Talk:Nova (American TV program)

message: I would lov to add a complete episode list (as well as air dates and synopsis) of this great show to wikiworld but I am unable to locate a complete list. Does anyone have a source? I'll put it together. Pattersonc 07:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NOVA site at PBS has a listing. Qutezuce 07:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode list

message: NOVA is always spelt with all letters capital. 210.130.156.127 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but please do not change the comments of other people. Qutezuce 02:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * THIS is my addition. Where does it show me changing YOUR comment? Pattersonc 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, my comment was not directed at you. There was an edit conflict between when I added my comment and when you added you comment, causing my comment to remove your comment. I was refering to this edit. Qutezuce 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Now it makes sense. Editing someone's non-offensive post on a discussion board is pretty rude.
* After a little research on the NOVA webpage i was unable to find even one incidence of NOVA written with only the first letter capitalized. I am going to alter the page to reflect these changes. Pattersonc 02:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the above user's change didn't stick, because the current version of the article styles the name Nova in the article text (though it be all-capsed in the article title).  One or the other must change, and stay that way, for consistency.  For now I'll be bold and change the article text to use the all-caps version.  If there is controversy about this change, let's hammer it out in discussion here per citeable evidence and pertinent guidelines; no need for a revert war.  Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) strongly suggests that the official spelling of trademarks like NOVA instead be written as Nova. As well, a different section of the MoS suggests that article titles also follow the same convention. That said, I don't think there should be any controversy. Even though I actually prefer the current article title and the edits you've made, I agree with you that consistency is more important, but that should be across the whole site as per the MoS and not just within this article. What I suggest happen is that your edits be reverted and the article moved to Nova (TV series) which already exists and redirects here. The fact that the logo is included in the infobox should help to demonstrate the official style. If that's not enough, perhaps the first sentence in the article could be used to further clarify this situation in the same style as the Time (magazine) article. Sarilox (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects within a few more days I will take this course of action suggested by Sarilox (move page and alter text to lower-case title). Robert K S (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, just waiting for page move by an admin. Robert K S (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization consistency

message: I removed the statement "NOVA is the most-watched science television series in the world." Does anyone have a citation for this? I don't see anything to verify this. --Dr. WTF 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOVA's website Boringguy 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most watched?

message: Oh yes I do, 128.151.32.169 (some ignoramus at rochester.edu it seems). I knew Ambrosino rather well in those days. However, I don't go in for revert wars. El Ingles 21:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "You don't know how he felt"

message: Are they gonna make an episode that covers the whole redefinition of planet and all the drama and science that ensued from it?--Sonjaaa 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New planets

message: Please note that the theme at MyThemes.TV wasn't used until the third season. I have a video of the second season episode 'War From the Air' which has a different theme. The theme was replaced in 1981 with a new computer animated open. Boringguy 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening theme

message: WP:MOS-TM for a long time now has mandated that NOVA be written as Nova within Wikipedia, regardless of how it's actally written outside of Wikipedia. —Tokek 12:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MOS-TM and NOVA

message: The Dow Chemical Company is no longer a NOVA underwriter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.12.58 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOVA Underwriters

message: :Image:NOVA logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NOVA logo.jpg

message: Hello everyone. I have replaced the logo with a clean and more legible SVG version. Hope everyone is ok with that Johnzw (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced Logo

message: Anyone know when NOVA first moved to HDTV? --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the switch to high definition? 

message: Certainly the page title should use full capitalization. Not only is it always referred to it that way in official sources, even WP editors on this talk page seem to prefer it that way, suggesting "common usage" is NOVA. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAPS revisited 

message: For the record, I agree with the proposition that this TV show (and Nature (TV series), as well) should be disambiguated with "TV program" rather than "TV series", as neither of these shows has any of "continuing elements" present in a true "TV series" – i.e. episodes are generally "standalone", and there are certainly no continuing "story elements". 
In terms of "U.S." vs. "American", Gonnym is correct that a recent WP:RfC result in NCTV (see here) deprecated "U.S." in favor of "American", so "American" is the correct "by country" disambiguation here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I just got approved for AutoWikiBrowser. How do I use it to change links across a large number of articles (such as Nova (U.S. TV series) to Nova (American TV series))? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think nearly all TV articles have already been moved from "U.S." to "American", and I would strongly advise against using WP:AWB for these purposes anyway – doing so without wider approval can actually cause you to lose AWB access, and the separate "series" vs. "program" disambiguation issue is actually controversial within WP:NCTV and is not considered a "settled" or "consensus" issue right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disabmbiguation of this article as per [[WP:NCTV]] 

message: What's up with the "Decoding the Weather Machine" section?  There is no lead-in or introduction that transitions into the section.  There is no explanation as to why that particular episode is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page.  It seems very out of place to me.
This content was added by Sgerbic in this revision in 2018.
I think that the section should be removed.  Does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be kept or removed?
-- Cin316 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, it should remain. If there are other reviews from notable persons published in notable places that review the show, then they should be added also. It's not my fault that no other editor has added content, it only looks out of place because more reviews haven't been added. We should be expanding these articles, not reducing the size because it looks "out of place". Sgerbic (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this. You shouldn't be adding sources that you have a COI with, and there's no WP:DUE weight to have a single episode reviewed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decoding the Weather Machine" Section