Talk:Project Accessory

This article is a mess, even for a start-up article. There needs to be a simple key explaining the color coding of various competitors' status, reduced considerably from the six or seven colors used now. More importantly, it needs an introduction establishing notability written immediately in order to establish the notability of the latest in Bravo's endless line of cookie-cutter elimination shows. Less time spent on tables and fancy colors, and more on narrative is its only hope of salvation. Otherwise, the article is doomed. Drmargi (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The key somewhat improves the article, although HIGH and LOW should be explained. I removed the narrative plagiarized from LIfetime's website, which is also a copyright violation.  This article needs a narrative or it's a goner, and soon.  Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, the article needs an explanation of the competition and the elimination procedures. I've simplified the table so that it's understandable until such time as someone can be bothered to write a narrative explanation of the show and to add episode-by-episode description.  Until then, the rainbow of colors other editors seem to love needs to be pared down to what's understandable to the reader who does not watch the show absent any information other than the table and its incomplete key. Frankly, it appears to be an exercise in table-building by a couple editors who care about tables, not quality articles, and should be deleted.  Drmargi (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see some improvement in the article, although I had to remove what was clearly copyrighted content describing the first episode. The new explanations of the overly-complex color coding were harder to understand, absent any explanation of how the competition itself works, so I've restored the simpler key.  I continue to be amazed at the lack of interest in providing a narrative that actually explains what this show is, given this project is an encyclopedia.  Instead, there seems to be slavish devotion to constructing an entirely de-contextualized table of eliminations and outcomes.  It's a very troubling approach to this project.  Drmargi (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For your info drmargi I did wright the episode summary off the top of my head and did not copy it. Stop accussing someone of things if you don't have any evidence. I'm making the elimination tables look the same as Project Runway's so please leave it alone.Worstcook (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the grammar and spelling you use here, and what I saw in the article, I find your claim you write the summaries yourself hard to believe. You just changed a couple words from a copyrighted one.  As for the table, why not deal with the issue at hand, which is that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE until you write an explanation of the actual competition, get busy, and write a discussion.  That the table is the same as Project Runway is completely irrelevant.  It has to stand alone and it HAS TO MAKE SENSE.  You need a discussion of the competition to make the table make sense, something that, so far, you refuse to write.  Until such time as you do so, I'll do what is best for the article, which is to keep a context-free table simple and understandable.  The solution to the problem is in your hands.  Frankly, I'm about ready to put the article in for speedy deletion, given there isn't an editor who can be bothered to actually write, just you and your sock playing table-maker.  Drmargi (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Elimination Table
I think that the table should reflect the Project Runway tables. Althouhg it is a stand-alone series they conduct eliminations in the same manner. Drmargi i will wait for your reply before changing anything. Whatever you might think is best. I do incourage you however to review the elimnations for the first episode.Worstcook (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The elimination table is a problem only because you and the other interested editors who watch the show refuse to write any sort of explanation of the show, how the eliminations work, etc. that readers need in order to follow the elaborate table. What Project Runway does is irrelevant.  The table has to stand on its own, and right now, the simple version is all that a non-viewer, such as myself, can understand.  You need to invest some time and effort in writing the article, not just playing pretty tables; that's the point of an encyclopedia.  Tables are there to support and clarify narrative, not replace it.  Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ididn't know you were a non-viewer, sorry.Worstcook (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to the Article
This article still needs a lot of improvements. The discussion of the elimination is brief and requires the reader to be a viewer, it's so lacking in detail; it was put in place simply (and mistakenly) to protect the elimination table. An editor finally added an infobox, then removed the tags, feeling that was all that was needed to address the many issues cited. It's a start, but it's a long way from all that needs to be done to keep this article from being WP:PRD'd. At present, this is simply a fansite for a group of IP editors who want a place to keep yet another elimination table. That's not the point of Wikipedia, and if these editors aren't willing to put in the time and effort required to write an appropriate article, then Wikipedia should decline to host this fansite, and the fancruft within, and the article should be deleted. Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Drmargi why would you need to view this article is you are not a viewer. We are trying and instead of giving us a lecture about what to do, you could join us in making this article more efficent. I don't know about the other people who edit along with me, but I'm not as experienced in article making as you seem to be. I'm sorry if you feel the way you d, but you could at least compromise with us instead of fighting.Worstcook (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're looking at this as a fan, not in terms of the overall project. It's up to editors to improve articles in whatever way they feel it's needed.  You and your cronies are not creating articles; you're using Wikipedia as a place to collect elimination tables for your favorite shows.  You even save them in your sandbox, for heaven's sake.  It's not my obligation to be a viewer of the show because this isn't a fan site.  It's an encyclopedia, something that I doubt ever crosses your mind.  And as an encyclopedia, it has to be accessible to all readers, not just a group of fangirls.


 * This article continues to be a skeleton of what it could be because none of you are invested in the project, nor even aware of its goals, I would imagine. Editors like me, who aren't viewers, play an important role because we are quality control.  I'm monitoring an article that, at present, isn't up to the standards of the project.  I could have just AfD'd it long ago, but instead, I've been providing feedback that will help you keep the article.  But rather than seeing the value in that, you see me as some sort of threat to your fan game.  If that's your attitude, you leave me no alternative but to recommend it for deletion.  It's your choice.  Bring it up to standard, and damned fast, or it's gone.  Drmargi (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Coming in from the outside, pretty much, I hope I can offer a few suggestions to help. I think the biggest thing along those lines is to just ask that our rhetoric be not quite so heated. Fans of TV shows have passion, and so do those who volunteer to build this wonderful, free encyclopedia for all the world. We need both those things: Without passion, things don't get started and cared about with personal investment. Without overall Wikipedia editors, things don't get brought up to encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia really is the best of both worlds. The only trick &mdash; and it's not always easy &mdash; is to get everyone to realize we're on the same team and want the same thing: The make each article as good as it can be.


 * Obviously, methods differ. That's why going to the policies and guidelines derived from what are now years of consensus is such an important thing to do. Respecting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and treating it as you would a school paper that you really want to get an "A" on, is the way to go. And if the topic is something you love, then it's usually fun and not work to do that.


 * I'm sure Drmargi is just speaking out of temporary frustration when using terms like "fangirls." And I'm sure Worstcook, really, in her gut, understands that to make this article the best it can be that it needs citations from newspapers and magazines and such, to support A) plain old descriptions of how the show works and what it's about, and B) how it exists in the real world of ratings, TV-critics and the genre of reality-competition TV. I have no doubt whatsoever that Worstcook wants Project Accessory, as a show, to be taken seriously.


 * And what better place for that to happen that here, in an encyclopedia. Does that sound doable to you, Worstcook? Would you mind letting Drmargi help you do that? We all help each other around here; I know the editors I'm closest to are those who help make the articles that I'm most interested in better, and who let me help make their favorite articles better. Honestly, and I swear this is true, that's when Wikipedia works best.


 * Go take a look at Project Runway or other, similar shows, and see how those articles are. That can happen here. Just remember: Pretend that you're writing about it for the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Treat it seriously. And you will be so proud of the result, I swear. I hope this helps in some way. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Break in the action, recent revert issue, resuming above
Tenebrae, you were right about my intemperate responses, which could have been worded with more patience. But frankly, Worstcook and her pals' use of this article as a fan page, along with comparable issues on a number of other articles, has tried my patience to the limit. For them, the priority is getting the color right, when it should be getting the article right. In that, they evidence no interest. Regardless, I took what you said to heart and stepped away for a time. I came back and was very disturbed by what I found going on.

At the same time, I don't think anything is accomplished by the recent, aggressive and arbitrary removal of nearly all the episode content under the guise of it being unsourced content. I can cite any number of articles on elimination-style reality shows, including Top Chef, Next Iron Chef and Project Runway (on which this show is based), which source their content to the episode itself. I continue to battle with an error on Top Chef 8 where the outcome of the episode, as broadcast, is not reported because of what's stated on the network's PR website for the show. It's a troubling error, and in the considerable discussion, it has been repeatedly recognized that the seminal, and most reliable, source for televisions shows is the show/episode itself, a principle that applies here as well. As a result, I have restored all of the reverted content and am requesting we all take a BIG DEEP BREATH, and discuss the state of the article here. Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)