Talk:Hard Knocks (2001 TV series)

The unofficial 2004 Jaguars season

We need a reliable source to prove - for a 2nd time - that the 2004 Jaguars series is in fact an unofficial season of Hard Knocks. Since it was presented as a season of Hard Knocks on Hulu until all NFL Films content was removed from Hulu in August 2012, and since it was produced by precisely the same NFL Films personnel who produced other seasons of Hard Knocks - and in exactly the same style - it should not be impossible to locate such a source. The original ref (now a dead link in the article's revision history) proving this was indeed a season of Hard Knocks was hulu.com/nfl/hard-knocks.
- Smike (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Episodes available online

This article, given the specificity of its topic and the desire to feature the best sources possible, should reference and link to episodes of this show that are legally and freely available online. If it returns to Hulu, for example, I will attempt to keep this article up-to-date with that information.

To this end, I have mentioned and referenced the first episode of the 2012 Dolphins season on HBO's official "Hard Knocks" website. Unfortunately, an anonymous deleter - certainly the same person behind a dynamic IP address beginning with "65." - has consistently and inexplicably deleted any mention of this episode, and I have had to undo this person's deletions several times. It's very annoying, and frankly I'd like to auto-protect this article just to put an end to this nonsense.

Knowing that's unlikely to happen without further deletions, hopefully this deleter doesn't get more aggressively nonsensical.
- Smike (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Did it again!
- Smike (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Had to restore this content once again. Same anonymous deleter.
- Smike (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep.
- Smike ( Talk ) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead (or Intro)

I've made a few changes to the lead, and don't feel that edit summaries are the best place to discuss them.

The present perfect tense (not simply 'past' tense) is appropriate here, as it describes a show that has already been broadcast, which be back next year, and whose content may or may not change in future. It's also more encyclopedic in tone (IMO). The lead is not the place to define football idioms ('make the team', 'journeyman' etc). If they really need explanation to the average reader, they shouldn't appear in the lead. Likewise the NFL source - it's not relevant, and the detail is there in the reference.

Smike, if you don't like these small changes, could you leave them for a while and see what other editors think? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.96.201 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The show is ongoing, so it needs to be in present tense, as with all ongoing show articles. Whether that is encyclopedic in tone or not is an incredibly subjective assessment that needs to yield to what is appropriate for the topic.

If specific football terms and phrases appear in the article - and in this article's case it is appropriate that they do - then they need to be explained. If you want to create another section to explain them, if you want to link them to other articles on Wikipedia, or if you want to expand Wikipedia to explain these terms, I would applaud such an undertaking. Otherwise, they need to be INTRODUCED in the intro.

Likewise, we don't know what the NFL's current position is on the quoted matter, so saying that this press release is "according to the NFL" is not only improper, but it's also breaking a very important rule: it's a quote, and the "NFL" is not a quotable entity unless this statement were to come from its bylaws or mission statement, for example. It comes from a press release that was at one time issued by the NFL, so that needs to be stated.

I'm going to correct the intro because it needs to be corrected. If you want to improve it, awesome. I originally considered using a 3-paragraph structure, for example, but at the time I didn't want to bother messing with the format that had been there for several years, and wanted to abide the single-paragraph intro structure of most of the other NFL articles. In my experience with rewriting, do no harm, I say - and adapt to your surroundings. Hence, I was hoping that some other editor would break the paragraph in the two spots I planted so I wouldn't have to bother fighting for it. Excellent initiative on your part, good job. Otherwise, please try to avoid debasing the article; do no harm.
- Smike (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have improved the intro. Again. Rather than patronising me, or claiming that I have debased or harmed the article, please wait and see what others think of the changes, as I asked. There is no deadline. The speed of your reversions doesn't suggest a collaborative approach on your part. It's not your article, so please just be patient.

The lead of an article about a TV show is not the place for an explanation of football terms. surely this is obvious?

Your 'appropriate' and my 'encyclopedic' are equally subjective terms. IMO, the tense is appropriate for a show that has been broadcast intermittently, is not currently broadcast, and may or may not be shown in future. I can't find a source which says it is being shown in the future, or what it will cover in future, so present perfect seems correct, in language terms at least. If there is a convention on Wikipedia for intermittent shows like this, can you point me towards it? Your 'appropriate' and my 'encyclopedic' are equally subjective terms.

As for "the NFL"/"an NFL press release", I'm not sure what rule you are talking about, or who says the NFL is not a quotable entity. Both the NFL [1] and HBO [2] have made the same claim, and it's not really particularly notable or contentious. Neither of them mentioned "television history", AFAIK. I'd be interested to hear what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so lots to respond to here. Yes, in many ways you have improved the article, and I applaud that, and I have consistently kept every one of those changes that have improved the article as you have made them - recent excellent changes from your last string of edits included. I think that the two refs you added are excellent, and the improvements you made to the final paragraph of the intro were, in general, excellent. Great job. I added "in television history" because we & they are not talking about the history of elephants, and ending the sentence without that context is lacking, at best. The NFL and HBO have called Hard Knocks "the first sports-based reality series" in television history. They have NOT called it the "the first sports-based reality series" in a line of cards or comic books or because they like calling things series.

Now, I'll repeat this from my reply in the section below, because you seem to ask it often: stop asking me to "wait and see what other editors think." What is that? I've never heard of that, and I've certainly never experienced it. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy is quite the opposite. If changes need to be made, simply make them. Users collaborate by editing one another's work to IMPROVE upon it, we don't collaborate by leaving bad work there for awhile for all to see, just so that "everyone gets a chance." Doing that would result in worse pages staying online longer, which I can't imagine is the goal for anyone.

Regarding your statement: "There is no deadline. The speed of your reversions doesn't suggest a collaborative approach on your part. It's not your article, so please just be patient." Now that's both ludicrous and clearly insulting. As far as the "speed" of my revisions, they're not speedy at all! I'm not revising the page as fast as I can, and there's significant time between our edits. As I said above, I'm just following the policy as I know it and taking the initiative to continuously collaborate to improve an article. You, on the other hand, have avoided collaboration from the start, by making unexplained changes to the content in large quantities, all at once. I'm trying to collaborate with you by reverting only those changes I believe are poor, while you have yet to fully explain your changes or give good reasons for those that are entirely arbitrary. It is most definitely Wikipedia's article - and not either of ours - and you should not continue to make edits that degrade the quality of Wikipedia's article.

It most certainly IS obvious that the intro of an article about a TV show is not the IDEAL place for an explanation of football terms. But as I said in my previous reply, there is no current alternative, and I'm fine with that. I've already encouraged you or anyone else to create said alternative, and I've provided several options for ways to do just that.

Appropriate refers to what is acceptable and standard for a given topic, given certain policies and guidelines governing said topic. It is subjective, but based upon a consensus (in this case a clearly outlined consensus that is agreed upon by a large number of writers, editors, and Wikipedians) and pre-determined norms. "Encyclopedic," on the other hand, is totally subjective. The two words are not similar or interchangeable.

Regarding the appropriate tense: the show has not been cancelled. It is a series that continues in annual seasons like any other show, and is ongoing, so it needs to be in present tense. That one's easy. If you have an issue with the fact that in its current iteration ONE of its annual seasons was cancelled, a good reason is given in the 2011 section for this anomaly, and frankly, labor disputes often cause shows to miss all or part of a season. They're still ongoing shows when they come back. As of yet, we just ended last season. If it doesn't come back next year or the NFL announces it's been cancelled, then you have a case to change the tense.

Finally, regarding the rule you don't know: when you quote someone or something - such as a document - you must name whom or what you are quoting. The thing quoted must be an individual entity, not a group of people, unless you make it clear that they are speaking in unison, such as a chant or (in this case) two identical statements. The NFL & HBO are corporations, thus anything quoted from them, as entities, must be something everyone at NFL & HBO agree upon, such as their charter or company rules, or official statements of positions held by anyone working for the companies, such as "we don't talk to reporters" or "cheese is the enemy." Press releases and general statements made by employees don't usually fit any of the above. In this case, for brevity I'll stipulate that you can claim that they both HAVE said this at one point. If, on the other hand, we want to use present-tense and state this quote as their current mutual position, than the reader must be informed that the quote is from 1 past NFL press release and from a page on HBO's website. The refs are not enough; as readers we need to be told from whom the quote comes, such as: "The sky is blue," says George Marshall, or "According to the ACME corporation, 'Stuff is awesome!'".
- Smike (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the tense, you are wrong. The present perfect tense (not the past-tense, which you referred to in your earlier edit summary) is appropriate here. The show has covered things in the past, but is (perhaps) ongoing, so the present perfect is ideal. "Each season has followed ..." is very different from "Each season followed...". This article gives a useful explanation in the section on "Multiple Actions at Different Times", which is appropriate for this show, whose seasons have been irregular and each covering a separate time and subject.

Regarding "television history", you are wrong. As well as being an overblown term, the NFL and HBO mentioned no such thing. Just stick to the facts. Maybe they meant the first sports reality show on television, maybe they meant the first sports reality show in any medium, maybe they meant the first sports reality show made in the USA, maybe they meant the first sports reality show they have ever made. You don't know, so just stick to the facts.

Regarding the question of a section explaining football terms, you are wrong. Uncommon terms like these need not, perhaps should not, be in the lead. If they appear in subsequent sections, they could be linked to an article explaining weird football terms. There are lots of alternatives, including doing nothing. Creating a section in this article explaining football jargon is not appropriate - directing readers to an article about football jargon using links might be appropriate.

Regarding 'appropriate' and 'encyclopedic', you are wrong. Both are subjective terms which of course have broadly agreed meanings. I don't think anyone said they were interchangeable in meaning. Encyclopedic clearly refers to the de facto consensus among publishers and authors about how to write for an encyclopedia, and is a word often used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there actually is a clearly defined consensus on this issue, can you point it out?

Regarding the rule you claim exists, you are wrong. What rule is this? What is it called and where is it published? Is it a policy here? If such a rule even does exist, according to some 'authority' at least, it is not a rule that is widely used in written English, including on Wikipedia. It is an example of a prescriptive approach to grammar which does not reflect reality and usage. Organizations are often quoted. It's not misleading at all (particularly when the source documents are referenced). Everyone understands that if a group is quoted, it refers to someone, maybe a spokesperson or PR agent, speaking or writing on behalf of the body. It is also, as explained by you, illogical. One organization cannot possibly be a quotable entity, but if two say the same thing it's absolutely fine? Total nonsense. --88.73.223.116 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am quite right on all of the points above that you say I am wrong, and I don't find any of your arguments to the contrary compelling. Quite the contrary, as I've already addressed those arguments, and explained to you why most of what you've claimed above is generally misguided or incorrect. I've likewise answered your questions previously, and I refer you to my previous statements on this talk page. I think I've wasted quite enough time trying to explain all of this to you.

We're both just repeating ourselves now, and we clearly disagree. As I've said earlier today: given the lack of understanding you've proven and the lack of commitment to compromise you've shown over this last week, I can only assume that despite your competency with English, you are not a competent Wikipedia editor. One can only assume good faith for so long, and I can't understand why you continue to edit this article in a myriad of detrimental ways. I have desperately tried to continue being civil to you, despite your proclivity to ignore my explanations or reasons and do just the opposite. Please stop editing this article, anonymous user. You're not making it any better, and your last four edits have done nothing but destroy compromise and debase the article.

Policies, guidelines, and essays I've referenced above: WP:COMPETENCE, WP:AGF, WP:NOCLUE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT.
- Smike (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

2004 Jacksonville season

The 'unofficial season' question is simple. If reliable sources in general say it was an unofficial season of the same show, then we can put it in. Otherwise, we can't - it would be classic original research. The only source presented so far only says it is "similar to" Hard Knocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.96.201 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't simple at all. It's quite complicated, and I've been with the issue from the beginning. Listen now, and I'll tell you the whole story.

I couldn't care less if it is or is not a "season," or if it's called "unofficial" or not, I just want the truth to be on this page. And the truth is that it IS a season of Hard Knocks, and at one time this was easily provable. Fact is, I am ironically responsible for this whole mess: I refer you to this revision of the page. As you can see, there was once an excellent ref to the Hulu page where it was shown as just another season of Hard Knocks. It was plain as day for all the world to see, and the ref was not contested. It was inserted on Hulu, after all, by personnel from NFL Films along with a large (but recently removed) portion of their content. Those who have SEEN the series are further convinced, as it is obviously exactly the same show.

Now, the proper procedure on Wikipedia may have been to simply mark this as a dead link, but as it was no longer available on Hulu, I had to delete the entire sentence, and with it, the ref. I never imagined I would get some headstrong editor who - in good faith - decided to presumptively remove it as a season in the first place. Frankly, I'm happy with the compromise as I left it, but it's already quite a stretch to take it out of season order simply due to link rot. That's not Wikipedia policy, and it definitely has absolutely NOTHING to do with original research; as I've proven above, it's quite the opposite. Therefore, I'm happy to slap a "refimprove" section template on there and wait for NFL Films to either release Hard Knocks again - on any medium - or to wait for an industrious Wikipedian to come and ref it properly. Either way, that's as far as I'm willing to let it slide.

Now please stop cryptically debasing the section.
- Smike (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but what you have described is classic original research. I won't selectively quote chunks of policy for you, but it's really clear at WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS.

There is no need for a refimprove tag, as the current text is clearly supported by the current refs. If you think the text is inaccurate, and you could be right, please provide sources. I agree, when I watched it, it looked like the same show. However, there are sources out there, including one in the article, which say it is a 'similar show'. If you can find better sources, to support that it is the same show, great. I have looked and haven't found any yet.

Again, you may disagree but please wait and see what other editors think. --86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, stop asking me to "wait and see what other editors think." What is that? I've never heard of that, and I've certainly never experienced it. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy is quite the opposite. If changes need to be made, simply make them. Users collaborate by editing one another's work to IMPROVE upon it, we don't collaborate by leaving bad work there for awhile for all to see, just so that "everyone gets a chance." Doing that would result in worse pages staying online longer, which I can't imagine is the goal for anyone.

To the main point: what I described above has absolutely nothing to do with original research, "classic" or otherwise. Ultimately, while I can understand your confusion, the policies you've cited have nothing to do with this topic, and you need to more thoroughly read and understand the policy I cited above on dead links. The basic policy for an article like this one is that when there is a piece of information on Wikipedia that is clearly proven by a good ref, and the ref goes dead, then we mark it as a "dead link" and realize the information HAS been properly sourced. The truth is I never performed ANY original research on the topic at all. All I had done was click the link from the article to visit Hulu and see that the season was there. The link was correct; it was a verifiable citation. Later, I noticed the content had been removed, and I acted upon that by deleting the ref and the sentence - which was a mistake. I should have said "it was featured on Hulu as the 2004 season, etc..." and kept the dead link intact. As it is - like I said above - I'm willing to compromise for now, but the template needs to stay, as we do need to get said ref and re-integrate it with the other seasons at some point.

If you feel that there should be unsourced information added to the text just to more obviously justify the refimprove tag, then frankly, that's nuts. The reason for the tag is given, and any editor can see that and take action accordingly. That's the whole point.

Now, just what IS your problem with the year 2004? And in what ways do you believe you are improving the text with your arbitrary edits to the section in question?
- Smike (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the policy on original research. There is no confusion on my part. Could you please read it carefully again? If reliable sources say it is an unofficial season, great. If not, also great. The Hulu page you linked to did not explicitly state that this was a season, or unofficial season, or part, or whatever, of the same show, so it is not a suitable reference for the claim. As for WP:DEADLINK, it is not a policy.

Asking you to be patient should be pretty clear. You prefer some details of the article one way, and I prefer them another way. A collegial approach would be to wait and see what other editors think, see if consensus emerges, rather than simply repeat reverting it to the way you like it. Clearly many of these style changes are simply a matter of personal preference. It would be good for the article to get input from as many interested editors as possible. Although you are obviously confident you are right about these things, you could always be wrong. Nobody is being harmed by leaving things alone for a few days.

The refimprove tag is only needed if the current text doesn't have enough references to support it. In this case further references would only be needed for the assumption that this is an unofficial season of the same show, or part of the same show, or whatever wording you prefer. (Or indeed for any other unsourced assumption not currently in the text.) I'm not sure that it is the same show. The reliable sources currently available only state that it is a similar show, so the references are sufficient and appropriate for the text in the article. Refimprove does not mean improve the text - if you believe the text is not accurate, and you could well be right, the talk page is the appropriate place for that discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.223.116 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have a very poor understanding of the concept of original research in general. Some of the things you have suggested are "original research" prove this quite clearly, and you should stop making the laughable claim that my understanding of it is as terrible as yours. By your definition, original research would cover the grand majority of this article and likewise the grand majority of Wikipedia. Yours seems to be a laughably loose definition of the concept, not at all in keeping with the spirit of any policy on Wikipedia that I am aware of. You seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I think you should stop making false claims. As far as the Wikipedia POLICY on dead links, here's the part that's relevant here: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." And you know what? The Hulu page proved beyond any doubt that the series in question is indeed the 2004 season of Hard Knocks, as it was listed as such right under the "Seasons" section. And as I said earlier, this was not contested. Thus, this falls under Wikipedia's POLICY on dead links, and the verifiability policy backs this up quite well.

As for your "collegial" approach, what you have described is not in-line with Wikipedia's approach. While I agree with most of what you're saying, I disagree on the key point that there's any reason to let poor changes lie. The key thing you should understand about how a consensus is reached on Wikipedia is that editors often view changes to (and revisions of) a given article by using the Revision History page - as opposed to mindlessly reading the newest version of an article over and over again. Everything we do on Wikipedia is viewable, so if an editor likes your edits and I revert them, they can see the revisions I've made and decide they would prefer your revisions. Anyone watching the page may very well be monitoring what we're doing, and having a laugh at my efforts to keep an anonymous, unqualified user from continuing to lower the quality of a perfectly good article. Who knows. The point is, whenever I have nothing to do and am just itching to waste some more of my time, I'm going to try and maintain the quality and factual truth of this article. Tough cookies, labradookie.

And for the last time, the refimprove template stays. I AGREE that it makes little sense with the text as it is, but as I said above: 1, "If you feel that there should be unsourced information added to the text just to more obviously justify the refimprove tag, then frankly, that's nuts. The reason for the tag is given, and any editor can see that and take action accordingly. That's the whole point." and 2, "Frankly, I'm happy with the compromise as I left it, but it's already quite a stretch to take it out of season order simply due to link rot. That's not Wikipedia policy, and it definitely has absolutely NOTHING to do with original research; as I've proven above, it's quite the opposite. Therefore, I'm happy to slap a "refimprove" section template on there and wait for NFL Films to either release Hard Knocks again - on any medium - or to wait for an industrious Wikipedian to come and ref it properly. Either way, that's as far as I'm willing to let it slide." If you want to destroy the compromise in question, I can fish out the dead link, make up for my mistake, and we can go back to fighting about including it as a season. Otherwise, the template stays, and the reason stays.
- Smike (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, regarding your arbitrary edits to this section, and the reasons you have (finally) given for making them. Well, I can't say any of your reasons are new to me. Or unexpected. However, I'll pay you a courtesy you probably won't appreciate - along with what will amount to an amazingly unnecessary and detailed breakdown of why I chose to phrase the paragraph the way that I did - and respond to each one anyway.

"It aired on the NFL network, not the NFL network instead of anything." Wrong. HBO is the network that airs everything else in the article, that is, Hard Knocks. HBO is referred to throughout the article, in the intro and in the infobox. This distinction needs to be made.

"'the NFL's' is redundant here. The article is about NFL films productions involving NFL teams, so it is totally unnecessary." Wrong. This is a cardinal rule of non-fiction writing in general: don't EVER jump to assumptions about what the reader will and will not assume, or does and does not know. It's not otherwise made clear that this "simliar" production is likewise about an NFL team. This is an extremely efficient way to fix that.

"They are the Jacksonville Jaguars, not the 2004 Jacksonville Jaguars. Linking to the 2004 season here is misleading, as the show did not cover the vast majority of the 2004 season." Wrong. (You're 0 for 3 here. Not looking good. But hey, don't feel bad, you're still looking better than the '08 Lions.) The 2004 Jacksonville Jaguars team IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. Come on, now you're just messing with me on purpose. As far as why we link there, and not to the team page, it's the same reason all those "Main article" links are included in the section above: to ensure the reader sees the correct roster (the cast of the show) and season in question.

"Quotes not needed. [...] Correct tense for past show." Hey! It looks like you finally got one partially right! You're right about the quotes, in any case. That part's optional, so I'll give you partial credit. 0.5 for 4's not bad, right? Oh, it is? Darn it all. Considering you never changed the tense, I'm going to ignore that comment - unless you thought changing "in this 2004 series include" to "included" was changing the overall tense of the sentence, in which case I don't know what to say to you. Obviously the former is correct, as the latter simply results in nonsense. I mean, "included"? Really? Where did the show go? Into a black hole? Did someone overwrite all the episodes with slow-mo, HD shots of bunnies and long stretches of Tom Coughlin lacing up his shoes? Good heavens, I hope not.

And finally, this one takes the cake: "Stating that it is a training camp documentary also not needed, as we have said it is similar to [Hard Knocks]. (And it has "inside training camp" in the title.)" Wow. Honestly, that's one of the most absurd, incorrect notions I've ever heard. The title is a TITLE, not a description. And as far as whether we need to tell the reader anything about the show - whatsoever - well, yes, I'd say WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO DO THAT. Should we perhaps, oh, I don't know, include three basic words to describe what it is? MAYBE WE SHOULD! Good lord indeed. <old man voice> NOW GET OFF MY LAWN! </old man voice>
- Smike (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK is a guideline, not a policy. WP:OR is a policy, and one which I understand. When I comment here on original research (something of which you seem to be a fan) I am (obviously, I assumed) commenting on original research in the context of how it is used on Wikipedia.

This is not an issue of link rot, as the previous text was not deleted solely because of a dead link, and was not, in fact, factual. Perhaps more importantly, we have other sources available which state that this was a similar show to Hard Knocks, i.e. not the same show. So if you believe the current referenced text is incorrect, you need to supply other sources to support your belief. I do not believe the Hulu source explicitly aupported your claim, and nobody, including you, has been able to find a single reference to replace it, which seems odd if it is true. There is no need for a refimprove tag simply to undermine the factual, referenced information in the text because you believe it is wrong. If you can verify that it is wrong using reliable sources, that would be interesting, but you need to be the industrious Wikipedian who does it.

I didn't mention anything about adding more unsourced information to that section for any reason. I have no idea why you bring that up. -- 88.73.223.116 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have put my views on the topic of original research and on Wikipedia on my user page so that people know a little about me and where I'm coming from. I stand by what I've said, and as I'm not a monkey, I'm not about to break Wikipedia policy simply because I wished it worked a little differently, as you should be able to understand from statements given at the very same time on the very same user page. If anything, I say on that page that despite my views, I believe Wikipedia and its policies are entirely positive, and I'm willing to contribute under those policies. The fact is, I make a habit of conforming and following Wikipedia's guidelines, and have consistently done so following a learning period after I first started editing here. I certainly can't say the same for you.

As for the rest of what you've said, you're just repeating yourself now, and we clearly disagree. Given the lack of understanding you've proven and the lack of commitment to compromise you've shown over this last week, I can only assume that despite your competency with English, you are not a competent Wikipedia editor. One can only assume good faith for so long, and I can't understand why you continue to edit this article in a myriad of detrimental ways. I have desperately tried to continue being civil to you, despite your proclivity to ignore my explanations or reasons and do just the opposite. Please stop editing this article, anonymous user. You're not making it any better, and your last four edits have done nothing but destroy compromise and debase the article.

Policies, guidelines, and essays I've referenced above: WP:COMPETENCE, WP:AGF, WP:NOCLUE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT.
- Smike (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have engaged in original research in editing this article, and you have stated your frustration at the policy on your user page, it's understandable to assume the two were linked. I'm very surprised to read that your actions here were not related to your stated beliefs.

The fact that you use a wacky pseudonym to edit here, and I choose not to, doesn't somehow make you qualified, or competent, nor me unqualified, or incompetent. You clearly have no idea how long I have contributed to Wikipedia or what I've done here, so commenting on either seems foolish.

As you've said, clearly we disagree. I don't understand why you continue to make such detrimental errors to this article, but your conduct here and your user statement have shed some light on it. Please give it a rest. I've asked you above to take a step back, but you continue to act like you own the article. You don't. Please just leave it alone for a while. --86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That "wacky pseudonym" is my real name! Good lord. Though I do appreciate the compliment, thank you! I agree that neither of us knows very much about one another, but my reputation is on record. If I do something bad, everyone in the whole world has a record of it, and my history on Wikipedia is documented from the very beginning, mistakes and all. And yes, while my name certainly doesn't make me qualified or competent, I am, nonetheless, both over-qualified and extremely competent when it comes to editing Wikipedia. And I've never commented on either what you've done prior to editing this article or how long you've been here, and claiming that I have is a total lie. I'm well aware of the fact that I do not have access to that information. I'm only judging you to be incompetent at editing this article, not in general. I have no idea of your competence in general. And that judgement is based exclusively on the random and arbitrary edits you have made to this article, which have largely been EXTREMELY disruptive at the very least.

Once again on the topic of original research (of which you've previously demonstrated a clear lack of understanding), you're predictably quite mistaken - again. I have not engaged in original research in contributing to this article, at any time - Wikipedia's specific version of it or otherwise. And virtually ALL of my edits have improved the article, except those I later corrected or revised. In fact, since first contributing to this article, I have significantly improved its overall quality, overhauled its references, added numerous sources, and slightly increased its sourced content. But for kicks, I'll humor you and make this absolutely clear for the last time: I DO NOT OWN ANY ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. Not this article or any other. What a ridiculous accusation on your part. You, on the other hand, seem to think you do. You do not. Perhaps you should keep that in mind, Mr. walk-in-and-make-changes-like-you-own-the-place.
- Smike (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (formerly Chad Ochocinco)

BTW, user 86.143.96.201, excellent Ochocinco edit. He was not called Ochocinco at the time, and as his name status is already explained in the article, there's no reason to mention his former name in any further seasons. Excellent catch.

Other users, take note. Please, no more Ochocinco/Johnson nonsense. As of this version of the page, there are no more issues with his name, and we should keep it that way.
- Smike (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed the location in the article where it mentions both last names. I removed the mentioning of Johnson from the Bengals section. He was never known as Johnson during his time with the Bengals, so there is no need to bring up Johnson during that timeframe. However, he began the Dolphins as Ochoncinco and departed as Johnson. If there is any place where both names need to the provided, it is in the Dolphins section. Also, I agree with Smike that there are no more issues with his name.Television fan (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He started his career with the Bengals, as Chad Johnson, and played the majority of his career with the Bengals under that name. Then there's these two issues: 1, the Bengals section is earlier in the article, and 2, a user might be confused to visit a page named Chad Johnson when they clicked on Chad Ochocinco. All of the above clearly make the Bengals section the most appropriate place to note both names, BY FAR.
- Smike (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The year in which he joined a team is not really relevant. The relevant point in time is what was his name during the season in which Hard Knocks was part of the team. He was never Johnson during 2009 (the year in which Hard Knocks was with the Bengals); he played with one name during that year. If he had changed his name during 2009, then I would agree with you. But as a member of the Dolphins, he played with two names, it is appropriate to mention both names in this section. Smike, we both end up mentioning both names in one sentence once. Since he was always Ochocinco in 2009, it should have never been made part of the Bengals section in the first place; that is, it was and is inappropriate to mention both names in the Bengals section.

You also mention user confusion when clicking on his name. I doubt it. Both links direct to the same page, and the first sentence in the page provides both the names Ochocinco and Johnson.Television fan (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Wide receiver Chad Ochocinco's antics and catchphrases. (Named Chad Johnson as of 2012.)"

This sentence should not be appearing under the 2009 Bengal section of the article. See discussion above. He was not Johnson as a Bengal in 2009 -- the year of Hard Knocks in Cincinnati.Television fan (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Smike, your statement is not correct. He was called Ochocinco at the time he signed with the Dolphins.Television fan (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please do not reply to statements out of chronological order, or reply in the middle of someone else's previous comment, or create new sections if it's still the same topic. Second, my statement was correct, as I was referring to the event in question: when he was released by the team.

Third, we must include the sentence in question so that people know who we're talking about. His current name is Johnson, and while a user can click on his page to discover that, they should also be able to continue reading without clicking the link. If we're going to call him Ochocinco, we need to make sure the reader knows who that is.

And finally, Chad was never Ochocinco in the 2012 Hard Knocks - he was Johnson for the entire length of the season. So why even mention it in the Dolphins section? There's really no good reason. I recommend you remove it, but I'll leave that up to you and the other editors. Frankly, I don't care either way. As I mentioned before, as of this version of the page, there were no more issues with his name in the article, and I was hoping that would be the end of it.
- Smike (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I had no idea you cared about this topic, and I'd be happy with going back to the way it was in the version here & here, where each section briefly mentions his two names. The only person who had a problem with that original compromise in the first place was user 86.143.96.201. What do you think, Television Fan?
- Smike (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

When I made that edit, I hadn't considered that he appeared earlier in the article, so it might be confusing. I agree both names should be mentioned, once, probably in the Bengals section, but I'm not too stressed either way. --86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm cool with each section briefly mentioning his name.Television fan (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, so it's settled then. The only two minor changes I made were italicizing his last name and making "his name was changed back to Chad Johnson in 2012" a stand-alone sentence, as it's a separate informational remark.
- Smike (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this isn't settled yet. Anonymous user, do not remove the italics. They are an accepted standard in highlighting a changed word.
- Smike (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want to highlight a changed word? Because readers won't understand which word has changed when we say Chad Ochocinco changed his name back to Chad Johnson, unless we highlight it? Nonsense. Where is this "accepted standard" documented? Is it a Wikipedia policy or just something you believe to be a standard? --88.73.223.116 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Italicizing is one accepted standard for highlighting a changed or emphasized word, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. There are other ways, but this article tends to use that method. It's used in this case for consistency with the rest of the article. There's no good reason to remove said formatting, so please leave it the way it is. If you continue to change it without providing an alternative, I'll simply change it back.
- Smike (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware that italics are used to emphasize certain things. I have no idea, however, why you think this word needs emphasis, because you have failed to explain why. Again, do you think readers are not clear on which word has been changed? Will they confuse the words Ochocinco and Johnson if we don't use italics? Should we change the opening sentence of this article because readers will struggle to work out what's changed?

And italics are not used consistently throughout the article - the Dolphins section, when mentioning the same player, contains no such emphasis. How many readers do you have been confused by this oversight? I'd guess zero. --86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't possibly be concerned about the use of italics for this. It's obviously appropriate to emphasize his changed last name in a brief, parenthetical mention like this, and I agree that the next Johnson should also be italicized. Go ahead and do that. If another editor would prefer these words unitalicized, then I'll yield to the consensus. That's fine with me. As far as people with changed names in the intro, it's standard practice to either bold or italicize that text. In the body the changed name is often simply italicized, either in full or in part. It's obviously more specific to only format the changed names, but not if it is emphasized using bold text, in which case the full changed name should be formatted.
- Smike (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hard Knocks (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705151632/http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/sports_32nd_winners.html to http://www.emmyonline.org/mediacenter/sports_32nd_winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All or Nothing

is there a page for this show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)