Talk:River Monsters

Be Consistant

Season two Demon Fish "this beast is covered in armor plating" Season four American Killers "Having already experienced their impenetrable armour and razor sharp teeth" Firstly pick a language and stick with it. Secondly the episode is called American Killers and you use the British English. Is this meant to be ironic? American and British English spelling differences Wikipedia need to fix this because it looks ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.134.107 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Firstly pick a language and stick with it." -- Agree. Which language? A show written and presented by a Brit (with a British accent), produced by a British company, and shown in full on British television, and in an edited version on American television, but possibly with a much larger American audience than British. Hmm, I am sure there are specific guidelines, of which I am ignorant, but I tend to think that it ought to be the British English spelling used throughout, as that is more authentic and in line with the creation of the show. I tend to think that any particular audience demographics at any given time are largely irrelevant, as they may change, but the creator-writer-presenter, will always be British. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

It would be great if the creators of River Monsters could make a movie about the Central African Tigerfish, found, I believe, in the Congo river. Aptak (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Wade

Jeremy Wade redirect is back to River Monsters. Rong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an old comment. As of today -- and for how long, I don't know -- there is no redirect. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified catfish

Does anybody know what kind of catfish is that small and yellowish-green one that Jeremy's guide catches just before the Piraíba in "Amazon Flesh Eaters"? Jeremy tells the story of one's tusk getting into his finger. I believe it's some kind of Pimelodidae, similar to Pimelodus. --SeaScorpion (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured animals

The sections of featured animals, with hyperlinks to Wikipedia entries is clearly original research, and should either be corrected and referenced, or removed. The entries are not referenced, are inconsistent and are often wrong. The clearest case is in "Atomic Assassin", which lists the Volga zander as a featured animal. The episode states that it is a Zander, and the close up of the teeth clearly demonstrate that this is what it is and that it is not a Volga zander. I am not correcting the entry myself, as this would constitute original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.113.160 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism

There are two sources of criticisms, however, nowhere on the article page, nor anywhere on the talk page, does it specifically delineate the problem areas. I have a problem with criticisms of this nature without just cause, or proper documentation, or some attempt to communicate the precise nature of the problem. If a problem is not identified, how can a solution ever be found? It amounts to an empty criticism or a may even come off as some sort of smear tactic.

1. Citations and Neutrality complaints without identification

Tagged at the top of the article, it says:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2016)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2016)

This article describes a TV show, and the bulk of the article is a description of each episode. What sort of citation is needed for that? If there are specific statements that are in fact in need of citation, where are they? Why isn't this article neutral? A list of episodes seems rather benign to me. If there are biased statements, what precisely are they, and why are they classified as biased, and in what manner are they biased?

2. Fisheries and Fishing ranks this low without citing specific reasons

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks. 	
  C     This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
  Mid   This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In my observation, this show takes the viewer around the world, interacts with local populations, explores the complex way in which the customs and traditions of the local population interact with and have long term affects on the environment (both upstream and downstream) in which the fish live, explores various potential environments of the rare and elusive target fish, often shows examples of and describes the more common fish of the area. It seems rather comprehensive in it's land-based approach, from the human point of view. It does this in a manner and in a detail I have not ever seen done before in television. The breadth and depth are surely A or B-Class, and the importance better than Mid. The show serves a vital purpose as an engaging introduction to the topic, which could inspire many new generations of young anglers and scientists and environmentalists. I'd be very curious to know why, then, precisely, is this show considered rather unimportant? Point out each and every specific reason this article gets this lackluster rating, and what, if anything, might help improve that. Otherwise, this empty criticism just comes off as some sort of elitist snobbery, because it is not a fully-blown underwater documentary like Jacques Cousteau may have done.

While I acknowledge my comments are either 1st hand research or opinion, and I may be biased in favor of the show as a fan, this in no way negates the argument that empty criticisms are unhelpful. Show the problems. Make your case properly about why they are problems, what metrics and justifications are used? The classification as a problem may itself be debatable or driven by bias, and may not hold up to scrutiny, which is why no specifics were given in the first place. If the problems are justified, then it's more constructive to then attempt to find a remedy, if one exists, that is mutually satisfactory. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Season 4 table broken

"can you fix river monsters article season 4 table? can't do it" [ Warp9pnt9 edit, apparently comment made by 144.32.240.3 (???) 18:26, 25 June 2017 UTC ]

The above comment was anonymously left on my personal talk page, but I moved it here where it belongs. Not signed, so no idea who made the comment, or when. No idea what the specific problem is. No idea why I am contacted, as the most I have contributed to that page was a few comments in it's talk section. An IP address was recorded and associated with some edits on the River Monsters page. But an IP address means the user wasn't logged in so I can't even ask for any clarifications. What the hell am I supposed to do with that? I guess I can look and try to figure out what the problem is and what it should look like instead. But I am busy trying to learn a bunch of other stuff right now and haven't the time. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

After cursory examination, there appears to be at least 2 problems.

First, a template opening was removed and now we have a dangling template close showing raw, but with "improved" HTML formatting. Awesome. That usually means the template must be closed, and then we must dig deeper for true cause of the HTML formatting explosion.

Second thing I notice is that "No. in
Series" (Number in Series) was changed to "Episode". The problem is that of consistency with Wiki policies and naming conventions. In Britain, sometimes "Episode" is a term for a show that spans several independently aired "Parts", wherein each year of a show is referred to as a Series of Episodes, any given Episode potentially with multiple parts. In the USA, a Series is a synonym for the entire airing of a show, from initial to final air date, whereas a Season refers to the individual years, and each Episode refers to each independently aired show, which occasionally have 2-3 parts but usually have one part. Also confusing, sometimes the term "Series" is used in British TV to describe a limited story with usually 2-6 parts, which in American TV is referred to as a miniseries.

American TV reserves the term "Series" to imply a longer term engagement, typically spanning several years unless the show is cancelled after one Season (one year) due to poor ratings. But the distinction is that they start out with the hope and intent to get approval for a second "Season" in the "Series".

Why mention all this? Because the page mixes American and British conventions and gets confusing. we can't just willy-nilly interchange the terms and conventions based solely on who is editing the article on any given day. There has to be some objective criteria upon which to base a decision, and consistently apply those criteria to TV articles. As outlined in another comment of mine about choosing a specific language dialect, British English vs American English, I am of the opinion that in this case we should go by the creator/writer/producer/performer which are all the same person in this case (British), as they won't change regardless of viewership demographics. The primary market for the show (UK) varies from the secondary market (USA), though the secondary market was much larger.

At the very least, one convention should be chosen and a section describing the differences of naming convention be made. Ideally, if the Wiki site is able to detect user origin, the appropriate language dialect could be shown, but I am not sure Wiki has that capability, and even if it does, not sure how complex it is to implement. I feel this is a basic issue that has probably been hashed out elsewhere in policies (of which I am admittedly ignorant), but I can't really seem to find my way around the rat's nest of nonsensical Wiki politics and policies to get any clear and easy to find answer. But in many cases the trend seems to be "America is the Internet and the World, we override your customs." I'm not even British, I'm American, but I can see how ignorant, obnoxious and disrespectful the behavio(u)r is. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Monsters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426045939/http://www.tbivision.com/article.php?category=4&article=1026&page=2 to http://www.tbivision.com/article.php?category=4&article=1026&page=2

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Split: episodes list (2022)

I suggest that the episodes section be split off into a separate List of River Monsters episodes article, and an seasons table be left as a summary in place of the list section here. The summary table would also appear at the list article as the list lede section -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Split - The synopsis and commentary of the series should be focused on the main article - especially its reception. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sharks in rivers

Jeremy. I watch your show and I enjoy it. However when I see you throw back a small shark that has apparently been bred from larger sharks in fresh water that will grow to 450 lbs and one day attack and kill a man or child it really bothers me. Don’t need reply please reconsider. Richard. 96.94.67.57 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)