articles do not reflect the general spelling that the vast majority of reliable English-language sources use. (To check the veracity of my statement, type both Numb3rs and Numbers in the search boxes of those web sites and see which is more commonly used for the TV show))
In addition, xkcd is not standard English (all lower case letters), but Wikipedia allows it under MOS:TM. So is deadmau5--in the cases it is not pronounced or is pronounced as a "s".
Furthermore, I want to give you an idea of why I look at this from the point of view of a new reader who has read about the show in a reliable English-language resource. Admittedly, I have not been on the site as much for the past few years. (Life happened.) So, a few days ago, I decided to look up the article on Numb3rs on Wikipedia. Imagine my surprise to find that Numb3rs was redirected to Numbers (TV series). The editor in me decided to look at the talk page and the edit history, and I found an edit war over the title of the article. That is why I decided to say something. SciGal (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use sources for style, so it is irrelevant how the title is rendered elsewhere. We have our own MoS, and that is what we follow. The above were just examples where other publications also use "Numbers" rather than "Numb3rs", to demonstrate that we are not alone in this. "xkcd" is an abbreviation, not a fancily rendered word, so also not comparable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
xkcd is mentioned in MOS:TM as an exception. Also, the vast majority of publications do use Numb3rs and not Numbers. Those who do either may have misspelled the title or deliberately misspelled it to conform to standard English.SciGal (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this could be a possible compromise. We call the article "Numb3rs", and we write "Numb3rs, also known as Numbers,..." in the lead. That way, both versions of the name is in the lead, and readers can find the show more readily without being surprised. SciGal (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch the show, but from previews I've seen on CBS, the correct style is NUMB3ERS, so calling it Numb3rs is not even correct in the first place. United States Man (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United States Man, there was an argument about NUMB3RS vs. Numb3rs back in 2007, and the editors then decided that the best option was to use Numb3rs. You can read the debates here, here, and here. SciGal (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYEDIT states: Any published work should be spelled exactly as published, using symbols and any in-word capitalization as in the original, e.g., Piers Anthony's novel 0X is correctly spelled with the digit 0 (zero) instead of the letter O (upper-case o). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, do not attempt to ape the style (e.g. font color, typeface and other typographic effects) of the cover or promotional materials of a work. Ssscienccce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is in direct violation of MOS:TM, which is weird, as it references it in the same breath. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:CT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssscienccce, where did you find that quote? I clicked on the wikilink, and it directed me to "Basic copyediting", which did not have that quote. SciGal (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I found what happened to that quote. It was deleted just today shortly after you mentioned the quote. SciGal (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that removal since that was clearly never agreed on. If that was truly the rule the MOSTM would have been shut down a long tine ago.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why the statement at [WP:COPYEDIT] was moved after Ssscienccce mentioned it? SciGal (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it didn't follow established guidelines. In fact it was in direct contradiction to them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL, and CMOS 8.163 and 14.96 (which might be where the guideline in the how-to guide came from). MOS:CT and WP:ALLCAPS only affects capitalization, not anything else.SciGal (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the removed phrase at WP:COPYEDIT was in direct contradiction to MOS:CT and WP:ALLCAPS, so it clearly couldn't apply. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a phrase; it was an entire passage. SciGal (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Rob Sinden, something has been bothering me since this started. How do you know that the show's title was stylized for promotional purposes? Have you seen an interview with a member of the show's (or the network's) art department stating that? If so, please either point us editors to that interview so that we can include it in the article. If not, do you realize that your actions and comments during this debate suggest that you changed the name of the article because you hated it? Please realize that all of the editors who have worked on this article have taken care to use high-level reliable sources (e.g., the NYT, AP, USA Today, Time, Popular Science, the AMS's web site) in addition to the entertainment web sites, and all of the high-level web sites have and do use Numb3rs for the show. SciGal (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at the other discussion, there is a strong feeling from some editors that we shouldn't use numbers and symbols in place of letters (although words may be acceptable). Obviously other editors feel different, until the guideline changes, we follow MOS:TM, which gives a similar example from Se7en and forbids this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not answer my question of how do you know whether the show's art department stylized the name or whether the name was Numb3rs from the start. SciGal (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your point here. If it is pronounced "numbers", then obviously it's a style issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's spelled Numb3rs in the vast majority of reliable sources (and that includes the sources outside of the entertainment magazines). So, it's not a style issue.
Besides, remember we editors have to cite every statement that we make. If you include a statement that a name has been stylized, you have to back it up with an interview with a member of the show's or network's art department or someone connected with the show's or network's decision making process. If not, that statement might be considered original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. SciGal (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're going round in circles. It's a style issue, as "numb3rs" is not a word as much as "se7en" is not a word. We are told to use English, and until the guidelines are changed, we should follow them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Numb3rs is a title of a television show, which its spelling, according to about every style guide but WP's, should not be changed by the author or editor when writing an article or a text related to the subject. Also, remember what I said about documentation. Every statement has to have a reference, and that would include if and/or when a name has been stylized by the art department. That is why you have been confronted by four editors on this page about the name of the show. SciGal (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Style does not need a reference. That's why we have a WP:MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, over at MOS:TM, the only one I see vocally objecting to any sort of change in MOS:TM is you. Most others either are willing to change the MOS to bring it more in line with other style guides or are willing to change the MOS under the right circumstances. SciGal (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion for that page. But any change needs wider participation than the three or four editors currently discussing. At the moment, we follow the style guide that we do have, not what changes we might make. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that I counted 11 people who have commented so far on MOS:TM, including you and me. I had seen others comment in other talk pages that MOS:TM needs to be changed, but they have decided not to speak up on MOS:TM. SciGal (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the guidelines are changed, then we can revisit this. However, I do not see any consensus to change the guideline, so until there is, we follow what we have got. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be a consensus, but you and I are both part of the discussion there. SciGal (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that in standard English we don't include numbers and letters mixed together...its a clear style choice by the producers/writers/etc. It should stay the same in line with OUR policies and guidelines. How other people choose to style their names is irrelevant. -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your curiosity

[edit]

There has been much debate over which spelling is the common name for the show. I ran a search on Google, and this is what I found.

Google Results (Accessed 31 January 2014)

Google Books (Accessed 31 January 2014)

Restricted Google Results

Restriction--site:.edu (Accessed 31 January 2014)

Rationale: First, the restriction "site:.edu" does allow access to scholarly works. Second, the show is set in academia.

Restriction--site:.gov (Accessed 31 January 2014)

Rationale: First, the National Science Foundation had awarded the show's creators with National Science Board's Public Service Award in 2007. Also, the show is set in the FBI and has referenced the CIA, NSA, NTSB, CDC, NASA, and FermiLab in various episodes.

Restriction--site:.org (Accessed 31 January 2014)

Rationale: I wanted to incorporate any results from academic professional organizations that are not listed under the "site:.edu" restriction. SciGal (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section was originally a section at the bottom of the page. I have moved it to be a subsection of the RfC, so that the closer will consider this analysis in his or her close. Cunard (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode?

[edit]

I'm trying to find which episode that has Charlie explaining to a class of students about how to choose between three doors,(like a game show) to decide which door has a car behind it. After picking a door and not finding the car, another chance to pick another door is offered. After picking another door the "picker then has the opportunity to change his mind. The question; does it improve your odds to change the decision or not. I remember that it's better to change your mind, but I can't remember why! Can you tell me which episode that was? Thanks,174.19.197.97 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monty Hall problem is discussed in episodes 113 and 321. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New addition to the article

[edit]

I just added something of interest to the article. SciGal (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-place fauna

[edit]

Series 3, episode 12 ("Nine Wives") has a vulture attacking the unconscious girl on the roadside. But it is a White-backed Vulture (Gyps africanus), range Africa. Why didn't they use an American vulture such as a Turkey Vulture or Black Vulture, either of which would have been realistic? Ptilinopus (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Numbers (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Numbers (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Numbers_(TV_series)&oldid=1229653164"