User talk:KKokko

Letterkenny
Please be careful with your writing tone and sourcing. The article needs to read like an encyclopedia article, not like a marketing statement from Bell Media's own public relations department, and the references need to be to reliable and independent sources like media coverage about the show, not to Bell Media's own press releases. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The original quote which I posted - was the release that CraveTV announced "On July 18 it was announced that 6 new episodes would be released late 2017" Then today I changed "late 2017" to "Christmas Day"...  and I cited the new release that came out today that said that.... Are you saying that wasn't necessary...  I could just change it to Christmas Day and not show where that information came from??

Please let me know if you can read this as well BearCat - I think it is very important to note that the "small" show has taken a huge leap because they have joined with a big company...  Which will change the show frequency - increase budget - make more merchandise available...

I find this information the same (on a smaller scale) as The Time Warner Wikipedia site stating "On October 22, 2016, AT&T announced its intent to acquire Time Warner for $108.7 billion (including assumed Time Warner debt)." I believe that it will be a turning point for the show and to NOT state what is happening would be remiss.

Also if BellMedia (the company that owns CraveTV announces that the new episodes of the show are going to be released on Christmas Day - isn't that THE most reliable source to quote?

I am also not familiar with this "Talk Page" - so I hope you get this and are able to respond.
 * No, the most reliable source to quote is always independent reportage, never an organization's own press releases about itself — the notability of any given piece of information is not predicated on what a company writes about itself, but on what other media outlets — ones which don't have a vested interest in promoting the show because it's not their own product — do or don't consider relevant to report. Bell Media, for example, might issue a press release if they decided to change a show's title sequence — but if no media outlet cares enough to follow suit in reporting that fact as news, then we don't care about the fact either. Wikipedia cares about any given piece of information only if and when journalists care about that piece of information — any given fact is noteworthy and interesting to us only to the extent that newspapers consider Bell Media's press releases about it to be worth actually devoting their time and column inches to reporting as news. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

When stating that 6 new episodes are going to be released on Christmas Day - that comes from one place - the media that puts it on the air...  any other source would get that information from there....    HOWEVER, if Bell/Crave was reporting that "TV Show" was the funniest thing on TV - it is MUST SEE TV - and it is...  (a review from them) - I understand they are not reliable and should not be reported.

All I was trying to do was help... This is disappointing.
 * Reliable sourcing, for Wikipedia's purposes, isn't a question of where the information comes from, it's a question of whether we do or don't have a reason to care about it — and the reason to care about it doesn't exist until newspapers that are independent of Bell Media choose to devote their resources to repackaging the information into a piece of news. Why is it disappointing to be politely asked to source stuff to a newspaper article instead of a press release? Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What is disappointing is my belief that this is an open collaborative project. (Please note that you did not do this - You have been courteous to explain things).

But previously, I had posted something that was relevant to the show. It was something that I would want and expect to see on this page if I was looking for information. I took the time and posted it - and without any discussion it was taken down - because someone deemed it irrelevant. That doesn't sound very "collaborative" to me. I have better things to do then waste my time; however, I like this project.

I also do not work for Bell / Crave / Letterkenny - so I am not "pushing" their product. I am only trying to post what is important - but I believe from the comments I am missing the mark.

Do you not see how that is disappointing? KKokko (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)