Talk:Canada's Next Top Model season 3

Cycle?
I don't think this is the appropriate title. It seems more like a title for a British tv show. I think the appropriate title would be Canada's Next Top Model, Season 3. NorthernThunder (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Top Model television franchise they are ALWAYS called "cycles." NEVER seasons. That would be considered to be a cardinal sin. It doesn't matter if it's America's Next Top Model or the Top Model show for Canada, Brazil, Nigeria, New Zealand, Turkey, Spain, France, Finland, Croatia, etc. ALWAYS CYCLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.185.145 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting winners before finale
Do not post the winner if CNTM on Wikipedia before the airing of the finale. No one knows for sure who will win, so don't post your own making of the call-out order by your own volition.Wikipedian girl (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maryam
For the maryam thing shouldn't it be the way I edited it. The contestant was disqualified for not participating in the photo shoot or eligible go to the international destination

RE: Maryam
The episode did not even air yet, so how is anyone supposed to know that Maryam even got disqualified. She may have not even been eliminated. Wait until the episode has aired to show the results.Wikipedian girl (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Maryam should be eliminated, and Heather should be brought back. The judges were being ridiculous and unfair. This is the second time Maryam failed to meet the expectations, yet she still got another chance. The other girls did what was expected, yet they probably won't be treated fairly by the judges again. Maryam should be gone. LOctopus (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Messy Thinking (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) It happened, anyway. Whom we think should be gone or brought back is irrelevant. It's only what actually does happen (and how the judges actually do rule) that counts. This is not an industry based on merit.

Copying concerns
This article was tagged for copyright concerns and listed for evaluation at the copyright problems board on Copyright problems/2009 July 13. Investigation confirms duplication from external sources placed in the article at various times. For instance, the summary description posted here on June 2 entered the article on June 8th, here. Whether the description originally posted on June 2 originated at another source doesn't matter as far as this investigation is concerned. Its prior publication is enough to demonstrate that we cannot publish it without verification of copyright permission (see below). Contributors are welcome to provide summary descriptions that they have written themselves, however, if such permission is not forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YjQu4_76OM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0voUBKMwu34, http://model.ctv.ca/episodes/episode_recap_4.aspx, http://model.ctv.ca/episodes/episode_recap_5.aspx, http://model.ctv.ca/episodes/episode_recap_6.aspx, http://model.ctv.ca/episodes/episode_recap_7.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, copyrighted text has had to be removed, although this time it seems there was more effort to write in original language. I have restored to the last clean version before the introduction of sentences pasted from the official website. Some of the material removed along with it may be usable, but before restoring any of that text, please compare with other sources to be sure the material is not pasted. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)