Talk:Boy Meets Boy (TV series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Please add more information about the production, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for more advice. |
|
A response section needs to be added to this article. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Boymeetsboy.jpg
Image:Boymeetsboy.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 Wikipedia articles 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 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussing trivia
OK, let's discuss. Otto4711 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, please stop reverting. As was already noted by another editor, trivia sections are heavily discouraged on Wikipedia. They usually have no encyclopedic value. Any information in a trivia type section that is actually important and of value to the article should be included in the article itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Additionally, as and particular inappropriate when they are unsourced statements about WP:Living people. As per your continual attempts to revert, IMDB is NOT considered a WP:reliable source. Please read the WP:Living guidelines discussing the source requirements for any statements made about a living person and find better, more neutral sources. Collectonian 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The middle trivia item would actually be appropriate, in a section on the contestants, which the article is missing. Why not add one and then you could include that fact in the description of that contestant, with a more neutral source, which would improve the article far better than the trivia section ever could. The third item could be added to the end of the summary for episode 6, if properly sourced. Collectonian 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- All material is sourced because I added sources and if you weren't so busy playing revert cop and actually checked out the sources then you'd see that. Trivia sections are "discouraged," but are not prohibited and the fact that this show led to one of its participants being discharged from the military under federal law is certainly encyclopedic. Otto4711 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that one bit actually is good, but needs to come from an more neutral, reliable source and should be incorporated into a section discussing all of the participants, not just a trivia section, as I just said. Collectonian 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Per WP:TRIVIA: "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." While it is debateable that the presentation of this information is "poorly presented" it is clearly "otherwise suitable." Rather than deleting it, since you have ideas on how to integrate it into the article, integrate it into the article. Otto4711 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've offered suggestions for how to improve the article. My suggestions are not just my personal opinion, but suggestions intended to bring the quality of the article up and to bring it in-line with the MOS, particular the Television MOS as it is within the Television project by virtue of being a television show. As a member of the Television Project, I try to improve any television articles I work on. The sections were legitimately removed as unsourced trivia about living people. You started an edit war BEFORE you attempted to source them.
-
-
-
-
- Before my discourse with you, had you simply come to the talk page as asked and actually opened a discussion with the sources and "here's why I think it should stay", instead of just saying "let's discuss" then continuing to edit war, I would have just suggested ways to improve the article and probably done so myself. Instead, you seem to feel ownership of the article, quickly reverting any edit you don't like as revealed by your actions here and a look at the article's history. If you decide you'd like to actually improve the article so that it is a good quality TV article that also adheres to the living person, great, I'm still willing to help. If not, that's fine too. Collectonian 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Yeah, you know, generally speaking, "willing to help" doesn't mean "delete sourced information with false accusations of vandalism." If you're really interested in improving this article, then you'll revert your edit in which you removed sourced material and you'll recant your accusation of vandalism. Ideally you would also recant your false accusation of "edit warring" but I'll settle for the restoration of the properly sourced material. Otto4711 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Material restored
I have restored the properly sourced material. If you're not happy about it, then take it to mediation. Please refrain from your baseless accusations of edit warring and vandalism. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have corrected your restoration. IMDB is not considered a proper source, so its been removed. I also fixed the last item, as the source you give does NOT state the prize was given as vouchers, only that they hadn't taken the trip (and even then, it isn't a valid source since it was written before the trip was supposed to be taken). The rest I'll leave to another editor. Collectonian (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
