Talk:Made in Canada (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DVD[edit]

Does anyone know why no further DVDs are being made. I've contacted CBC Shop but they had nothing interesting to say 207.171.180.101 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been any official word on the matter, but the season one DVD is no longer available through Amazon. Read into that as you like. I think the copyright was owned by Salter Street Films International which was bought out by Alliance Atlantis. God only knows who has the DVD distribution rights now. I'd say the best hope for the other four seasons is a cheap Blu Ray set (viable around 2012?). 65.80.232.103 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Made in Canada. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Made in Canada (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 22:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Should be able to take care of this one shortly. Canadian Paul 22:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here is my review:
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Just a few points:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article (and hence there should be no citations). Currently, the syndication names are not present in the body.
    • Fair enough. The alternative name "The Industry" was in the last sentence of §Development and writing, and the second paragraph of §Broadcast and home video. I've added the French name there as well, with the source, and removed the citation from the lead (as it is unlikely to be challenged).
    • I removed the rest of the citations from the lead; they don't seem likely to be challenged.
  • Per the criteria, the references/inline citations should all follow the same style, but there are many different styles used in this article and several do not conform to the overall date order of the article. Since it is a Canadian article, you can use whichever format you prefer, but it should be consistent. Also, reference #44 is a dead link with no backup archive, which should be fixed.
    • Thanks for pointing out the broken ref. The URL had been truncated (probably a copy-paste error).
    • I thought that consistency of citation style meant using either <ref> tags or parenthetic citations, but not a mix, and that consistency of date formats only applied to featured article reviews. Nonetheless, I've gone ahead and put all the dates in dmy format (I know there are scripts to do this but the one I've seen removes non-breaking spaces which is a pain). If there are other inconsistencies in the references, it might be some offline sources which had been with the article before I started working on it. I assumed in good faith that they were valid but did not alter them, as I had not myself seen the source material to verify. Would you prefer that I put them into citation templates so the rest of the formatting is consistent?
    • I gained access to the ProQuest database last week and was able to locate and verify most of the older sources, and fill out the citation templates (unfortunately, ProQuest is a subscription service so no direct URLs to include). I think the remaining differences in style/formatting are chiefly from the differences with {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite book}}, etc.
  • In terms of prose flow, I found many parts of the article difficult to read due to the frequency of very short paragraphs (not counting the characters section, where it makes sense, although these should be consistent as to whether or not they end with periods). Per MOS:BODY and WP:PARAGRAPHS, I think some of these could be combined to make the prose easier to read/follow.
    • For the cast list, a copy editor removed the terminal punctuation from incomplete sentences. These fragments do begin with a capital letter. Both of these points are recommended by MOS:BULLETLIST. If you want, I can rephrase to make the fragments complete sentences, but this will necessarily lengthen the entries.
    • I've rearranged a bit of information in §Production. I got rid of the L3 header for §Ratings and combined those two one-sentence paragraphs into a short paragraph. Other than that, I'm not sure much can be naturally combined.
  • Under "Development and Writing": "They wanted to satirize office politics," Who is "they?" Just Lunz and Mercer (who are mentioned in the previous sentence) or Donovan as well? Especially with the paragraph break, it is unclear.
    • Wrote out the three last names.
  • Per WP:CITE, direct quotations require a direct citation at the end of the sentence. At (almost) the end of the third paragraph, the quote "suck-up kick-down philosophy" should have a direct cite.
    • Added citation (same as at the end of the paragraph).
  • This isn't a GA criteria, more of a suggestion, but it's pretty easy to miss the "reunion" section at the bottom of the page. Maybe it could be included in some form in the "Broadcast and home video" section (maybe renaming it "legacy" or something)? Just a thought, as something that struck me.
    • I'd be tempted to put it in a L2 heading except that it's so short.

There a few more little things (for example, I feel the lead could be fleshed out a bit, but technically it meets the criteria), but in terms of the GA criteria, I believe that this is it. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 03:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Thanks for being thorough. I added to the lead that it was filmed in Halifax and a little more about the awards. Are there any major points you feel aren't covered? – Reidgreg (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply - I got unexpectedly busy - but everything looks good now! I merged one sentence in the lead that I felt makes sense, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if you hated that change and unmerged it. Just helps the flow a tiny bit in my opinion. As for the period thing in the cast list, I did not know that, so it is fine as is. Still learning things after all these years... Anyways, I am going to go ahead and pass this article for GA. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Canadian Paul: I'm kind of the MOS guy at GOCE but I still miss an embarrassing amount of stuff in my own writing. There's way too much for any one volunteer editor to know everything, which is why discussing things in reviews like this is so valuable – thanks again! Reidgreg (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date format for article[edit]

@Walter Görlitz: You reverted my revert instead of discussing per WP:BRD. I'm going to copy the edit summaries here to facilitate discussion – see article history for attribution:

  • 6 January 2020‎ Walter Görlitz m 63,880 bytes -67‎ date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script Date formats were changes in June 2019 and MDY were primarily used up to that point.
  • 7 January 2020‎ Reidgreg 63,947 bytes +67‎ Undid good faith revision 934526798 by Walter Görlitz (talk) There were no dates in the article prior to the May 2019 expansion which unfortunately introduced a mix of formats; these were consistently made dmy during copy edit and cleanup in June 2019. Please also be careful about removing non-breaking spaces; this is a known script flaw.
  • 7 January 2020‎ Walter Görlitz 63,880 bytes -67‎ Undid revision 934624936 by Reidgreg (talk) There were dates in the references. MDY in references implies forethought as DMY and ISO-8601 are what tools use.

So your contention is that the style used in references sets a precedence to determine the style which should be used in the article body. I disagree. MOS:DATEUNIFY says that dates in the body should follow one format and that dates in the references should follow one format, but does not say that these must be the same format. It does note that one of the valid formats for the references is to follow the style of the article body, but it never says that a valid style for the article body is to follow the style of the references. Thus, if anything, the article body takes precedence.

However, even if you're right about that, you're wrong about the first date established in the references. Dated references were first added to the article in this edit which established dmy dates. If someone later changed these to mdy without discussion, that would be in violation of MOS:RETAIN.

I see no evidence to support your inference that there must have been forethought in the reference date style being changed to mdy. There was nothing on the talk page and nothing stands out in the edit summaries, so it seems to have been a stealth edit. On the other hand, {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2019}} was added following a major expansion/rewrite and GOCE copy edit and during GA/DYK review, which I'd think shows some level of forethought and consultation. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you do not see evidence of forethought. There are several tools that expand references from bare dates. One that no longer exists used ISO-8601. One current too, reFill 2, does not add dates at all. The remainder use dmy. So if a MYD date existed in a reference, and I saw many, it implies forethought. However if you want to insist on using DMY, I can correctly apply that as it had not been applied for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Forethought means "careful consideration", where to me this appears arbitrary. Yes, I feel and prefer that the article should retain dmy dates, if you could restore those. Please also replace the non-breaking spaces which the script stripped. This is a known flaw of User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates which removes painstaking manual editing; please be diligent to preserve non-breaking spaces whenever applying the script to any article. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting definition. Here are some that don't carry your connotation: Cambridge, Oxford and Webster's. I believe that an editor specifically selected a MDY date format in several cases and I plan to honour that over a capricious preference for dmy. Let's see what others state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: isn't it the first two words of your Oxford link? I assume that an editor intentionally changed to MDY dates and I'm all for assuming good faith, but found no stated reason for the change and guidelines specifically recommend against such. I guess when you said "I can correctly apply that" you weren't actually offering to do so, or else you've changed your mind. I'll put in a request at WP:3O. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Most of the mdy dated references (from before the May 2019 expansion) had been added in a series of edits 24–25 October 2017, which did not alter the dmy dates of the first two references. They added in an different style, but did not alter the original pre-existing style. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Picked this up from WP:3O. @Walter Görlitz: my opinion is a summary one. This is the second time in a few days I have reviewed an article where you've unilaterally changed the date format. I don't think that's helpful, and as I think I said on my other (similar) opinion, I'm sure there are better things we could all be doing than arguing about date formats. I realise you are running the MOSNUM script to clean up articles, but perhaps it's possible to be cautious with its settings so as not to cause this kind of difficulty? Thanks. FrankP (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FrankP: Your mischaracterization of my actions is troublesome and I don't think that's helpful. I did not unilaterally change the date format any more or less than was done in June. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No mis-characterisation. This version (14 May 2019) was the first version to have dates in the article body (apart from bare years). It also represented a major overhaul of the page with the addition of many new references. The date formats of the references were later made consistent (12 June 2019). You changed it (7 January 2020).
From the documentation for the MOSNUM Dates script:
  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.
  • The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
You didn't answer my question about the usage of the script. It would be nice to think that it was possible for the useful work of tidying articles up to continue without this issue arising again. FrankP (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Walter Görlitz:, I'd strongly recommend that you pick your battles when it comes to date formatting. It's not productive to go around hunting for pages where you think the date formatting might have been changed somewhere along the way without getting caught at the time — I generally prefer to write MDY over DMY myself too, but it's not worth going out of my way to fight other people about DMY. I'd strongly recommend you follow my principle: unless you catch an article where the date formatting is currently an inconsistent mixture of MDY and DMY in the here and now, just leave well enough alone and don't go spelunking for other opportunities to editwar over what might have been done in the past. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bearcat. I do not pick battles, they pick me. I believe that I correctly investigated and applied WP:DATERET clearly not everyone agrees on this. As for edit warring, I'm not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that unless you catch an actual inconsistency of date formatting within the currently visible version of an article, there's no "investigation" of past date formatting warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without noting it in this discussion, Walter Görlitz ran the script again in this edit to change to dmy dates. This did not address the issue of the removal of non-breaking spaces, so I reverted Walter Görlitz's last two edits to restore to the previous version of the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent page move and related discussion[edit]

On December 19, this good article was moved Made in Canada → Made in Canada (TV series) with no discussion notice on this talk page. A related move has been proposed:

An editor has requested for Made in Canada to be moved to Made in Canada label. Since you had some involvement with Made in Canada, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Made_in_Canada_(TV_series)&oldid=1207823836"