Talk:Rectify

move back to disambiguation
"Rectify" is far more commonly going to refer to not this TV show. Therefore recommend remapping "Rectify" to disambiguation rectification page.--Xris0 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of original research
Listing themes (5/13): An editor deleted most parts of the theme section that consistenly references factual scenes in the series and uses the episode titles themselves as a gateway to the themes. I mainly wanted to list this on the talk page before insightful encyclopedic content gets removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounc123 (talk • contribs) I contributed most of the material you have deleted. I have a couple of comments. I politely disagree that it was atrociously written and ask you what style manual you would like me to go by or refer me to examples of similar material that meet your writing standards so I can see what style you are seeking. My original research consisted of watching the episodes along with thousands of other people and writing my thoughts about what I had seen. I don't claim to be some all-seeing oracle but I do believe I was in the right ballpark in identifying what the script writers were trying to get across in each episode. This is a section on "themes". By definition such a topic is going to be a matter of interpretation and not rock-solid verifiable facts. I think my input was serious, based on specific incidents on the episodes and was a valid starting foundation of material to submit to the group editing function by other Wikipedians. I had intended to come back and write more once I had rewatched the original three episodes. But if anything I do is just going to be flushed down the toilet as soon as I spend my time writing it, what's the point? How is anybody supposed to come up with acceptable "theme" content when the whole section is chopped down to a single sentence per episode with a single title link that has no attempt at deeper insight? I'm not going to fight this battle very far but I would like to see some sort of second opinion or mediation or something here. Just blowing decent material to dust instead of trying to shape it into something better doesn't make me want to contribute my time or text to Wikipedia. Oh, and Gounc - thanks for your encouragement and supportive comments. The thematic secret Daniel learned about his sister was her relationship with his lawyer when he unexpectedly opened the door. I thought Daniel's commentary about the door itself at that point was classic. rickyjames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sign your messages; it's really not that hard. No, I have removed that content again: it is atrociously written (not even sophomoric) and it is chockful of original research. It doesn't "reference factual scenes"--it guesses at analogies and meaning, and that's original research. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " I do believe I was in the right ballpark in identifying what the script writers were trying to get across in each episode" is pretty much the definition of original research. See WP:OR. And WP:V. I don't see how there could be mediation here because without any kind of sourcing there can't be a dispute. Find reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. This is the only subject that could conceivably be known as "Rectify" that has an article. A hat note suffice for disambiguation. Cúchullain t/ c 14:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rectify (TV series) → Rectify – Unnecessary disambiguation; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote to "Rectification" (the current redirect) should suffice. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - are there many other TV series, albums or films with a common verb as undisambiguated title? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question. Off the top of my head, I can think of Psych, Howl, Unwind, and Meddle.  I wouldn't call 'Rectify' a common verb, however.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the verb form should point to the noun form, in general. I'd also think moving "psych" and "howl" should be done. The winding/unwinding/wind/unwind etc articles are quite screwed up without hatnotes -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What policy are you citing? --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOUN (and "howl" is a noun, itself.) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOUN: "One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works."  --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First you'd have to determine whether the topic represented by the noun is the primary topic or not. It doesn't automatically follow that just because a verb form titled article exists, that it is the primary topic. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Rectify (TV series)" was viewed 210,646 times in the last 90 days. In the same period, "Rectification" was viewed 12,012 times.  I'd say there's a clear primary topic for the "Rectify" page.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support If I typed "Rectify" into the search box, I would be looking for information about something called Rectify, and for that there are only two possibilities the TV series, or the dictionary definition (for which there is Wiktionary). "Rectifying" (a redirect to Rectifier) or "rectification" would be entered in search for other topics. "Rectify" is only a related word for those topics, not a synonym. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is the only article titled "Rectify." Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there's no need to redirect it to an alternate form of the word while there's an actual topic by that name. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Individually listing annual critics' Top 10 lists: excessive and misleading?
The "Critics' top ten lists" for 2013 and 2014, listing 10 each year, seems way too prominent for the little information the section delivers, and overly promotional without context. The item selection appears arbitrary: are these all particularly important publications and/or critics (two and three out of 20 items are from the same sources: HitFix (3), TV.com (3), Huffington Post(2))? How many Top 10 lists of similar stature do not list the show? I checked the Metacritic source for 2014, which leads with a Top 20 chart, "TV Shows Mentioned on Most Critic Top 10 Lists - 2014," with Rectify at No.20, which as a reader gave me quite a different impression than the article tables - it would seem more balanced, accurate, and concise to use the No.20. --Tsavage (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)