User talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive 13

Move Page?
Is this enough to move "The Last airbender: Legend of Korra" to "Avatar: Legend of Korra"? Nick just opened a Message Board on their offical site that says "You'll find out when Korra comes to Nick this Spring, but until then, keep on top of all the Avatar: Legend Of Korra gossip, right here!" Source. Is this enough? If so, I would like to be the one to move it and change the information. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the original Avatar and didn't even know they were making this, so I don't know much about it and may have missed a few things. I don't think the forum (even though it was probably set up by Nick) is enough by itself to move, but it's certainly worth looking into.  I looked around myself and couldn't find much (this mentions "Avatar: Legend of Korra" in passing).  The Futon Critic and Zap2it, which I use most of the time, don't have any sort of listings at all.  I looked for an official website, but I couldn't find one (I may have just missed it).  The main reason I hesitate is because the logo on the Wikipedia page says "The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra", and it's image rationale states it was released from Nickelodeon.  Most sources I looked through (all from the Wikipedia "references" section) say simply "Legend of Korra".  I'm hesitant to make a definitive decision right now since there's hardly any sources at all supporting either way.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. I've been following, the title was Avatar: Legend of Korra but it was changed to "The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra" as some believed because James Cameron bought the rights to the name "Avatar" however the official opening of Episode leaked and the title was "Avatar: Legend of Korra." The screencap on the Wikipedia page is in fact a screencap of the official trailer which is posted on the Nick site. The message board is set-up by Nick (they post the section of each show and fans talk in that board) but that could be considered "OR." The show is coming this year. Nick has been talking about it since 2010 and is really keeping the fans guessing. I guess I can wait until a press release or something from Nick stating when it will premiere. No sites would have it listed as of yet as there's really no announcement other than what Nick has released and a "mid-2012" premiere date. I was just asking for another editor's advice as I was (as you were) iffy on the subject. So I feel a press release from Nick/the official website is up on Nick is a good time to see the actual name. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hopefully they'll include the title at some point in the title sequence, which in my opinion would settle it for sure if it hasn't been done by then.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems as though the title is still "The Last Airbender: Legend of Korra" as this is the official TV trailer: http://tv.ign.com/articles/121/1219419p1.html. Maybe Nick has a hard time choosing a name? Nick and Disney are both confusing Networks from what I've experienced with them, haha. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Film Industry?
Kevin, I noticed while viewing your user boxes that you work in the film industry, what part? I'm thinking of starting a career in Film. Is this the right spot to talk about? Since this is a talk page after all. I didn't know if I could or not. - Alec2011 (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I used to have a sentence beneath it clarifying, but I guess it got deleted at some point. It's not really a career, but more of a strong hobby.  Mostly low-budget stuff, but we did get a theatrical release once, which was cool.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, Sounds interesting. So are you the music composer for the projects you do? I'm really fascinated by the behind-the-scenes part of film. I'm sure is a cool experience to even be apart of it. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I mostly deal with writing and directing. I have a friend who does all of the music.  Unfortunately, I have limited talents when it comes to that sort of thing.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. I misread your Userboxes. I'm trying to write but it's a little tough. But I'm sure that once I do get some inspiration it'll come to me. I think that is pretty cool as well. Being able to direct something and having your say in how it turns out is pretty awesome. Do you ever direct things you've written or helped write? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hey, sorry I forgot to mention this. I finished three of your GA Reviews, and the articles are close to passing, they just need some tweaking. Cheers!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks, I've read through the reviews and I'll try to fix everything as soon as I can.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Judges
Are you sure that's not his original name? I heard an interview where he cited the error early on in his career and he just carried it along with him 71.237.161.31 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

icarly
I put my own input to this issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Discussion_relating_to_the_RfC141.110.189.29 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

House (season 8)
Please explain, either on my talk page or the article's talk page, how it is considered a reliable source if I set up a Twitter account and tweet that I wrote every episode of House? Furthermore, even if Twitter were considered reliable, please explain how a link to a Twitter page that says nothing about House can be considered a reliable source for the article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give us the evidence that "The Twitter accounts linked to are confirmed to be those used by the creators or other people involved with the show." I could set up a Twitter account as "H. Laurie" and claim that I am the star of the show, but that doesn't make it true.
 * Again, please explain how a link to a Twitter page that says nothing about House can be considered a reliable source for the article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Someone asked them a question and they responded, or there were multiple tweets, or some other reason for not being specific in that particular tweet". So if I say that I saw a tweet on one of those pages two weeks ago that says I wrote all of the House episodes, that would be a reliable source for such a statement? Please let me know, because I'm ready to take credit for all of the writing. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And by the way, what do the pages linked in the article have to do with the official House Twitter page? 24.163.38.176 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answers simply are not adding up. You seem quite willing to accept anything that anyone says on Twitter (and even if someone says it used to be on Twitter but is no longer). If you're interested, I'm taking this to the article's talk page. As far as I can see, this is the first season that Twitter has been used to source the season's article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you put the words in your own mouth when you restored the links to Twitter that have nothing in them to back up the statements in the article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Episode Summaries
These summaries are not properly referenced or the authors own work. There are no references except in the episode titles which just point to other sites. The summary texts are just direct copies from other sites. This is not allowed. As the episode has not aired, there is no way anyone can write an Original Work summary. Any summary added will always be based on someone elses work and is COPYVIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're claiming copyright violations, but which sites are you referring to? I searched for each one on various sites and Googled the summaries, but nothing came up. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My point exectly!, you said that the summaries were proved to be accurate??? but you couldnt even find them so that defeats your argument. Following the provided links set in the titles does take you to a few sites where the summary has just been copied directly. Others do not site any reference for the texts. Unreferenced or copied summaries are not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that the episode has not aired yet and therefor no one could write an original review of the episode. The links provided in the episode titles take you to other sites that have summaries that the wiki users have just copied and changed a few words around (Wicked Queen changed to Regina). If the editor has not even seen the epidode how can they write a summary without just copying what someone else said on another site. We as wiki readers can not just take another sites word that the summary is correct as no one has seen the episode. You claimed that the sources provided showed the summaries to be accurate. On what basis do you make that claim when you havent seen the episode either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not meant to be a TV Guide, it is meant to provide factfull information about a selected topic. If you havent seen it, heard it, read it then you cant comment on it factfully. We dont put race results up before they happen, we dont publish football results just because someone thinks a team will win. Like wise with TV shows, until they air, any episode summary is purely speculation and not valid for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Still begs the question why you feel it is warranted or needed to provide these summaries to unaired episodes. What is the value to the wiki reader in seeing someones opinion of a future event. Why would you provide spoilers to fans of a show even if they may be press releases. It has long been custom not to provide summaries of non aired tv episodes. I fail to see any wikipedian value in providing summaries to unaired episodes, when as soon as they do air, other editors will remove them and write a Factfull and Original research version. All you achieve is to ruin the viewing pleasure of fans by selfishly providing answers to questions not asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The summaries are provided by the network, from people who have seen the episode. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again this confirms my position that the summaries are not original research by wiki editors but are based on press releases by network employees. As such these sources can not be considered to be NPOV and are not valid sources. Just like tabloid magazines have front page stories that are not really true when you read inside, the press releases are just teasers to get people to watch. These can not be considered to be an Episode Summary by any stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didnt say I deleted it because it spoiled the plot, I deleted it because it has no valid reference or source. As per Wiki Policy for unreferenced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're going to quote wiki policy to prove your point, you should put all of the test in and not just the snippet that serves your purpose. The part about deleting goes on to say " When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."


 * So explain to me how writing a summary which is based soley on an unidentified third party's perception of an even not yet witnessed by the editor; serves the encyclopedic purpose of wikipedia? or describes that event in a real world perspective? could possibly discuss its reception when its not be received or provide factfull reflection on its impact or significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

By original Research, I am refering to YOU OWN Words to an event that can be verified by a valid source.


 * The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.


 * Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

In this instance the only viable valid source wiould be the actual watching of the TV show itself. Once aired, the episode itself provides its own validation and reference. "Paris is the capital of France"! the episode once viewed becomes fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * how will this be any different after the episode has aired? It will still be a summary.

Because the summary is now based on actual fact. We have seen the episode and thus can not provide an argument for it not to be accepted. Futon Critic and other such sites are not Fact based sites and should not be used as reference for sourced material.

We can go round and round on this but I doubt we will reach a consensus, If it bothers you that much that you must have summaries for episodes that have not aired yet and have no valid source the so be it. I have better things to do and I can't be bothered arguing with you any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.37.100 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)