Talk:As the World Turns/Archive 2

Issues with this article
Taken from User talk:George Ho:"I'm not sure how to explain this: this article may contain original research because the source is itself the show possibly. The show is the primary source, and the secondary, third-party, and/or independent sources must verify any entry that are consisted. If it doesn't contain original research, the sources are too insufficient to verify all the entries consisted in this article. How important are theme sequences, according to non-primary sources? Are sources active or inactive? Why should this article consist of any entry? How relevant is any entry?"

In additional, why did you insert the "President Kennedy Assassination" section? Can you find non-primary sources, not affiliated primarily with As the World Turns, to verify this entry? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * May I remove the "title sequence"? Is it OR? --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who inserted the "President Kennedy Assassination" section. But I personally think this section should be deleted because Youtube is a source that should generally be avoided on Wikipedia.


 * As for the title sequences, I don't have any objection to remove it, but you could find some resistance from the editor who created this section. I think you should move the tag you placed on top of the whole article to the title sequence section and leave it there a couple of weeks just  to see how things are going and then make a decision according to what has happened. Farine (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm overtagging every section, this article looks OR to me. It is beyond limits for me to tag it with "refimprove". Too much detail irrelevant to this topic; I even tagged the "President Kennedy assassination" with "irrelevant" tag. If you think my tags are inappropiate, here: Template messages. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I have reported this article to WP:No original research/Noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no need to add multiple tags to any article for seemingly the same problem. If there is original research in one section, tag that section or use an inline tag, do not tag the entire article. There are eight single tags in this article alone which not only looks tacky but is overkill. As for the JFK assassination being mentioned, I personally do not find it "irrelevant". It was a major point in American history and I believe CBS news was the first outlet to report on it. If I recall correctly, it was one of the first instances that a network decided to interrupt a regular broadcast for breaking news, so again, I do not think it irrelevant. I think it should at least be mentioned - perhaps in not such detail but I do not think the entire section needs to be removed. As for YouTube being used as a source, it can be used as a source. In this instance, the historical video just happens to be on YouTube. If need be, the content can probably be sourced to some work of text as I'm rather confident it was likely written about.
 * As for the rest of the supposed issues, I think they need to be explained in detail by George Ho. Simply saying that some of the content is "original research" or "too detailed" isn't enough and does not help anyone actually fix anything. What exactly in particular jumps out as "original research"? What content specifically sounds like it was written by a fan? I mean, this article is about a show that was running for over fifty years - there is going to be some details included otherwise all we're left with is that the show ran for X amount of years and is no longer on. I've watched this article for some months now (due to vandalism) and from what I've seen, Farine (who regularly edits and maintains this article) has done a bang up job of keeping fancruft and unsourced malarkey out of the article. Not an easy feat for any work of fiction article, let alone a soap opera article. Tagging and article is helpful, but not the way you're going about it George. I note that you did this on another article I watch, The Benny Hill Show, some time ago which was also problematic. You simply slapped on tags and left others to do the work. Wikipedia is suppose to be collaborative - if you wanna tag, great. But at the very least you could explain in some greater detail why you're tagging things to death or jump in and actually fix what is wrong. Frustrating and unhelpful to say the very least.  Pinkadelica ♣  22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ....Am I a disruptive editor or something? Well.... have I gone too far? If so, what else can I do besides fixing things, citing things, and removing tags? --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL - George, this is how I first met you: Talk:The_Benny_Hill_Show/Archive_2 (and hi to Pinkadelica again :)). George is currently being mentored, to try and eliminate this kind of thing, so please be patient with him as much as possible (frustrating though I know this kind of thing is). As I see it, George - here's a simple solution for you: Other things you can consider. Just some thoughts... (see also here -which is where we should continue general tagging discussion not related to this article in particular) Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Discuss any improvements you feel are needed on article talk (don't tag yet)
 * 2) Tag any remaining issues only when discussion cannot solve it - when tagging put a full explanation (on talk) of what changes you think would justify removing the tag. It's impossible to solve a problem if the problem isn't defined or explained anywhere.
 * posting at the talk page of any Wikiproject involved
 * asking major contributors to the article for help
 * tagging the correct section, so that someone has a clue where to look for the problem
 * just adding the article to the maintenance categories the tag would place the article in (without a tag). This way you might attract the right editors, without the distracting tag.


 * I'm going to talk to George about the difference between original research and things that are just uncited. We've been talking about OR in a different context, and I think he may have taken things a little too literally. The section on title sequences is not OR, but it's way too long - any chance of cutting it down into a table or something (I'm crap at formatting so I'm not even going to try)Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That section is way too long - but as well as your good suggestion about some sort of table with dates, details for the title sequences it will need copyediting by someone with a little familiarity to reduce the text. I'm not confident I can trim the right bits out, but if someone reduces each section to a brief description it should be easy enough. If it were just a question of tabulating it, I'd do it right now - but I think a reducing copyedit should come first. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and if they could take out the odd bits that can't be sourced just from watching the titles (eg the credits might show them cleaning a room or playing a piano — things too "boring" to be in the episode itself ) and don't have other citations, that would be helpful also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey again, Begoon. I find it encouraging that George now has a mentor and I applaud you for helping yet again. I think your suggestion to George about holding off on the tagging is a step in the right direction. I have no problem with any editor placing a tag on an article, what I do have a problem with is an editor who seemingly does that and that alone. Also, George, I didn't accuse of you being a disruptive editor. I have found some of your actions bordering on disruptive but I think those actions can be fixed by you stepping back and taking the time to analyze an article and applying Wikipedia policy to it with common sense. Being more clear about what you think is wrong so other editors can actually fix the issues would also be helpful.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding the title sequence thing. That is a typical no-no in television articles. Why people feel the need to document that in detail is beyond me. From what I understand that is one of those thing we should avoid. Simple short explanations about major changes in a title sequence is probably fine, but I think is is generally known that title sequences/theme songs in a long running show (esp. a soap opera) change.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually, George has several mentors, see here, more experienced and qualified than me, I'm trying to help out. George doesn't just tag - he also does a lot of good, complex image related work, and makes some very good contributions elsewhere, too. He is making very good progress indeed, under the mentorship arrangement. It's only been in place a couple of weeks, so I'm confident it is working out so far. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic, George is going to work on this title sequence section in a sandbox. In the light of Pinkadelica's comment, is it worth George enquiring at a project page to get some guidance as to the length/detail acceptable per norms for this kind of section, so he knows how much to "cut"? This might save him lots of time. Begoon &thinsp; talk
 * Inquiring at the project page might be best as I cannot find where I read that bit about not including a bunch of content about the title sequence. I could have sworn I read it in the WP:MOSTV at some point in time, but I see nothing about it now. I'll have a look at the section and see what I think could be removed. I know 99.9% of the time, sections like that are just riddled with someone's observations about the show opening, so it really shouldn't be too hard to know what is encyclopedic and what is not.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "title sequence" work is as far as I can get. All looks valuable, even if information is too much. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All looks informative; everything is supported by primary sources. However, I can't tell which one is unnecessary. Is the name of announcer relevant, important, or irrelevant? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) - comment moved here from mentorship page by Begoon &thinsp; talk


 * adding link to what George is working on: User:George Ho/sandbox Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to fix issues
Ok, so without knowing much about this show I've gone through and attempted to fix the errors that were repeatedly marked. First, quite a bit of what was marked as "original research" is not original research. In most cases, it is content that is simply gleaned from episodes of the show. What wasn't sourced to episodes was rather easy to source via third party sources (ie books) which I added when I could find them. As such, I removed quite a few of the inline "or" tags. The "Broadcast" section was also tagged heavily. After reading the content, it is clear that is unsourced (which the tag at the top of the article points out, no need to tag it again as nothing there is particularly contentious or questionable). I highly doubt it is "original research" in the traditional sense, but it was likely written by someone who owns one of those spiffy broadcast history books and related all the information without citing it. While someone might find all that content interesting, I found it overwhelming and a wee bit too detailed for an encyclopedia. As such, I tagged it as being overly detailed because that is the issue that jumped out at me. My suggestion is to trim the section as a lot of what is there is trivial. I would have done so, but school awaits me in the early morning so I didn't try to wade through it tonight. If no one does it by the weekend, I will give it a go.

I also cut down the section regarding the JFK assassination as it was overly detailed. If someone is really interested in knowing what commercials played during the broadcast, etc., they can simply watch the video on YouTube or elsewhere on the net. As for the supposed copy editing issues, I also went through the article checking for misspellings, weird sentences, etc. and really found none. The worst thing I found was repeated instances of overlinking (which I fixed). As such, I removed the tags for that in the places where I checked for errors.

As for the rest of the issues that are present and tagged, I think these can be easily fixed. For instance, the international airings section that is tagged for OR. Simply removing the times, dates, etc. should solve that problem if someone thinks that content is from someone's memory. In other articles, tables are usually set up with flag icons indicating what country/channel aired the series. If the section remains, that would probably be the best way to present that content.

Finally, I take it that it was agreed upon that the title sequence be presented in table formatting. I don't know if that is the best way to go about it as the current version of the article with the table is a bit hard to read. There is also an audio file and picture in the box which kind of distorts it. It also does not look like it is formatted properly as text that should not appear is visible.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's great. The table was not "agreed upon" as such, just agreed that it was worth trying, with heavily? trimmed content, as a way to try and make the content more presentable. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...well if that's the case about the table, I think presenting it as it was, albeit heavily trimmed, might be a better option. The table kind of makes it hard to read in my opinion. I'd like to hear what others think though.  Pinkadelica ♣  05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added "copyedit section" tag, just in case. Removing unnecessary, irrelevant details is the best way to go; however, even some "unnecessary" details must confirm relevancy by either primary or non-primary sources. Relevant info can stay; the rest must go. To me, all may indicate history timeline, but I can't tell which is irrelevant; detail may resemble a fansite to me. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe just level 3 subheadings then? I think the idea of separating the "blurb" about each "version" of the titles is sound, even if it doesn't use a table. On the other hand... if enough content were trimmed, perhaps it would be fine and readable just as prose. I guess we won't know till it's reduced in length. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - here's a "merciless" hack, as a starting point, maybe. I have removed lots of opinion, irrelevance, and over-detail. I figured it was easier to set up the structure, and add stuff back - so, here you go: User:Begoon/Sandbox/ATWT. I removed most of the "waffle" about announcement wording etc... Even after all that - I still think more could be trimmed, but I'm stopping here, and asking for comment before doing any more. Feel free to hack at the sandbox, anyone who would like to. the image names are still in the code, commented out - using example.jpg in userspace for NFF Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The format is good. However, that makes non-notable announcers more relevant. I wonder: how about era headings without using announcers as "relevant"? --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - I agree, I'll change it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - I altered that, and replaced the ogg file I accidentally removed. I would still like someone to try and trim this again/further. My first trimming has removed quite a bit, but, personally, I feel that even 1/4 of this length is still a very significant section - if we can achieve that. I've been bold, and changed the article now (apparently I trimmed about 11,000 bytes) - feel free to revert me if you don't like this step, anyone.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I must agree: Begoon's efforts were better than my table. However, may I limit the title card in one section from two to one? I don't know why the 2007 title card is used twice. --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops - I've removed the one from the subsection. Good spot - I should have noticed that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Which position for the image is more suitable: the lead of the "Title Sequence" or the section of "2007-2009"? --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From a layout perspective, I usually prefer to have a picture at the start of a section, relevant to the whole section - then, other pics can go near relevant info. That's why I left in the first one, just habit... On this occasion, you have a point - it maybe would be more appropriate closer to the relevant text. I don't mind at all if you want to swap the position. The overall visual balance should be the same either way. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ moving image to 2007 section. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to fix issues, Part II
I really don't see the point on keeping the verb in the present tense ("is") as the show has ended in 2010, doesn't that merit a change to the past tense ("was")? Though there's a thing in the article that says "is" since the series has ended, how can the article still be in the present tense? I would like someone to help me with that. --Marceki111 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot description is generally in the present tense, no matter how old the story. E.g., "Hamlet addresses Yorick's skull." --Thnidu (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)