Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series)/Archive 1

"Safe", weeks three and four?
By our table captions, shouldn't that be "RISK" rather than "SAFE"? They were all subject to being voted off. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3)
We might need to have discussion about splitting or merge the article for the upcoming third season of the masked singer. The draft has been declined 3 times now and season 3 is only one month away. Rider0101 (talk) 1:08 January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Rider0101, User:Magitroopa, User:Heartfox - Do not resubmit the draft without first discussing it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m kind of confused right now. Can we not just copy and paste the draft to the actual article? I’m not sure about credit, but this shouldn’t even have been made into a draft when there’s already an article. Fox has now released info about the season, and numerous other sources have reported specifically on it... not sure why that was part of the decline of the draft. Can we just copy it and remove the redirect now, given it’s less than one month away? Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No visible improvement?? The references to the series’ self-published YouTube video have been removed and numerous other sources are present. There is absolutely independent coverage of season 3, and it has improved significantly since the last draft(s) were submitted. Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Survivor, Amazing Race, etc. already all have upcoming season articles and they premiere later than MS3. It is especially important to have an article as the premiere is the super bowl lead out and coverage will increase daily. It makes no sense to wait until the day of to create it. Heartfox (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that there definitely has been significant improvement to the page for the latest submission in comparison to all other previous submissions. The, "disruptive resubmission", is mostly by IPs/users who have no clue how Wikipedia works at all, that just want there to be a page that exists (as evident from one user on my talk page through both his IP and his account). As Heartfox has stated, other series already have upcoming seasons with pages, such as Survivor: Winners at War premiering on February 12, and The Amazing Race 32 which has no premiere date at all, and the page has been around since November 2018 (which maybe that page should be taken down?...) I'd also agree that it's especially prominent due to the Super Bowl lead-out program status.


 * I'd also like to point out that the disruptive editing/submissions have been going on for awhile on this article, starting off with Sentai01's persistence, despite not understanding what 'disruptive editing' even was in the first place. I'd say especially in comparison to then, the draft is in much better shape to be copy/pasted (or moved) to the season 3 page. Magitroopa (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft has now been rejected despite the fact there is significant independent reliable coverage of the third season. For some reason these sources have been completely ignored. A separate article is clearly warranted and is notable. There is no reason The Masked Singer should be singled out when the following shows all had mainspace articles before they aired (there are countless examples but these are only the reality shows on network TV that have premiered in the last few months!):
 * Dancing with the Stars (season 28): Mainspace (redirect removed) on August 20, 2019. Premiered on September 19, 2019.
 * The Voice (season 17): Mainspace on May 31, 2019. Premiered on September 23, 2019.
 * The Bachelor (season 24): Mainspace (redirect removed) on November 19, 2019. Premiered on January 6, 2020.
 * Survivor: Winners at War: Mainspace on December 18, 2019. Premiered date is February 12, 2020.
 * American Idol (season 18): Mainspace on May 19, 2019. Premiere date is February 16, 2020.

The only reason we're at this point now is because some IP users who haven't made any edits since decided to make a draft... and now that it's been rejected we're stuck until the season airs and it magically becomes notable according to the draft reviewers??? The reasons for rejection have been vague and do not take into consideration the sources which make it notable and the unwritten consensus (given the examples which I have listed above). This has been an extremely disappointing and regrettable process. Heartfox (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Remember there is no WP:DEADLINE, and there are also no brownie points for having the most or the fastest-in-mainspace season articles. Three weeks of waiting is not lot. Anyway, I shared my opinion about the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. – sgeureka t•c 11:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sgeurela, for replying. I read your comments and I appreciate hearing an outside perspective. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this situation is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. – sgeureka t•c 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Panelists vs. Judges
Given that the panelists actually do vote for their favourite performance like the audience, I am inclined to switch all references from "panelists" to "judges" in this article because they actually are judging something. Any thoughts? Heartfox (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they are but 4-5 votes along with the studio audience (of about 100+ guessimate), I don't think its appropriate to call them judges; at no point do they have a sole voice (as 4 or 5) to the fate of the contestants or have a weighted input into how they are kept. Contrast this to American Idol or Dancing w/ Stars where those judges - while not the sold decider of advancement, play a significant role at many stages (in AmIdol, determining which acts are going into the final rounds; in Dancing, their scores having a large %age factor relative to the audience vote). --M asem (t) 18:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they are panelists, not judges. Refer to any of the episode listings over on Futon Critic, here, for example. They are referred to here as panelists and guest panelists. Most of the sources calling them judges are just other articles covering the show who call it whatever. Even the official FOX site refer to them as panelists, not judges. I don't really watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, but I have seen enough of DwtS to know that they are judges who are legitimately 'judging' the performance. Other show I would personally refer to would be America's Got Talent, where they are legitimately judging/critiquing the act. In TMS, I would say they are moreso commenting (rather than judging) and guessing. So yes, these should remain as panelists.
 * Interestingly enough though, from what I remember of watching the British version, some of the bottom masks are chosen to be safe/eliminated by the panel, I think (?) in episode 6 for example. Magitroopa (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great points, . FYI, I just recently added a source from TVLine in the Filming section where executive producer Izzie Pick Ibarra said the panelists' votes are weighted 50% and the audience 50%! The voting process appears to be more Dancing-esque than first believed. Heartfox (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, but I would not still call that function a "judging" function since we're never told how they vote. I agree with what Magitroopa is saying - go by how the RSes are calling them which is "panelists" and a more apt description of their function. --M asem (t) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aftershow
This section definitely needs a fixing, with all the white space there due to the infobox followed by the viewership table. I really don't think we need the infobox anyways, despite how they may be stating that it's a new series... note how it's listed in the main Masked Singer series on Futon Critic and Zap2it, with the episodes added on to the main episodes, not an entirely new/separate series- the official site also lists the first episode as part of the series, not an entirely new The Masked Singer: After the Mask series. Only problem would be how FOX's PR site lists it separately, but there's only a few images + the premiere date. An infobox really shouldn't be necessary for this... Magitroopa (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the infobox. Heartfox (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if I had known you were seeing a giant white space I would've removed it earlier! :) Heartfox (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even 100% sure if the information we have regarding the after show is enough to warrant an entire infobox, even if it is a new series. Either way, here's what I had on my computer, and here's what I had on my laptop. Magitroopa (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Image Possibility
Does anyone think having this fair use image or a similar one in the set subsection (or elsewhere) would be beneficial to readers? Heartfox (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, no since it would be adding another non-free image to the article. It's more of a nice to have rather than actually needed. However, if you found a free image then I wouldn't mind adding it and removing the Television City Studios picture. - Brojam (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Critical response rewrite reversion and WP:OWN accusation
I am extremely disheartened to not only have what I have been working on for hours during the past week reverted within 5 minutes by —but to be accused of WP:OWNERSHIP of this article for adding it in the first place.

As I wrote in the edit summary, I have been reading past good article nominations and noticed that the reviewers occasionally noted that the critical response section would be better formatted into sections of specific content and that it was OK for critics' names to be used more than once. After reading that and believing it would be beneficial to do the same thing for this article, I began doing so in a sandbox.

The critical response section (and pretty much the entire article, given 92% authorship per Wikiwho) has been greatly expanded and rewritten by me to its current form. No one accused me of WP:OWN. Style issues and other things were dealt with without major conflict. Now that I have wanted to rewrite what I had previously written into what I believe is a better form—everything is reverted.

I find the accusation of WP:OWN offensive. I absolutely refute this and I honestly wish MORE people would edit this article. You think I want to be the one who always wants to expand stuff? I mean yeah its satisfying but having a lot more others contribute using their expertise would be wonderful. I greatly value the contributions of all other editors on here and while we sometimes disagree, at no point have I ever just ignored what they say and reverted everything they do. As you can see in the edit history, sometimes my edits are undone and I agree with the undo!

As you can see on this very talk page, I have even requested other editors opinions before making changes.

I am hoping that others will agree with me that this rewrite (or at least some form of it) would enhance this article and that we can get a consensus on it.

Again, I did this because I thought it would help this article achieve GA status (as others have done so in response to GA reviews)... not because I think I own it. Heartfox (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All I did was split the critics' reviews that were already there into different sections (as other articles do) based on their specifics (e.g., about the costumes, about the concept), and added a few new reviews. I'm really trying to understand what is so radical about this... the only thing I would say justifies the reversion is length (even though I disagree as other articles have review sections of similar length (e.g., Grey's Anatomy) and reality shows aren't reviewed on a season-by-season basis so things have to be compiled together)... but then specific stuff could have been trimmed instead of reverting the whole thing. It's incomprehensible to me how one could consider the current version better than the rewritten. Heartfox (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When the good article review comes in and theoretically if I nominated it for featured article, I'm pretty sure the review section as is would be considered unsatisfactory. But OK... lets just keep as is because I am apparently asserting too much ownership over this article -_- Really, that's the argument?
 * I'm actually glad about this because it has taught me a lesson to listen to the feedback of people outside of Wikipedia. Recently on a Masked Singer Reddit post, many fans of the show noticed that the article has been greatly expanded and were thankful for learning new information about the series that I had compiled. "I'm just curious who added all this information. Very interesting! I always like reading about behind-the-scenes stuff. Oh and now I understand the judge/audience vote percentage XD" ... "I'm very grateful for whoever did!" ... THIS is what Wikipedia is about and why I edit. Unfortunately, other people have different intentions... Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think calling the OWN part is inappropriate, but I do agree that the expansion of the reception as much as was given is probably too much. It was to a point of "reviewing the reviewers" if you get my drift. Identifying in-depth how each reviewer took each part of the show, as called out, is really unnecessary for WP's purpose. We want to stress what generally was praised, what wasn't, what areas had mixed comments from reviewers for sure, but its not necessary to spell out what each reviewer in turn said about each; it should be the quotes that best summarize the positions. --M asem (t) 22:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, . I perhaps agree with you that it should have been summarized into major points better and not include every statement about everything. Do you think if I think if I work towards that and propose a new version in the coming days that could get consensus that would be okay? With your last point I'm not sure if you mean summarizing their opinions in quote form; I was trying to avoid that as MOS:TVRECEPTION says "reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible". Heartfox (talk)
 * Anyway you could put some of that stuff in the season articles instead to reduce the amount of content in the parent article? - Brojam (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cut some stuff out and added a revised version to the article; hopefully it's better than the previous. Heartfox (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

heads up on Nick Cannon
CBS has let Nick Cannon go after problems came up with his podcast this weekend. I have not yet seen FOX say anything, but I would be thinking a bit ahead in case Fox is considering this. (and just after the article was GA'd). --M asem (t) 03:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, Cannon has apologized for his comments on social. But we'll have to wait and see. - Jasonbres (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine executives who also control Fox News would tolerate what he said. Heartfox (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fox announced they stand by Cannon and are keeping him on as host. https://www.givememyremote.com/remote/2020/07/15/nick-cannon-apologizes-for-anti-semitic-comments-will-remain-host-of-the-masked-singer/ - Jasonbres (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If they're keeping him, any discussion of this issue belongs in his article, not here. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple sentences. Heartfox (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Not even one sentence allowed? There are several news articles related to Cannon and his status on the show. He is an executive producer. The network commented. His leaving or not leaving the show is certainly noteworthy. This is a significant occurence in the history of the show. How is this not relevant to the article? I even tried to make it neutral and everything... Heartfox (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see us not having anything. Any intelligent reader, knowing Cannon was fired from CBS, will come looking here about this show (as well his own page). WE can briefly address this, from Fox's standpoint as the broadcaster, but from this page, we need just enough context as to why this matters- in that explaining the speech led to his firing and thus why his hosting duties were in doubt. I've updated a bit from Heartfox' addition but I do not think we need any further detail on this on this page, any more detail goes to Cannon's BLP page. --M asem (t) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I 100% agree that most of the info goes in his page lol... it just seemed weird to exclude a major update to a section (not even the lead or something) regarding the "cast" of the show. My reverted revision did include more info :/ guess I should've just added the whole thing back. Anyways, I've done some minor tweaks and wikilinking. It could even be trimmed further when the fourth season premieres and just put stuff there... Thank you for using the word "affirm"—better than what I came up with. I believe he was fired from the entire company, not just Wild 'n Out, so I've adjusted that as well. Heartfox (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Creative Commons question
Hi all, this video was posted by Chaka Khan's official YouTube account in February 2020 under a Creative Commons license.

Also, this video on Vimeo was uploaded under a CC BY as well, and uses brief clips from the show. It's from a reporter with a Vimeo Plus account and used in a Fox affiliate's newscast.

I'm not sure how blurred the lines are regarding using screenshots from these... I don't think we can, but is anyone more of an expert on this? Just want to get this out of the way and consider all options. Heartfox (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate here. CC-BY in general allows a bit of fair use to be included, but for our purposes, we know the show is copyrighted, Chaka Khan isn't the copyright owner, so we can't use that as a "free" image here. --M asem (t) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Content addition input
Nick Cannon apparently pledged to donate his first paycheck from the upcoming season to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Do you think this could be included as a sentence following Fox's quote about continuing this conversation? via People and the center itself. Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)