Talk:Adrian Monk/Archive 1

Adrian Monk merits its own article because each of the other characters listed in Monk (TV series) have their own. If one were to make this article a redirect, then all the other individual characters' articles (Sharona Fleming, Natalie Teeger, Captain Leland Stottlemeyer, etc.) would have to be deleted and redirected too. --JianLi 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded by a great deal. Everyone of the other Monk characters have bigger articles when it seems that the other way around should be true. --Bacteria 03:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is much more info that can be placed here. dposse 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of grammatical errors throughout the article, particularly run-on sentences and the like, not to mention a few flat-out plotline errors (Monk does rearrange a crime scene due to his OCD in the fourth episode of the first season - this article states that he is "always careful not to disturb a crime scene"). Maybe somebody would like to see into that...I'm not much of a writer-type. RpgActioN 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Monk is hilarious. -Raves Yancyfry jr

It says on the Monk official website that he has 38 phobias though only 35 are listed here... sorry i don't know the rest but i thought i'd mention it

Diagnosis

Whenever I edit to say that Monk has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder rather than obsessive-compulsive disorder, my edit gets reversed. The note for when this happened most recently says a verifiable source is needed. Am I supposed to add a footnote referencing DSM-IV, or would it be enough for confused readers to just look at the articles on those two disorders and see which one is a better match?

Whatever the diagnosis may be, it should have a verifiable citation. Referencing DSM-IV would be considered original research. You should find something from an interview with a writer or creator of the show. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I take real issue with that. The creator of the show has admitted he didn't really even know what OCD was when this was created. At the least this should be rewritten to reflect that within the show's universe it's claimed Monk is "obsessive-compulsive". It should reflect that the actual condition displayed may not by OCD. --Wolfpup7 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So has anyone from the show specifically called it OCD? There's no citation given for that either (at least that I can find), so why does that diagnosis get preference? psychojosh13

"But after the tragic (and still unsolved) murder of his wife, a devastated Monk became obsessive-compulsive." Shannernanner 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says that Monk was born in 1959 based on the class reunion episode. I added a comment saying that he would have been born in 1958 based on the Monk and LIttle Monk episode. Someone changed that to "around 1959". If you graduated from 8th grade in 1972 (Monk and Little Monk) the only way you can graduate from college in 1981 (Class reunion) is if you take five years to graduate from high school, five years to graduate from college, or skip a year in there somewhere. Based on this, the estimated birth year should be changed to 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.234.229 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is curse (and gift) of Monk. As noted many times, he considers a murder to be out of his conception of the order of the universe. He puts it in "order" by making sense of it and solving the crime. His own disorders makes him hyper-aware of disorder, and his need to put things in order make him an incredible detective. In Mr. Monk Takes His Medicine he cured his problems... but also lost his skill as a detective and his ability to remember Trudy as she truly, deeply, loved him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

Sure Monk has quite a few phobias. Still, I'd like that each phobia to be commented in which episode it was mentioned, per wikipedia policy of citing the sources. `'mikkanarxi 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg

Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Running track

SHould Monk running track be mentioned here?Everyoneandeveryone 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MonkSeason5DVDCover.jpg

Image:MonkSeason5DVDCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Phobia of startrek?

Imperfection no longer redirects to lack of perfection, it links to a startrek episode titled "Imperfection", likewise the phobia name afterwords links to a -phobia in general instead of the actual (would be a red link) phobia... Just stating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.49.205 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate?

If he has an age, he has a birthdate. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.17.228 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Home Address

Is it possible by visual clues or some other way to figure out Monk's home address? I'm not sure, apartament # was visible in some scenes, also exterior scenes look like they're filmed around some real building. Ets34 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick fail

I have quickfailed this article for extensive use of internal links as WP:RS instead of reliable third party secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the article and nor did I nominate it at GAN, but I would advise the editor that did so to request a review of this quick fail. By my count, almost 50 of the references are to third party sources, and the only place primary sources are used is in the section discussing the character's storylines, as they should be. Beyond that, quick failing any article unless it has massive problems is very much frowned on at GAN now, and I believe that this ought to have been placed on hold so that discussion could occur at the very least. 82.30.43.144 (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not using Wikipedia articles as sources, it's using particular episodes of Monk as sources. The episode is the source, but convienience links to our page about the episode are provided. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nearly 50% of the text relies on these types of footnotes. The article should be reworked and then renominated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the in-universe portion of the text is cited to the episodes themselves. There is no problem with using episode citations in this manner, and most if not all fictional character articles of GA standard are structured similarly. If your problem with the article is instead that the real-world sections should be more substantial, then say so, instead of claiming that the article uses "predominately internal links" when this is clearly not the case (25% primary sources compared to 75% third party sources). Frickative 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only fictional character article that I have taken to GA (Willie Gillis) has no internal citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Help me to understand the first citation. Where is the WP:RS for his age?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they specified his age in the seventh episode of the seventh season. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, I've had 9 fictional character GAs, 7 of which used episode citations. Never was using these episode citations to support in-universe info an issue in any review. The source for the character's age is the episode in which it was revealed. It is in-universe information, supported by a valid primary source. WP:FICT agrees that "Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work", while WP:WAF concurs that: "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source. [...] Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters [...] and, of course, the plot itself". The real world information certainly requires third-party sources, but that requirement is met in this article. Frickative 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of bio GAs. I would never support a claim with "Jesse Jackson, Jr. interview on CNN, 2008-12-15". I would look for a New York Times article that says Jesse Jackson stated a notable thing. I would not say "Color commentator on Michigan v. Iowa 2009-01-11 XMradio broadcast". I would look for something on ESPN.com that says Manny Harris or DeShawn Sims is one of the best rebounders/scorers/players in the Big Ten Conference. It seems odd to me that fictional characters can use these types of sources. I admit for my fictional character I refer to the fictional works themselves. However, they are easily verified. I find the types of sources you are using have very low WP:V although I could check things out with a trip to blockbuster I guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Episodes as references are no harder to verify than say, a print book. Both require a little more effort than just looking up an article online, but the fact remains that they are valid. It would be unreasonable to expect a reviewer to watch every episode referenced to verify plot details, but not unreasonable to expect a reviewer to assume good faith on in-universe details such as, for instance, episode "Mr. Monk and the Three Pies" revealing "Monk has one brother, Ambrose (John Turturro), who has Agoraphobia, and has not left his house for over thirty years". The article is not made up of predominately primary sources (as mentioned, secondary sources outnumber primary ones 3 to 1), and as such it shouldn't have been quick failed for this reason. More of a cause for concern is the fact that the article contains some WP:OR issues, and the ratio of in-universe to real world information is about 50:50 - expansion of the out of universe content would probably be necessary in order for it to become a GA. But this is something that could easily be raised and rectified during the course of a full review, which I feel the article deserved. Frickative 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I think I misunderstood the refs. I would consent to replacing the candidate back in the queue at its prior position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You're not the only one to question the use of primary sources in fiction articles, Tony. It's one of many hot button issues with regard to fiction. There is consensus that it is allowed, as long as it is only used to make simple desriptive statements, without synthesis and other OR. I'll admit it's not the strongest consensus on all of WP, there's a vocal minority who disagrees with it, but the consensus has stood for a few years now. There are a number of fiction FAs that use primary sources: Padmé Amidala, Characters of Carnivàle, Troy McClure, Bernard Quatermass. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the quickfail that is probably attributable to my misunderstanding of the propriety of several primary source references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would review the article myself right now, but I plan to head to DC this weekend and have many reviews in progress as it is. If it is still unreviewed late next week, I might take it on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional Plagiarism?

I didn't realize it until after I viewed the reference article, but I've actually found a few lines in here barely paraphrased from the original source (see the little blurb in "Casting" about Michael Richards, then read how the original source phrased it, and it's pretty obvious). However unintentional I'm sure this was, this counts as plagiarism. It might be worth going through this article and seeing what else we can find. I can take a look at it if nobody else volunteers, and I'll write the reason for any edits I make as fixing unintentional plagiarism. Ansate (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)