Talk:Opposite Worlds

Split

I feel that the page should be split, with there being an Opposite Worlds page and an Opposite Worlds (season 1) page. Other shows that have only aired one season (Big Brother Canada and The Glass House (2012 TV series) to name a few) feature this format, and seeing as how OW has been noted as featuring a large resemblance to Big Brother, it should follow a similar format in terms of pages. -- Sethjohnson95 22 January 2014 9:14 EST.

Location

Does anyone know what city the house is in? It's supposed to be live on Wednesdays. On 1/22 the host said it was 43° and clear, and also it was pitch dark so I don't think it's on the west coast.Robinrobin (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

worker

worker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.10.149 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge since no one opposed the merge after four weeks. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I Propose that Opposite Worlds (season 1) be merged into Opposite Worlds. I think the content in the Opposite Worlds (season 1) article can easily be explained in the Opposite Worlds article without it being too long and the Opposite Worlds article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Opposite Worlds (season 1) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Also, it's uncommon and unnecessary for a show to have a season article when there is only one season. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Naraht (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Support CCamp2013 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jenny Nicholson review as a source

Loquacious Folly, you've reverted this edit for being insufficiently notable. If you mean the review itself, it has almost 2 million views and 62k likes. If you mean the author, she has 700k subscribers, was employed for a year at notable company Screen Junkies, and used to have her own page on Wikipedia (as far as I know it was deleted at her request). I think she's actually more notable than the TV show we're writing about! Faulty (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure her YouTube video is successful in its own right, probably more than this show. However, it does not meet [[[WP:Reliability]]. Self-published sources from websites like YouTube are not supposed to be used as sources. Now, I understand that the review is only being used to source its own existence, but the existence of a YouTube review is not notable enough by itself to justify inclusion in an article. If there were, say, some secondary news reports about this YouTube review and its importance to the subject I'd say include it - but otherwise it would set the precedent of turning a lot of movie and TV articles into lists of what popular YouTube personality reviewed them. I hope that explains my edit. Loquacious Folly (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Conceptually, what is the difference between an opinion published on YouTube, and an opinion published on a website hosted by the reviewer, such as www.rogerebert.com? Faulty (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A review on rogerebert.com is not self-published. My understanding is that there is a stable of professional reviewers who answer to an editor who offers oversight. A YouTube video is the equivalent of a blog; anyone can make one without credentials, oversight, or expertise. If you mean a review by THE Roger Ebert on that site prior to his death, that would be independently notable since he was the most famous living reviewer of films - which is an exception case. Loquacious Folly (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see a difference conceptually. Currently the Opposing Worlds article has purely positive critical receptions, so in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view I think we should use the only negative review we've seen so far, which is Jenny Nicolson's Faulty (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry then, I'm not sure what to tell you. I've explained reliability and notability as it pertains to Wikipedia's editing policy, and without trying to be too blunt it's immaterial whether you personally see the difference. A desire for a "neutral" viewpoint does not necessitate including unreliable or self-published sources, as in many cases that would create a false equivalency. This was not a popular show with much staying power, so very few notable publications had anything to say about it - but that doesn't mean we should be including every blogger or vlogger's hot-take. You can request a community vote if you want, or we can request outside input. I believe I'm taking the right position on this, but I'm not too invested and it's not a hill I'd die on Loquacious Folly (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I believe there is a case for reinstating Jenny Nicholson’s review of this show.

Her review is specifically mentioned as a critical source on page 36 of the book “Reality Television. Guilty pleasure or positive influence?” by Tyler Stevenson. Published in 2020 by Lucent Press / Greenhaven Publishing, ISBN 978-1-5345-6764-1.

Jenny Nicholson explained several problems caused by the producers' failure to account for unexpected events. One of these was the weather. (…) Gelehrt (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Then cite the book? If it includes similar information and is not self published then that sounds like a great source. As someone mentioned previously, there aren't many good sources on this show, so if you have found one you should add it! Mr Blumenthal (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)