Talk:2018 in American television/Archive 2

Verizon/Disney carriage break aversion
Did it stop being notable because the crisis was averted in time? I mean, the dispute still happened. Warnings were sent out by email. Are carriage disputes only notable when the deadlines lapse?--Fradio71 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it might have happened (in the future), but then didn't, it's basically non-news. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal
It has been suggested the the section Programs debuting in 2018 be split into it's own article named 2018 in American television debuts to reduce article size. Starting this section as the official discussion. See previous discussion at. The Doctor Who (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The section should be split since it's almost 100K bytes itself, and this article is almost 600K bytes, currently the largest article on English Wikipedia. All the problems with very large articles apply to this article, which I have gone into and can go further into. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two sections were already taken out to appease you and you just won’t quit. Why is this article out of all the articles on Wikipedia having all of its parts stripped and split? By the time you’re done all the substance will be gone. You’ve already used splitting Network changes and deaths to justify the split of the next largest section. You’ll keep going down the list until everything’s been split off to justify deleting the article. This is a dangerous precedent. Therefore the article cannot and will not be split. Instead of actually listening to the arguments, you keep pushing through. Your insatiable obsession has to stop. And why are you bringing this up when the year is already done? I mean really, who’s going to be adding more shows? All attempts to split should be stopped.--Fradio71 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not have personal attacks here. Other sections weren't split "to appease" me, they were split because the article was too large and sections should have been split. It is still too large, and we can split another section. Nothing has been deleted and I do not propose anything to be deleted. These sections exist just as much, if not even more, on their own pages than as they were in this article. As for the year 2018 being over, that doesn't stop readers and editors from coming to this article, just as there are many people who read articles about past events like the 2000 Summer Olympics, World War II, the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the Big Bang. I haven't heard reasons why this article shouldn't be split, so please do tell us why you think so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not talk down to me like that. Calling it an insatiable obsession is completely accurate considering you decided to make the split on basis of it being “bold” after the year was already over.Status quo has deaths and network changes still on their main articles, but we moved them off of this one because you asked us to. I have stated over and over why the section shouldn’t be split, and yet you continue to refuse to read the reasons. That doesn’t give you the go-ahead to move sections off just because they’re “big”. I’m done having to repeat myself to you. You’re like talking to a brick wall--Fradio71 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is something I've just thought of. For me personally I'm finding it harder to navigate the Notable events section than the Programs debuting section. You're calling that section the largest but if you add up the notable events section you get 391,960 bytes which is actually the largest section. So here's my thoughts:
 * Split notable events into its own article and/or reduce by changing the events of notable to reduce that size. Would hold a pretty solid article by itself and would reduce the size of the entire article drastically.
 * Split programs debuting in 2018 into two subsections: January-June and July-September, doing this would reduce the size of the overall section vary drastically and also make the section easier to navigate.
 * Doing this would not only fix 's problem of this being the largest article but would also fix 's worry of this article being picked down to nothing. Thoughts? The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with 2018 being over. I made splits during 2018 too. You keep saying that you've repeated the reasons for not splitting the article further, but you haven't stated those reasons. I've stated why it should be further split and I'm ready to state them again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the notable events section, there are too many events that aren't notable, too many references, and too much detail on many of these events. I approve of the idea to split the notable events timeline from the article, it ticks all the boxes for being its own article for sure. However I still think the debuts section can be split into its own section too, there's really no overstating how big this article is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the debut section is split into sub-sections and the notable events section was split into a new article as per my suggestions that would reduce the size and then we would re-evaluate what needed to happen after that. The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as a side note, you are NOT allowed to remove Split section from this article until a consensus is reached in this discussion. The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) All the events are notable 2) Some events have multiple references because they are sources of each stage of a story because some stories have threads lasting for months 3) Putting those updates as separate events only exacerbates the issue 3) People come to the article to learn about what happened in television. Moving notable events off the page, or the comings, goings, switching, and reawakenings from dormancy are all vital to the page. Moving any of these sections off undercuts the integrity of the page. 123ip’s insistence that it’s not allowed to be the biggest page is unexplained, which is puzzling at best and troubling at worst. That is why this discussion cannot go further. The page must remain as is and cannot be split off--Fradio71 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing, downloading, reading. An article of this size is difficult to edit, especially in visual editor. It's also slow to download, particularly for slow internet connections and smartphones. It is complex to read, and a lot of potentially relevant information is easily ignored by readers who aren't assessing the different sections of the entire article. These are the reasons why this article is too large, and that is generally the same for all other large articles. People are not coming to this article to learn about everything this article has. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet this is the only one you’ve ever wanted to undercut the integrity of--Fradio71 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article can and will be split off if consensus is decided that it's what should happen. You do not WP:OWN this article and do not get to declare that The page must remain as is and cannot be split off. The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the arguments presented so far, there is no argument to split the debuts section off. That’s what this conversation is about. It’s clear that 123ip only seeks to destroy the integrity of the article. Just because I don’t have the power to keep it in place doesn’t mean I made any false statements. 123ip doesn’t own the article either. He’s not a real estate developer who owns the land but that’s been the entire argument.--Fradio71 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of arguments here to split something off and has been done and accepted in the past with other section. The main reason which is reason enough is that the article is simply too large. If multiple sections have been split and the article still violates WP:SPLIT that's saying something.... The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So much happens in the television industry nowadays. So much is made. That’s not the article’s fault, and yet by splitting off all its sections, or even most of them, it’s basically shaming a page and taking away its integral parts.--Fradio71 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SPLIT explicitly says some users may have technical limitations, such as a low speed service, an unstable connection, a pay per kilobyte service, or they may access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone, and these mobile browsers may truncate long pages and later says that if an article is greater than 100kb it should almost certainly be divided which this is. These both provide reasons to split. You have yet to provide a valid reason not to split other than WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. The Doctor Who  (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you said of me, this is the only one you’ve ever wanted to undercut the integrity of. Completely untrue. Not only have I never sought to undercut the integrity of any article on Wikipedia, this is not the only article I have been involved with splitting or shortening. You can check my contributions to verify that for yourself, and most of my user page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't say something is untrue and then describe the exact thing you're accused of doing. Considering your comment below, you're jumping the gun before you even have consensus.
 * Timeline of 2018 in American television? 2018 events in American television? I think the Timeline title looks better. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno I think 2018 in American television remains the only valid and viable option. The rules say you must adhere to status quo. There's not going to be any more section splits --Fradio71 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have the consensus now. I'll wait for TheDoctorWho to respond. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1-1 is not consensus. You do not have the power to make or push an executive order. It is best if you just leave the page alone. According to the rules, which you claim to be abiding by but have no evidence, TheDoctorWho must remain neutral, as he set up the discussion to invite more people. No more people came. 1-1 means status quo remains intact; there will be no split --Fradio71 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * can you point me to the rule that says I must remain neutral? I was at first but the more I'm looking at it the more I think that I'm siding more towards supporting a split. Saying that I must remain neutral since I set up the discussion would be like saying "Let me start an AfD discussion but can't support the articles deletion". The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You set up the discussion, expecting more people to come. No people did. Meaning you’re gibing him an excuse to look “fair”, when in reality you made the split that much easier to happen. He ignores my argument entirely, talks down to me and pushes false stats to make his point. If you can honestly tell me that I wasn’t wasting my time trying to fight the spllit, and I believe your honesty, maybe I’ll consider conceding, but until then there is no consensus.--Fradio71 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a rule. Technically you were the first person to discuss the split, so by your own logic it's 2-0. If we're counting votes then it's 2-1. I wanted to split the debuts section but TheDoctorWho would rather split the events timeline, and I am fine with that too. Currently the events timeline is most of the article by size. If there's two of us and one of you, frankly it would be untenable to prevent either of us from splitting the article as long as the other restored the splitting if you revert it. Otherwise you would be violating WP:3RR while TheDoctorWho and I would not be. That's not something I want to see happen, but if you're going to insist that the article can't be split, that seems inevitable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright let's stop counting votes and stop telling each other who's right and wrong and go back to working back to a consensus. said that they have no problem with splitting the events section (at least to start), I support splitting the events section as well. So, what are your problems with splitting the events section? The Doctor Who (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the proposed target, but I support splitting the list of debuts into its own article, given the size. Perhaps something more like List of 2018 American television debuts. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with splitting the debut's section either, just making that clear. I just saw the events section as a more logical option for the time being. The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My issue with the events being spun-off is that being the primary content for 2018 in American television IMO. I just see the stand-alone article on debuts being split off as more sensible on its own. The list of events seems more paramount to keep within this article. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Valid reason. So other than we all have a more general agreement to split the debuts section?  The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except how does it make sense that debuts and Enders aren’t even on the same page? We have no promise that 123ip will be sayisfied with any further changes. How does it make sense that hypothetically three, THREE major sections of a page are relegated to “See also” at the bottom of a page? This inarguably wrecks the page and would only further justify pickaways by people like 123ip who don’t have the page’s or the people’s best interests in mind. This entire discussion was proposed in bad faith, and that must be addressed--Fradio71 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Better to keep as much as possible in the parent article. Moving just one lengthy sub-section (debuts) is surely preferred. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your worry that splitting a page will not satisfy another editor is NOT a reason to not split. Including the links into the See also section does NOT wreck the page, wrecking the page would be not including the link because then there would be no connection between this article and the split. Thirdly please do NOT personally attack myself and by claiming that [they] do not have the page's or the people's best interests in mind and that [the] entire discussion was proposed in bad faith without solid evidence. Thanks.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m getting tired of being told that a completely accurate assessment of other editors’ behavior is a personal attack. The condescension is sickening. And all because I disagree with you. It’s getting to a point where your biases are getting the best of you. Maybe it’s best if nobody moves anything and the page is left alone.--Fradio71 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also see no problem in splitting the debuts to a separate article and agree with 's proposed title List of 2018 American television debuts. - Brojam (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So there is a broad consensus on splitting the debuts section, which I agree. I also like the "List of" title, but this is inconsistent with other sections of this article (and the 2017 article) which were split off into their own articles. However, I'm willing to change the titles of the other split-off articles to be consistent with "List of" since I like that better. As for splits "shaming" the article as Fradio71 says, there is no reason to think that. It would make more sense that this article is commended so highly that it gets to become several articles. These splits are better for both readers and editors for the reasons I've stated and can state again. Seriously, this is a very massive article, the largest on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. As for the title, the 'List of' just makes more sense for what the article will be, but the exact wording I'm not too fussed on, although rethinking it, it should probably be List of 2018 American television show debuts or List of American television shows debuting in 2018 - including 'show' or 'program' in the title, otherwise the title might be too vague. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the concerns I put forward were addressed. No consensus was reached. All you cared about was trampling over dissenters. Therefore the proposal is null and void →--Fradio71 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every single concern you put forward was addressed you just refused to listen. I really hate to use numbers in a case like this but respectively the decision to split was 4-1, consensus is simply defined as a general agreement, therefore consensus was definitely reached. The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll just say it was actually vice verse. You stopped listening to what I had to say really early on. But I’m done arguing. I’ve already altered the intro so it would be upfront and honest to the readers.--Fradio71 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the information this time but for future reference please update and/or add copied at the top of the talk page when splitting stuff just to cover copyright, copying within Wikipedia, and all that legal stuff. The Doctor Who (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Following up on the Alex Jones lawsuit
Progress was made today, with Sandy Hook parents being granted InfoWars document access. So it got me thinking about whether to include it in some sort of notable events item either on this page or 2019. However I came to realize it might be smarter to just wait for the end of the story than every little development. --Fradio71 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would belong in this article or the 2019 article. Alex Jones is an internet personality, not a television personality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pig Goat Banana Cricket
As seen in the edit history of The Fairly OddParents, Template:Infobox television describes that a series is considered ended. Both and  made reversions explaining this. They didn’t need an outside source to make this edit. But yet saw it fit to defy such provisions and revert two different users even when a source was provided. It was explained in detail as to why actual sources were scarce, and yet they didn’t care. What’s the deal?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The source was not reliable. 2) This is a different situation from the article of the show in question. All entries on the list must be reliably sourced. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You claim it’s different, but refuse to explain how--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to explain how? One is an article about a TV show, and the other is an article with lists of shows that premiered/ended that year. In the former, you can just say a show has ended if no new episodes have aired in over a year. In the latter, such statements must be reliably sourced. I am in utter disbelief that this conversation is even happening at all. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 04:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So the rules don’t apply everywhere? Only how you see fit?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I never said that the rules apply as I see fit. The source you cited is unreliable because 1) the account is not verified, and 2) they had absolutely no involvement in the show's production. The consensus is that Twitter can only be cited if the account is verified and/or they are a subject-matter expert. Drop the stick. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 05:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re completely missing the point, and you’re getting angry at me, giving me orders, just because you don’t like what I said, when it is completely valid--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "valid" about adding content supported by unreliable sources and then re-adding them without a source later on. Please stop your disruptive editing. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 05:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s disruptive or invalid. You could be working with me to find a reliable source on such an underreported topic but instead chose to be hostile and work against me--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Futon critic shows broadcast history as 7/16/15 - 5/31/17. Amazon shows last episodes aired July 26, 2018. Article has no viewing data for last 3 episodes so it is uncertain what happened here as Futon and Amazon don't match. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How can we be sure that the Amazon (and iTunes, that’s where I personally checked) dates are the last aired dates? For all that has been presented, it’s plausible that the digital marketplace got them before linear television did--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For airing information Futon is a reliable source and generally we'd go with what they say. They show the last 3 episodes scheduled for airing but crossed out as they didn't actually air as scheduled. Along with no viewing data in the article for the last 3 it appears they didn't air at all on Nicktoons which is what Futon is tracking. They are listed in the ep list article using original planned Futon dates that don't match the Amazon dates. I assume the Amazon dates are when Amazon got the episodes for streaming sale and don't reflect a broadcast date. For the scope of the "yyyy in American television" articles I'd expect you want the start and stop dates of the broadcast airings on the original network. Futon should be used for that as a reference. The last 3 episodes were likely streaming only and never aired. The TV show article should reflect that but doesn't right now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the last episode’s ending for the frame captured in the tweet. It might not be a Wikipedia-acceptable source, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be useful in research--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The tweet in the article that supported the end date appears to be deleted. This talks to future plans that appear didn't happen. This matches what is shown in Futon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Appear didn’t happen, or hasn’t been recorded properly? Also don’t lie to me--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the tweet in the show article supporting the end date in the infobox from Nickandmore. At this point in time we don't have a reliable source that supports August 11, 2018 as the end date. This article requires reliable sources for all data. The only one I found is Futon and it says show ended May 31, 2017. As the tone of this discussion has deteriorated with accusations I am a liar, I no longer am interested in pursuing this any more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The tweet I linked to shows that the August 11 airings NickandMore (a reliable source) referred to in the tweet you linked to that does work. So to say there’s no reliable source is inaccurate--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what's your rationale for Nick and More being reliable? What I can find on RSN doesn't support a consensus that it is, but last examination of it there is from 2011 (though nothing substantial seems to have changed about the site since then that would support a change in reliability). I'm gonna be honest, your tone in interactions I've had with you here on the wiki doesn't make me think you're open to discussing and developing consensus, but your statement that Nickandmore is reliable got me wondering where the differences in your versus my understanding of policy on that lie. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He’s been working in the realm of kids TV for at least a decade now. He’s always on top of things. Yeah he’s wiped his tweets a few too many times but the site has never been a clickbait gossip rag--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources generally have a history of fact-checking and editorial control. Perhaps this can be taken to RSN for a community discussion on it's reliability again? Things certainly could have changed in 8 years. There's WP:NODEADLINE so there's no rush to get this in the article right now. Waggie (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)