This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I would like to question how the cast should be worded. I always follow a good article, to ensure I'm not being opinionated in my edits. Smallville is a good article and listed as "Tom Welling portrays Clark Kent", I don't see what's wrong with this—most likely nothing or it wouldn't be a GA. Any help? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the current Critical Reception section. I believe it is overly positive, in part because a questionable source (TV Line) is quoted prominently and at length, and also because the Metacritic rating of 43 is presented in an overly positive manner.
User Lhb1239 disagrees with me. What do you think?
Josephkugelmass ( talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass
Have it your way, then. Lhb1239 ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Just so you guys know, there is an ongoing dispute between me (josephkugelmass) and user Lhb1239 about the "Critical Reception" part of this article. In my opinion, Lhb1239 is giving suspect pride-of-place to positive evaluations of the show, as well as editing out a full description of how the show has actually been scored on Metacritic. The result is a biased and frankly misleading section that presents the show as more critically well-received than it actually is. Part of the problem is that the positive quotations come from TV Line, a publication of dubious credibility, and have been put above quotations from The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Josephkugelmass ( talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That is precisely why we created TVLine.com — to help TV enthusiasts cut through all the clutter and find a happy place where, more often than not, you will want to read most every post. Because mark my words, every story you find here is about TV. What’s coming up on your favorite shows? Who’s hired? Who’s fired? Why, oh why, did the writers kill off so-and-so?! When, oh when, will Castle and Bones hook up?! Wait, what? [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
This isn't about winning, it's about staying within the set and accepted guidelines that have kept Wikipedia running reasonably well for 10 years. I'm sorry you find policy unacceptable, but it is what it is. Of course, if you can find another positive review quote from a resource you think is more worthy of being highlighted here, you're welcome to add it to the article next to the quote from TV Line, of course). And -- as I've already told you on my talk page when you threatened me there -- please keep things civil. Editors who don't play nice frequently are forced to stop playing altogether (even if just temporarily). Lhb1239 ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, a new editor ( User:Josephkugelmass) expressed a concern that the Critical Reception section of this article does not fairly represent the negative criticism Hart of Dixie has received and that the positive criticism outweighs the negative. Any and all comments here regarding this issue would be appreciated. Lhb1239 ( talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
All I meant was that when new information is available putting it first because it's deemed better seems odd for dates etc. Either way, I don't think the issue is ordering. It's the fact TVLine had more information. To me, that begs the question why doesn't the user just add more from the other sources if their that bothered? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using two sources. If the site has given two review-like speeches, then why can't they be used? It's now our problem, or TV Line's problem that a more prominent source has only spoken about the show once. If the others have to go before TV Line then I won't object, but removing information just because the other sources are "better" and should have more information seems ridiculous. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I ignored that users' opinion anyway, as I always will. Anyway, I have no objection to putting TV Line last. I only object to removing information simply because the other sources don't have more written. Jayy008 ( talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A new editor would like to create a new article for each season like The Vampire Diaries (season 1). Please advise.
Please see also User talk:Akim56#Main.
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been different spellings for "Fancie's" in this article and the list of episodes. In a recent episode there is an excellent shot of the sign confirming that the spelling is "Fancie's". [1] I just thought I'd note that here for future reference. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hart of Dixie. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Hart of Dixie. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
memo to self: compare (and merge?)
71.121.143.42 ( talk) 07:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Was she ever "main cast" credited on this show? I don't think she was. If not, she should be moved to a new 'Recurring' section – Miller would be far from the only one who would belong in a 'Recurring' cast section anyway... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I would like to question how the cast should be worded. I always follow a good article, to ensure I'm not being opinionated in my edits. Smallville is a good article and listed as "Tom Welling portrays Clark Kent", I don't see what's wrong with this—most likely nothing or it wouldn't be a GA. Any help? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the current Critical Reception section. I believe it is overly positive, in part because a questionable source (TV Line) is quoted prominently and at length, and also because the Metacritic rating of 43 is presented in an overly positive manner.
User Lhb1239 disagrees with me. What do you think?
Josephkugelmass ( talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass
Have it your way, then. Lhb1239 ( talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Just so you guys know, there is an ongoing dispute between me (josephkugelmass) and user Lhb1239 about the "Critical Reception" part of this article. In my opinion, Lhb1239 is giving suspect pride-of-place to positive evaluations of the show, as well as editing out a full description of how the show has actually been scored on Metacritic. The result is a biased and frankly misleading section that presents the show as more critically well-received than it actually is. Part of the problem is that the positive quotations come from TV Line, a publication of dubious credibility, and have been put above quotations from The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Josephkugelmass ( talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That is precisely why we created TVLine.com — to help TV enthusiasts cut through all the clutter and find a happy place where, more often than not, you will want to read most every post. Because mark my words, every story you find here is about TV. What’s coming up on your favorite shows? Who’s hired? Who’s fired? Why, oh why, did the writers kill off so-and-so?! When, oh when, will Castle and Bones hook up?! Wait, what? [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
This isn't about winning, it's about staying within the set and accepted guidelines that have kept Wikipedia running reasonably well for 10 years. I'm sorry you find policy unacceptable, but it is what it is. Of course, if you can find another positive review quote from a resource you think is more worthy of being highlighted here, you're welcome to add it to the article next to the quote from TV Line, of course). And -- as I've already told you on my talk page when you threatened me there -- please keep things civil. Editors who don't play nice frequently are forced to stop playing altogether (even if just temporarily). Lhb1239 ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, a new editor ( User:Josephkugelmass) expressed a concern that the Critical Reception section of this article does not fairly represent the negative criticism Hart of Dixie has received and that the positive criticism outweighs the negative. Any and all comments here regarding this issue would be appreciated. Lhb1239 ( talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
All I meant was that when new information is available putting it first because it's deemed better seems odd for dates etc. Either way, I don't think the issue is ordering. It's the fact TVLine had more information. To me, that begs the question why doesn't the user just add more from the other sources if their that bothered? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using two sources. If the site has given two review-like speeches, then why can't they be used? It's now our problem, or TV Line's problem that a more prominent source has only spoken about the show once. If the others have to go before TV Line then I won't object, but removing information just because the other sources are "better" and should have more information seems ridiculous. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I ignored that users' opinion anyway, as I always will. Anyway, I have no objection to putting TV Line last. I only object to removing information simply because the other sources don't have more written. Jayy008 ( talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A new editor would like to create a new article for each season like The Vampire Diaries (season 1). Please advise.
Please see also User talk:Akim56#Main.
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been different spellings for "Fancie's" in this article and the list of episodes. In a recent episode there is an excellent shot of the sign confirming that the spelling is "Fancie's". [1] I just thought I'd note that here for future reference. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hart of Dixie. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Hart of Dixie. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
memo to self: compare (and merge?)
71.121.143.42 ( talk) 07:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Was she ever "main cast" credited on this show? I don't think she was. If not, she should be moved to a new 'Recurring' section – Miller would be far from the only one who would belong in a 'Recurring' cast section anyway... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)