Talk:Up All Night (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Up All Night episodes#Season 2 (2012-2013)|2]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Recurring characters[edit]

Barry has appeared in 3 episodes and should be added to this section.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy[edit]

Can we get the name of the baby/babies that play Amy, so we can add her to the recurring character section?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Undo Undone[edit]

I have undone the undo committed by Caringtype1 against my previous edit. This user did not leave any explanation for the undo, nor did s/he post anything in talk. Meanwhile, my edit was properly sourced and relevant to the article/section in which it was placed.

Caringtype1, if you wish to explain your reasoning as to why you thought that entire edit should have been deleted, please post here and we'll discuss it. Do not simply undo a valid revision without providing an explanation in the edit comment or in talk. I will revert any further unilateral reversions to this section on your part. I would be happy to discuss your concerns, assuming you weren't just engaging in vandalism. Part of the problem with not leaving any explanation is that we have no way of knowing whether you had a legitimate concern, were simply vandalizing the article, or are even connected to the show somehow and trying to "sanitize" the article by removing any critical reviews that you think were too harsh.

Either way, if you want that section removed, post here and we'll discuss it as a community. Any further unilateral reversions on your part will be reversed. Sir kris (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have left an edit summary, you are right about that. But I did it because to me, it looked like blatant vandalism. The edit included incorrect formatting, grammar, and un-encyclopedic. The only sources used came from blogs, and completely unreliable sources. Saying things were "panned by critics" is contradictory to the sources, not one of which is that negative. If you find reliable sources that backs your statements up, then it could be added back in an encyclopedic manner. But for right now your personal opinions/vendetta against the series are not welcome here.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted in agreement with Caringtype1. Please use reliable secondary sources and not blogs or forums. Negative reviews are acceptable but they must be adequately sourced to match the positive reviews highlighted in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the edit. Blog posts are considered reliable secondary sources for entertainment reviews because, well, most reviews are posted on blogs these days. If you object that strongly to it, I suggest you add the appropriate tag and we can have an inclusive discussion about the merits of movie/TV reviews on blog sites. In the meantime, the secondary sources are from valid, established entertainment review sites. If you wish to dispute that, please follow the proper procedures. Sir kris (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, to what "grammar" errors are you referring? I couldn't find a single one. I'd also have to question your claim that it looked like "blatant vandalism" to you, given the proper formatting and citation of multiple established review sites. Sir kris (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources again. Can you tell me where exactly they assert that it is a "cheap knockoff" or that it has a "cute baby premise" or "formulaic slapstick"? The second one is completely invalid - it's just a discussion forum. The tone of your proposed edit does not in any way match the tone of either of the "sources". Your edit, other than the direct quote, consists completely of WP:OR and is highly problematic. Elizium23 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not simply plagiarize other sources verbatim. Though we often include direct quotes, most of the articles' contents are paraphrased. If you object to a specific adjective, you are free to change it to something that you feel more closely reflects what was conveyed in the source. Removing the entire paragraph/section is not an appropriate way to do so.

As for the second source, it was quoted in another review so I decided to post a direct link to the original source. I probably should've included the linking review as well in retrospect. In any case, the second source is redundant, anyway, though if you want to run a quick Google search and add the review that quotes it, I have no objection.

Furthermore, please refrain from spamming my user talk page with any more condescending personal attacks. I.e. accusing me of badmouthing this show and using my account to slander it. That's just ad hominem crap and completely uncalled-for. Like most short-lived NBC sitcoms, I never even saw this one, though I've always been a fan of Christina Applegate. I have no opinion regarding whether the show was good or not. My sole concern here is making sure that these articles are properly balanced. I've found that articles for TV shows are often dominated by viewers who really liked the show and thus have a tendency not to include more than a token amount of negative reviews from critics. This article falls into that category.

Now, if you want to revise the wording or convert the whole thing to a direct quote, I'm fine with that so long as it accurately reflects the critics' reviews as posted. Simply deleting them is not a proper course of action so you need to stop. And while you're at it, please stop cluttering my talk page with ad hominem drama. I really have no interest in being dragged into a flamewar with you-- or anyone else, for that matter. Sir kris (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your edits are worthless; worse than that, they are violations of the policies I have cited, so I will keep reverting them, and I will keep warning you on your talk page, so that when I have to take this case to administrators for sanctions on your account, I can prove that I have adequately warned you against this behavior. Now you need to stop, and quit mischaracterizing my good-faith warnings as personal attacks and spam. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened threads at WT:TV and WT:COMEDY requesting more opinions on your proposed edit. If it is just the two of us flinging mud then we will not get anywhere. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with everything Elizium23 said. Please stop this. It's pointless and will get nowhere.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]