This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I take issue with the cast section being split into two separate sections and taking on two completely different layout styles. I think it would be best to merge into one section and decide to use either a table or list layout throughout. I also am not keen on bothering to include coloured fields to point out regular, recurring status or not present at all. Rain the 1 22:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am also taking issue with another aspect of this section. How do we know who is a regular and recurring character now? It appears to only follow those mentioned in the opening credits or the first selection on the end credits. I think everyone mentioned here are regular characters? [1] Rain the 1 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like that title picture has been taken from the US series aired on SOHO. Sween64 ( talk) 00:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the TV Choice Award 2014 entry in the accolade table because it was marked as pending, and the award was subsequently won by Game of Thrones. My edit was reverted by JuneGloom07 with the comment Even if it was won by another show, Wentworth was still nominated for it & the article should reflect that. This, I would agree with, if in fact it was supported by the source provided. It is not. The source gives the winners but not the nominees. I did some checking and found that the nominees for Best International Show 2014 were; The Big Bang Theory, Game Of Thrones, Modern Family and The Walking Dead. [2] [3] Wentworth was not nominated according to these sources, and therefore I have again removed the table entry pending the provision of a reliable source. Poltair ( talk) 08:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the issue here is semantic rather than sourcing. Wentworth was longlisted for the award and not included in the shortlist of nominees. Whether being longlisted can be referred to as nominated is a semantic argument. Just use the term Longlisted. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In "Think Inside The Box" Frankie references Superman II which came out in 1980.
The series Prisoner began in 1979... Is this a subtle way of indicating that Wentworth happens in the 1980s too?
Does anyone recall any reference to what year it is in any episodes? Or any modern events or technology?
One thing that comes to mind is one episode uses a drone to film a riot. I don't think that was feasible in even the 90s so it is a good argument for it being more recent.
Any other modern tech or year references that give us ideas of what decade this remake is set in? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Three large tables listing the DVD releases around the world seems excessive. Is there a way to condense this section to maybe one table? The format used by Veep looks good. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr version - Hatnote keeps being cut down because "(TV series)" qualifier in the article's title supposedly renders most of it unnecessary. However, the hatnote in question is a {{ redirect}} one, and it's the unqualified redirected term Wentworth Prison that's being disambiguated, not the article title.
To cut a long story short, I came across this page and noticed a hatnote I remembered adding to had been cut down.
A quick search of the history showed this edit. No explanation or justification for what appeared to be removal of legitimate content and degradation of functionality. So, I left a message on the talk page of the editor (AlexTheWhovian) and restored the full hatnote.
This was subsequently reverted by Alex with "Unnecessary mass disambiguation when this page is already disambiguated as "(TV series)" - if there needs to be a disambiguation page, create one and don't use this page for that purpose."
Yes- I *am* well aware that for pages with qualifiers in the title, the main dab- if needed at all- should only include items at risk of confusion with that specific case. However, that's not what was being disambiguated! The {{ redirect}} template makes perfectly clear that it refers to a redirected term- Wentworth Prison- which in this case *wasn't qualified at all, i.e.:-
I restored the full hatnote including the explanation that "as clearly indicated, the hatnote is for the *redirected* term "Wentworth Prison". It will be noted that this is *not* qualified as a "TV series"."
Alex's response? He undid the restoration (again) simply stating that "The disputed content has been removed, so you need to either gain WP:CONSENSUS or create a valid disambiguation page."
No acknowledgement of the point made (whether or not he agrees with it). Instead of defending his argument, we simply get something that comes across (to me) as a dubious attempt to invoke our consensus guidelines as a tool for Wikilawyering.
I don't think this is a "consensus" issue- it seems fairly straightforward- but I don't intend wasting time with an edit war, so I'd appreciate some third party feedback on this anyway. Ubcule ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Some might say my original comment on Alex's talk page could have been more diplomatically phrased, and they might be right.
However, generally speaking, we warn users who remove apparently good content without explanation that this (emphasis) may be considered vandalism. (Note that this still assumes good faith). That's what I did here, even if such notices are more often directed towards newcomers and my tone was a little more impatient than it might have been.
Yes, I can see that Alex isn't a "newcomer" (moreso in hindsight). But frankly, if you're not going to bother writing an edit summary- something I'd have expected in a case like this from an experienced user- I'll treat it as it appears and not waste *my* time gauging which level to pitch it at.
Also:-
You said that
That's because I did a quick and dirty (manual) binary search of the article history to spot where the change was made; that edit was the first I found. Simple as that; were you insinuating something else?
(If you got any actual "amusement" from this non-incident, this says more about you than it does me).
I recommend not using the "administrator's boards" as an excuse to make sarcastic and barely-veiled threats unless you've got a legitimate case you're prepared to follow through.
Ubcule ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It has taken me a little while to understand the issue here. It seems to me that the problem arises because Wentworth Prison redirects here rather than goes to disambiguation. I think the best solution would be to create Wentworth Prison (disambiguation); that would help those trying to find the former prison in New South Wales in particular, which has become a bit isolated. The other alternative is to disambiguate at Wentworth, which is already a disambiguation page. Poltair ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I take issue with the cast section being split into two separate sections and taking on two completely different layout styles. I think it would be best to merge into one section and decide to use either a table or list layout throughout. I also am not keen on bothering to include coloured fields to point out regular, recurring status or not present at all. Rain the 1 22:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I am also taking issue with another aspect of this section. How do we know who is a regular and recurring character now? It appears to only follow those mentioned in the opening credits or the first selection on the end credits. I think everyone mentioned here are regular characters? [1] Rain the 1 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like that title picture has been taken from the US series aired on SOHO. Sween64 ( talk) 00:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the TV Choice Award 2014 entry in the accolade table because it was marked as pending, and the award was subsequently won by Game of Thrones. My edit was reverted by JuneGloom07 with the comment Even if it was won by another show, Wentworth was still nominated for it & the article should reflect that. This, I would agree with, if in fact it was supported by the source provided. It is not. The source gives the winners but not the nominees. I did some checking and found that the nominees for Best International Show 2014 were; The Big Bang Theory, Game Of Thrones, Modern Family and The Walking Dead. [2] [3] Wentworth was not nominated according to these sources, and therefore I have again removed the table entry pending the provision of a reliable source. Poltair ( talk) 08:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the issue here is semantic rather than sourcing. Wentworth was longlisted for the award and not included in the shortlist of nominees. Whether being longlisted can be referred to as nominated is a semantic argument. Just use the term Longlisted. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In "Think Inside The Box" Frankie references Superman II which came out in 1980.
The series Prisoner began in 1979... Is this a subtle way of indicating that Wentworth happens in the 1980s too?
Does anyone recall any reference to what year it is in any episodes? Or any modern events or technology?
One thing that comes to mind is one episode uses a drone to film a riot. I don't think that was feasible in even the 90s so it is a good argument for it being more recent.
Any other modern tech or year references that give us ideas of what decade this remake is set in? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Three large tables listing the DVD releases around the world seems excessive. Is there a way to condense this section to maybe one table? The format used by Veep looks good. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr version - Hatnote keeps being cut down because "(TV series)" qualifier in the article's title supposedly renders most of it unnecessary. However, the hatnote in question is a {{ redirect}} one, and it's the unqualified redirected term Wentworth Prison that's being disambiguated, not the article title.
To cut a long story short, I came across this page and noticed a hatnote I remembered adding to had been cut down.
A quick search of the history showed this edit. No explanation or justification for what appeared to be removal of legitimate content and degradation of functionality. So, I left a message on the talk page of the editor (AlexTheWhovian) and restored the full hatnote.
This was subsequently reverted by Alex with "Unnecessary mass disambiguation when this page is already disambiguated as "(TV series)" - if there needs to be a disambiguation page, create one and don't use this page for that purpose."
Yes- I *am* well aware that for pages with qualifiers in the title, the main dab- if needed at all- should only include items at risk of confusion with that specific case. However, that's not what was being disambiguated! The {{ redirect}} template makes perfectly clear that it refers to a redirected term- Wentworth Prison- which in this case *wasn't qualified at all, i.e.:-
I restored the full hatnote including the explanation that "as clearly indicated, the hatnote is for the *redirected* term "Wentworth Prison". It will be noted that this is *not* qualified as a "TV series"."
Alex's response? He undid the restoration (again) simply stating that "The disputed content has been removed, so you need to either gain WP:CONSENSUS or create a valid disambiguation page."
No acknowledgement of the point made (whether or not he agrees with it). Instead of defending his argument, we simply get something that comes across (to me) as a dubious attempt to invoke our consensus guidelines as a tool for Wikilawyering.
I don't think this is a "consensus" issue- it seems fairly straightforward- but I don't intend wasting time with an edit war, so I'd appreciate some third party feedback on this anyway. Ubcule ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Some might say my original comment on Alex's talk page could have been more diplomatically phrased, and they might be right.
However, generally speaking, we warn users who remove apparently good content without explanation that this (emphasis) may be considered vandalism. (Note that this still assumes good faith). That's what I did here, even if such notices are more often directed towards newcomers and my tone was a little more impatient than it might have been.
Yes, I can see that Alex isn't a "newcomer" (moreso in hindsight). But frankly, if you're not going to bother writing an edit summary- something I'd have expected in a case like this from an experienced user- I'll treat it as it appears and not waste *my* time gauging which level to pitch it at.
Also:-
You said that
That's because I did a quick and dirty (manual) binary search of the article history to spot where the change was made; that edit was the first I found. Simple as that; were you insinuating something else?
(If you got any actual "amusement" from this non-incident, this says more about you than it does me).
I recommend not using the "administrator's boards" as an excuse to make sarcastic and barely-veiled threats unless you've got a legitimate case you're prepared to follow through.
Ubcule ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It has taken me a little while to understand the issue here. It seems to me that the problem arises because Wentworth Prison redirects here rather than goes to disambiguation. I think the best solution would be to create Wentworth Prison (disambiguation); that would help those trying to find the former prison in New South Wales in particular, which has become a bit isolated. The other alternative is to disambiguate at Wentworth, which is already a disambiguation page. Poltair ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)