![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article does not yet mention Look Back In Annoyance, the "cheap-ass clip show" special which chronologically falls between Season Five and Is It College Yet. Does the group as a whole think this should be mentioned between those two catgories, otherwise noted, or ignored? (I do note that Is It Fall Yet is currently placed after Season Five, out of chronological order.) Wyvern 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any episodes that have been banned on television, due to the content that many people have complained about? -- PJ Pete
Err.. no, there really isn't any objectionable content on this show. Are you thinking of Beavis and Butthead?-- B&W Anime Fan 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The description of episode 413 includes this: "Jane thinks Daria is interested in him and overreacts when a hair dye she makes Daria help in go wrong." This is such awkward phrasing that it is incomprehensible. I would fix it myself, but I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
After suddenly finding out about the recent deletion of episode articles for That's So Raven and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody I want to warn everybody here that other shows might be targeted next. I strongly urge everybody to keep on guard for this vandalism. And spread the word. ---- DanTD 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles about individual episodes of this series currently do not conform to the out-of-universe perspective that is an official policy of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#PLOT gives the relevant overview as well as links to other policy and guideline pages that are pertinent. It is worth considering closely the policy statement: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. All of the episode articles that I have reviewed here fail to conform to this standard and hence do not deserve individual articles as currently written. Interested editors should act to introduce real-world context and assert out-of-universe notability if they do not wish these articles to be redirected. Additionally, it should be noted that interested editors are strongly encouraged to join or, when necessary, start a specific project wikia should they desire to retain the kind of in-universe information that is currently proscribed at Wikipedia. See WP:FICT#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. Eusebeus 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of red links and self links. Shouldn't these be all corrected? I'll be happy to take care of it en masse, if there's no reason to keep them. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Daria peek.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article does not yet mention Look Back In Annoyance, the "cheap-ass clip show" special which chronologically falls between Season Five and Is It College Yet. Does the group as a whole think this should be mentioned between those two catgories, otherwise noted, or ignored? (I do note that Is It Fall Yet is currently placed after Season Five, out of chronological order.) Wyvern 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any episodes that have been banned on television, due to the content that many people have complained about? -- PJ Pete
Err.. no, there really isn't any objectionable content on this show. Are you thinking of Beavis and Butthead?-- B&W Anime Fan 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The description of episode 413 includes this: "Jane thinks Daria is interested in him and overreacts when a hair dye she makes Daria help in go wrong." This is such awkward phrasing that it is incomprehensible. I would fix it myself, but I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
After suddenly finding out about the recent deletion of episode articles for That's So Raven and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody I want to warn everybody here that other shows might be targeted next. I strongly urge everybody to keep on guard for this vandalism. And spread the word. ---- DanTD 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles about individual episodes of this series currently do not conform to the out-of-universe perspective that is an official policy of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#PLOT gives the relevant overview as well as links to other policy and guideline pages that are pertinent. It is worth considering closely the policy statement: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. All of the episode articles that I have reviewed here fail to conform to this standard and hence do not deserve individual articles as currently written. Interested editors should act to introduce real-world context and assert out-of-universe notability if they do not wish these articles to be redirected. Additionally, it should be noted that interested editors are strongly encouraged to join or, when necessary, start a specific project wikia should they desire to retain the kind of in-universe information that is currently proscribed at Wikipedia. See WP:FICT#Relocating_non-notable_fictional_material. Eusebeus 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of red links and self links. Shouldn't these be all corrected? I'll be happy to take care of it en masse, if there's no reason to keep them. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Daria peek.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.