Talk:List of problems solved by MacGyver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 1 December 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (2nd nomination) discussion].
Keep, 2006-12-13, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver discussion].

[edit] How to Handle Verification?

How should we handle marking MacGyverisms as plausible or implausible? The Wikipedia rule is apparently not to link to Users in the article. This makes sense, because I know Wikipedia wants to be printable with just the articles, and having user names violates that. So we can't have people sign their assertions. But what do we do? We can't have a fact finding mission for each MacGyverism :) So perhaps whoever writes up the MacGyverism just puts up their opinion and if there is debate, we debate it here on talk? Or is it inherently too POV to put on Wikipedia? --Aphex3 02:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to debate it in the talk section. Don't know if it's a good idea or not - but I was thinking that if someone has a 'proof', they first post it here. After an arbitrary ammount of time passes in which debate can take place, they put "plausible" or "implausible" at the appropriate point in the article and put a citation number next to it that can link to the discussion on the talk page. Just a thought. --Theeph 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed in articles. If you have/can find an external source saying something about the plausibility of a MacGyverism, however, it would be good to link/summarize them. Frencheigh 09:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I see what you're saying, but in The Reliable Source guidelines it seems to say that opinion held by a person or group is fine to cite as long as it can be verified that the person or group does hold that opinion. It is original research if cited as fact, but if cited as opinion, and linked to the discussion page as proof of the opinion - that seems to obey the rules. I think opinion is appropriate in this situation given the inventiveness of MacGyver, and the unlikelihood of finding a reliable secondary source that *could* verify his crazy stunts. --Theeph 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: ...has not been published already by a reputable source. It is inappropriate to cite a wikipedia talk page in wikipedia because it presupposes the reliability of wikipedia, which is what we're trying to establish :] See also Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. at WP:CITE.

Ah, right. I see that to include opinion attached to "plausible" or "implausible" would be attempting to verify it as fact, in the context of the article. That is, saying: "Yes, this is possible because we agreed to it on the talk page" is not the right way to do things. Good point.--Theeph 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to Writeup a MacGyverism

The important elements of writing a MacGyverism are:

In bold: The task performed (e.g. built bomb)
In bold: The materials used (e.g. matches, dental floss, toothpick.)
What he was trying to accomplish in the plot (e.g. distract the bad guys)
What process he used to accomplish the task (e.g. tied floss to toothpick, lit match, etc)
What tags to attach (see notes below)

Additional elements of a MacGyverism can be:

If the MacGyverism seems plausible in real life.
What time index in the show the event happened.

[edit] Tags

The point of assigning tags is to help people who want to skim the list look for MacGyverisms on topics they are interested in. It's possible that a MacGyverism will use more than one tag. E.g. if MacGyver blows up a building using refracted light aimed at a volatile liquid, that would be covered by the tags Bomb and Optics.

Uncategorized

Image:Mgvoptics.jpg Optics --Theeph 07:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry

Physics (we could use a better icon)

Bombs

Good sources for icons are:

Please add tags as needed.

There seem to be a lot of fancy electronics topics in the article. Perhaps an Electronics category. I'll start adding it to the article until someone has an objection. --Theeph 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also a lot of car problems, so I've added an automotive tag.P996911turbo 15:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New icons

Made some more like the optics one. If they could be better, or different just tell me. --Theeph 07:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys should just remove the icons--they look stupid, amature and redundant. I don't think most readers of this article are so illiterate that they need a picture to understand what category of science each item fits into.

I don't agree. Icons are a useful way to quickly identify items on a complex page. The problem here is that they aren't consistent. Maybe a selection of Creative Commons ones that are all by the same designer would look better. Connectionfailure 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel all the icons look amateurish and distract from the text of the article. I vote to delete them. JameiLei 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which MacGvyerisms to Writeup

I personally think it makes sense to log anything that demonstrates a sophisticated knowledge of science is appropriate. There are times when MacGyver does clever things (such as throwing a rope to safely cross a pressure sensitive floor), but these don't demonstrate any particular aptitude that a common person probably wouldn't have. So in cases where he does fancy talking, fast running, sleight of hand, etc, I think they can be skipped. --Aphex3 02:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfiled MacGyverisms

Please sort these if you know where they are from!

MacGyver has a pregnant woman with him who is being pursued by her husband who wants to murder her. He grabs some obstacles to impede the malicious people chasing the pregnant woman. Mac drives his jeep into a facility and gets it stuck. Meanwhile, get gets some woodboards to drive back up onto the warehouse floor, puts it in 4WD and eventually climbs up successfully.

- Its From 'Birth Day', but should this be classified as a MacGyverism? Its more of a common knowledge thing.

I am sure there was an episode in whcih he scrapes the pips off of an old playing card because "in the old days" the cards were made of some sort of material whcih is combustible and he uses those scrapings along with something else (a button?) to make an explosive. Does this sound familiar?

I seem to remember MacGyver doing something with a (very much prized) pair of hockey tickets and some bubble gum, does anyone know what that was?

He uses the hockey tickets to stop the trigger on a bomb in season 2, ill have to look it up though

[edit] Specific MacGyverism Debates

Please at least note the episode number along with your comments.

[edit] The Human Factor (2x01)

Sodium Metal in gelatin capsule. Possibly plausible. Sodium metal is so reactive that it combusts even with the small amount of oxygen in air which is why it is usually stored in oil. If the sodium metal that he takes out of the bottle to put in the gel cap is covered with oil, it could explain why it doesn't blow up in his face. Still it is a dodgy thing to be playing with but this is Macgyver though.

Lasers: Implausible - such powerful lasers would destroy the floor, among other things, and would not be stable in a hallway. --(Aphex3)

Magnets: Back in the 1980s I took apart a couple of old phones to remove the magnets. They sure definitely were strong enough to stick to metallic surfaces when being thrown - did that a couple of times :-) --This was unsigned by 80.135.216.200, 10 February 2006

[edit] The Wish Child (2x04)

Setting fire to a fuse with focused light - Plausable. I've started campfires etc with sunlight in the same fashion described.--Theeph 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

- Here's an article on the Archimedes Death Ray: http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/10_ArchimedesResult.html

[edit] Jack of Lies (2x06)

Charging a battery with wine - plausible. I've charged my car battery by filling it full of water. The sediment from the evaporated acid combined with the water after a moment, and the reaction resumed. The pH of wine is generally between 3.3 and 3.7 (1). Water's pH is about 7. So even if it was a young red Mac used, it would still be 30 times the acidity used to refresh my died battery - probably a good thing.--Theeph 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"In order to stop a pursuing Jeep, MacGyver builds a bomb out of a fire extinguisher. He is in a plane that is being chased down a runway by several Jeeps."

If I recall, he used an oxygen cannister for this trick not a fire extinguisher. It wouldn't be unusual to find an oxygen canister in the hold of a complex aircraft (as he was in), and a fire extinguisher would not violently explode as depicted. (whether an oxygen bottle would explode without a source of ignition or just fly away is debateable, but I digress.)

[edit] Phoenix Under Siege (2x11)

"New York lock" - Is that a colloquialism? Because I've never heard of a new york lock, and there's no wiki entry for one. --Wmil 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

kryptonite makes a bicycle lock called the new york lock

Hi,

I saw some pictures in images.google.com and what I discovered doesn't really look like the stuff I remember having seen in the 2x11 MacGyver episode................... So, are you sure the correct name of this object is "New York lock". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.94.105 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Negotiator (3x15)

Unlike water, the chemical constituents of petrol (short-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons, benzene additive etc) do not ionise in solution and therefore should not conduct electricity. This makes it unlikly that the short-circuit electrocution described would actually happen.

[edit] The Secret of Parker House (4x01)

When the door wont stay open, he puts a chair in front of it. F**KIN' GENIUS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.190.128.153 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikibooks proposal

Result: Voted down, 1-3.

I think it cannot stay in Wikipedia, because it contains original research and POV, and also doesn't satisfy inclusion criteria (see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes). But I like it, and I honestly think it should go to Wikibooks. Samohyl Jan 12:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be a... textbook? What, for MacGyver class? I'm not sure I understand. And yeah, the most egregious POV/OR is in the parenthetical comments and "unverified"s, at the very least those need to go. Frencheigh 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not textbook, but on wikibooks there is a cookbook and many howto's and guides how to play various computer games, so I guess there would be a place for a more complete guide (and synopsis) of some TV series. Or do you have any better idea? Samohyl Jan 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of problems solved is no more original research that a plot synopsis. I see no reason to move it off of WP. Cburnett 04:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think this can count as a book. Since it's been about a month and a half I'm going to close the vote and say no go. --Aphex3 02:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best article ever.

'nuff said. :) Shogun 06:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree!!! -Ravedave 20:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also agree! --Macnbc 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

me too! added it to Wikipedia:Unusual articles --Astrokey44 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. =D 152.23.196.162 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When it is a featured article I will be proud to say I was in at the ground floor. Ish. 142.177.47.124 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning this article may need to be less badass to meet Wikipedia's standards, 81.221.72.177 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Best ever! Kameejl ^(Talk) 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better classification system needed

I think we need a better classification system. At least, let's use some sort of a scale to indicate whether or not the macgyverism actually works. 1- Will not work, made up. 2- Could theoretically work, but only under ideal labratory conditions. 3- Theory could actually work in real life, under ideal conditions. 4- General Idea would work, with some minor changes/assumptions. 5) Will work, as shown. 12.110.196.19 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would recommend categorisation according to science (eg Newtonian Physics, Nuclear Physics, Chemistry etc), not episode. Metao 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish student essay

I heard about a Swedish student (at gymnasium or university) that wrote an essay about all MacGyver's task, and concluded that most of it were possible during the right conditions, but that everything wasn't plausible. Funny trivia if I could find it. 惑乱分からん 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] (Rebecka Öfverholm), a female gymnasium student. 惑乱分からん 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual episode links

At the moment the title for each episode is a link to an article about the episode. None of the episodes have their own articles, and it seems unlikely that they will ever be written or considered worthy of an article. Should we unlink them? If nothing else it will make it look a little better. --P996911turbo 09:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess that solves that, I see the links have been removed. P996911turbo 06:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who nominated this artilce for deletion?

Absolute cockheaditry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.190.128.32 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I see no reason to delete this article, it does not meet the criteria for deletion.

Why would anyone want to delete this article? I find it quite useful.

I generally hate all lists but this one is for sure a keeper. Beach drifter (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate plz

This should be on the front page one of these days.

[edit] 005 THE HEIST

I swear in this episode he used a shoe buffer to rig the dice to roll to only 7 each time... Am I remembering wrong? 'cause i always thought it was weird to see a shoe buffer in a bathroom...--Hitsuji Kinno 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too good for Wikipedia

It's sad, but we all know this gem of an article will eventually get edited to death and all the charm will be removed. Can we get together and tell any editor thinking of doing this: This is an article about MACGYVERISMS, the world will not end if it does not meet all of Wikipedia's academic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudster (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.