Talk:List of The Amanda Show episodes

Re-creation of this article
List of The Amanda Show episodes was redirected to The Amanda Show as the result of an AfD in April 2008 because it was a copyright violation. In September 2008, The Amanda Show (season one) was created, followed in April 2009 by The Amanda Show (season two), The Amanda Show (season three) in May 2009 and The Best of The Amanda Show in July 2009. This has resulted in a somewhat peculiar situation. Normally, episodes would first be added to this article and when the article became too big (this hasn't happened yet) the seasons would then be split out to their own articles. As per Template:Episode list, episode information from the season articles would be transcluded to here but this has not happened. Even though this article was redirected, the "list_episodes" field in The Amanda Show's info box links here. When somebody clicked on that link it would return them to the beginning of The Amanda Show, resulting in confusion for readers. I corrected that, making it instead link to The Amanda Show, which contained a table that provides the only links to the individual season articles. This was not the ideal situation, which is that this artiucle should exist as an article and contain a complete list of episodes, either by transclusion or hard coded into the page. Which method is used ultimately depends on the size of the article. Perusal of the individual season articles showed that they contained only a basic introduction, infobox, basic cast information and episode tables. There was no additional information that justified separate articles for each season. Merging the information in the season articles back here resulted in a total article size of 43.6kB, or around 26kB of readable prose, using a very loose interpretation of the definition. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 40-60kB of readable prose. At only 26kB, the amount of readable prose in the restored version is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here, so only the main list article is required. During the merge and re-creation I corrected a significant number of errors and inconsistencies that existed in the separate articles. Many of the errors were concealed by the fact that there were four articles instead of one. With this article restored, there is no longer any need for the individual season articles. Consequently, they've all been redirected to the appropriate section of List of The Amanda Show episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS compliance, WP:CRYSTAL and original research
When I re-created this article I established section headings as per WP:YEAR which states, "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986)." For season 1, since 1999 and 2000 are in different centuries, this resulted in "Season 1: 1999–2000". Since 2000 and 2001 are in the same century this resulted in "Season 2: 2000–01" and season 3, being a single year, was "Season 3: 2002". WP:YEAR does say that the full closing year is acceptable, but acceptable (Barely worthy, less than excellent) means there is a better way to do it and the better way is as stated, ie "''A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits.

I also removed a note from the final episode that is uncited, appears to be original research and doesn't make a lot of sense: "'This is the official series finale, as this episode used a different laugh track than episodes 14-39 did (In this one, they use the same one heard in most current sitcoms) and the credits are longer in this one than any other episode. This may have been meant to be the fourth season premiere, but due to Amanda having to portray the main character 'Holly' in What I Like About You, filming of the remaining season 4 episodes may have been cancelled and this episode ended up being the series finale.'" Yesterday, the season 2 heading was changed and the note was added to the article. I reverted the edits, explaining why with what I thought were appropriate edit summaries, but they've been restored again.

Firstly, the heading is not consistent with WP:YEAR, as explained above. Secondly, it broke links from the season overview table. Pretty simple really. As for the note, it's uncited and original research and therefore should not be in the article. Breaking it down:
 * "This is the official series finale, as this episode used a different laugh track than episodes 14-39 did" - Having a different laugh track has no bearing on whether or not it's the series finale. It's the finale because it was the last episode. The statement does not make sense. Using the "logic" used in the claim, episodes 1-14 must also have been the series finale. That it has a different laugh track is not cited anywhere making it original research.
 * "In this one, they use the same one heard in most current sitcoms" - Uncited, original research
 * "and the credits are longer in this one than any other episode." - So what? This is irrelevant trivia at best.
 * "This may have been meant to be" - Speculative. WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."
 * "due to Amanda having to portray the main character "Holly" in What I Like About You" - uncited
 * "filming of the remaining season 4 episodes may have been cancelled and this episode ended up being the series finale." - Speculative

There is nothing in the note that isn't uncited, speculative or original research so it shouldn't be in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it says she had to play the main character in What I Like About You. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference is a blog and WP:SPS states "self-published media&mdash;including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets&mdash;are largely not acceptable." (emphasis added) --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While you may not be willing to discuss this, I am. Regarding this edit summary, as I have already indicated, the source is a blog and is not acceptable as a source. It certainly isn't a citation, and that is what is required in the article for that specific claim, which is not supported by the source you've used here. However, that is but one small part of the problem with the content that you keep adding. You have not addressed any of the several other issues that I have outlined above. There is simply nothing that can justify you persistently restoring this content to the article unless all of those issues are addressed. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This administrator agrees with AussieLegend's assessment of the text and is willing to enforce the removal of the text in question from the article—unless further discussion on this talk page presents new, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Part 2
Regarding this edit, there is no guideline that says WP:CRYSTAL, uncited original research has to stay in an article until an agreement to remove it has been reached. In fact there's plenty of policy that says it should be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And plenty of guidelines that say that if disputed/unsourced information is re-added, the burden of proof is on the editor adding back the text. I strongly encourage User:Donald Duck to explain why the passages should be re-added here before attempting to re-add them, and with more of a rationale than that they had been in the article for a year or more. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see here. It's been there for over a year, and now, all of the sudden, it's a problem?! - Donald Duck (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what part of "with more of a rationale than that they had been in the article for a year or more" is so hard to understand, but the length of time in the article is irrelevant. In any case, the information wasn't actually "there" for a year or more, it was in another article and when I rebuilt this article in June (only 6 weeks ago), because the episode lists were such a mess, it wasn't included for the reasons explained at length above, reasons that you haven't bothered addressing at all. That it wasn't picked up in the article doesn't justify its inclusion here, or anywhere for that matter. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who ruined the articles instead of leaving them like they were. You're making too big of a deal over this. It's the truth, and if you refuse to believe the note, then I'm done with you. 'Kay, thanks, bye! - Donald Duck (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing was a mess, with it being necessary to click on the "List of episodes" link in The Amanda Show that sent you to here, only to be redirected back to a table in The Amanda Show, from which you could click to find individual seasons. This is not how episode articles are organised. The articles themselves were a mess and needed cleaning to bring them to a reasonable standard. Separate articles weren't justified for a 3 season program and it was far more logical to merge everything back to one article. The article now is at least on it's way to being reasonable. The objection to the content you keep trying to add has nothing to do with anyone believing it. It has to be verifiable: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I'm sorry that you're not willing to collaborate and contribute productively to the article, but that's your choice. Just please, don't come back in two weeks and try to sneak the edits back in again. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)