Talk:Shortland Street/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Power Rangers
why does this article say Shortland Street have to do with the Power Rangers?
A: One of the cast members is a former Power Ranger... ninja Force I think
Ninja Storm, knucklehead, lol. Come on you leave in New Zealand.
- Actually Power Rangers has been banned in New Zealand for the past twelve years so it's not surprising that that person doesn't know lol Dippit 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Except that it isn't and never has been banned. Check out Power Rangers specifically the talk page. It was withdraw from air after complaints but it was not banned. Many DVDs are available with PG ratings (and can therefore be purchases by anyone). As mentioned, one of the series was shot in New Zealand (again the article) Nil Einne 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Continuity of article
The article changed throughout in it's formatting from Actor (with Character - in brackets) to the opposite and back again. This should be corrected (I would do it but it's 1:30am and I'm going to bed!) Glen Stollery (My contribs) (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Guatemala
I was surprised to find the Guatemala line was not in the article. I've since added it but I wasn't in NZ then so it would help if someone who knows more could check what I added... Nil Einne 22:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
TK, Alice, Baxter
The article originally suggested TK, Alice and Baxter were from 2006-. However Alice was definitely in around in late 2005 since she was the one that kissed Tama and Baxter was around too unless my memory fails me. I'm pretty sure TK only came along in 2006 however Nil Einne 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Years/Stint next to cast Member's names please.
Can you guys do that for me? Also where can I buy this show or see opening credits? Does anyone know where i can find episode guide/summaries/images?
Too Long
As this article is now about 42 kilobytes, im going to move the storylines and death sections to another page...as many other soap operas have their own pages detauiling the storylines.Dippit 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't the storylines been placed under the storyline years??? yeah go to streettalk.co.nz and go into eppisodes and find recaps and full year summirires ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.103.11 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Year it first aired
The current article says it first aired in 1987, but all other evidence says that it first aired in 1992. If anyone can prove me wrong, fine, but otherwise I will change it to 1992 soon.
The series did begin in 1992 that is 15 years ago!!!
GA failed
I have quick-failed this article according to the GA criteria. The logo lacks a fair use rationale, and there are no sources for the information in the article. Also, the trivia section should be removed and any relevant information integrated into the rest of the article. Many of the sections are stubs with little or no information, just providing links to the main article. There should at least be a summary of the information for the reader. Due to these reasons, I am failing this article at this time, but do consider renominating again when you have resolved these issues and looked over the rest of the criteria. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review and if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have failed this article again also. It is nowhere near GA status and is on clean-up alert. It also has incomplete lists. Dalejenkins 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:ShortlandStreet2007Logo.jpg
Image:ShortlandStreet2007Logo.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Moving History Section
I will move the history section to its own page in 4 days (on Mon 16/07/07) unless anyone has an objection. Liamodwyer13 08:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objections, but remember to leave some basic information on the Shortland Street page. This is one of the reasons we are failing the good article nomination. Laydan Mortensen 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
GA fail
As I see from above discussions this article has been quick-failed a number of times, and since the last fail (July 8th I believe) very little has been done to improve the article (although as far as I can tell it doesn't qualify for quick fail anymore). So, although I am going to fail it again, I thought I'd give some point-by-point advice to help the process:
- The article should be referenced much more heavily. Overall, the article is referenced twice, which is completely insufficient for a GA article. Not to mention that those two references are contained in the characters tables, not actually in the prose itself. In general, any complete thought should be accompanied by a reference. So, take for example, the following text:
| “ | Æon Flux, Star Wars: Episode II and The Ring are just some of the movies ex-Shortland Street stars have been in. The show was initially critisized and ratings dropped, but they picked up again and the show was kept on. It rates number one in the 18-49 group. | ” |
- There are a number of complete thoughts here, so each should be referenced accordingly. Conversely, if whole paragraphs are about a single fact, than one overarching reference will also suffice. Large portions of the article are in need of such attention, not just the quote above.
Most references should ideally use a Citation template.
- I added the citation templates. Liamodwyer13 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overall the article only skims the surface of the topic. It seems as if the article has been split up into a number of sub-articles, which in an of itself is fine, but it leaves the main article lacking.
- Needs more content. This is related to the above point, but there is very little prose overall. Nearly every section (even those with a sub-article attached to it) could be expanded considerably. The entire Production section has 5 sentences. The show's been running 15+ years, surely there's more info than just 5 sentences worth?
- Prose style is questionable at times. "Shortland Street has had some exciting and scandalous storylines over the years to keep viewers tuning in." for example.
- I fail to see the point of the characters tables, especially when essentially the same tables are in sub-articles. As it is, it is a huge portion of the article (disproportionately so), and it doesn't really tell us much about anything.
Overall, I would say this is a far-cry from GA article. The biggest issue, at least in my opinion, seems to be its lack of content, which may be unavoidable in some sections given the numerous sub articles. At least for the time being, until some of the issues above are addressed, I would hesitate to nominate the article again, since it seems it has repeatedly failed. Good luck, and if you have any questions feel free to ask here (preferably) or on my Talk Page. Drewcifer3000 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When I have the time, i'll go and find the book about Shortland Street at the library...can't remember what it was called at the moment, but that book would be the definitive source of information about the show in its early years. Also some work needs to be done on reducing the proportion on the article spent on such things as "such and such left when they went to this place" etc etc, something which afflicts many soap pages. You just don't need to document every coming and going...For example Nick Harrison's departure would be noteworthy as he was the longest serving cast member, so would Laurie Foell's departure as her character Justine Jones was recast. But you don't really need to mention that a short term character such as Daniel Potts or Hamish Flynn left the show.Dippit (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Broadcasting in Fiji
The entire section on Fiji is rubbish, someone clean it up or delete it or i will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.51.203 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted all of the fiji section because it was someone's opinion not the truth and it had no references. Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Shortland Street Wikia
I have created a Wikia for Shortland Street located at shortland.wikia.com. I think all new character articles should be created here instead-it seems more appropriate.
Adabow (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
UK broadcasts
Shortland Street was broadcast in the UK for some years (it may still be: I don't know). From what I can remember it was in the early afternoons on ITV, and never built up more than a small audience compared to the behemoths of the Aussie soaps. I didn't watch it myself, but maybe there's another British editor who did and who can provide details? 86.132.140.207 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Including past actors for current characters
The section that lists the cast is labeled 'Current Characters' and as both Daniel and Harry are current characters, I feel that the including information regarding other actors that have played the role is relevant - nor am I alone on this, Gadfium made an edit with a summary of "I think we do need to list all actors who have played the character". Had the section been labeled 'Main Cast' the information wouldn't be relevant.
Laying out the information as Mclovinst wants it to be implies the current actor is the only person to play the role.
|
|
How is that not misleading? Setting it out as I have proposed makes it very clear that different actors have played the role, and when.
|