Talk:The Wedge (Australian TV series)

message: This is getting messier...  It needs to be sorted now.  I removed the sentence that Sfacets says is sourced because the linked article says that the show was popular enough for a second season; it doesn't mention the apparent decline in popularity or just how popular the show was.  I'd also like to know why Sfacets has re-added two things that I removed from the "trivia" section; they were unsourced, and were tagged by somebody else that wanted references for them.  If references can be found and added, the "trivia" can be re-added at the same time, but it does not need to be there while there is no source for it.  JDtalk 07:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had removed the sentence without providing an edit summary. Also, according to wiki gudelines, unsourced content can remain in articles if they do not interfere with the article as a whole, which was the case with the unsourced content. If a user needs a little more time to find sources, then why not give him/her that time? Sfacets 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used an edit summary every time I've removed text.  The verifiability policy page says that  "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.".  A chance was given.  As I have said before, if a source is later found, the text can be re-added.  JDtalk 08:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More revert wars 

message: Now there's something coherent on the article, I think the average viewers thing should go.  The linked article was published in July, and there's nothing to suggest that the page has been updated since then.  The information is most likely out of date.  JDtalk 10:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average rating 

message: I think "In contrast to this result, " should be removed from the Reaction and criticism section.  It suggests that there is normally a link or pattern of some sort between the success of the show with viewers at home and with television critics, when this isn't the case.  JDtalk 09:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this since there was no discussion.  JDtalk 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The words that I thought we had agreed upon using are being reverted by Shaggy9872004 again, and I'd like to know why.  JDtalk 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we're back to this again, which is unencyclopaedic and incorrect as it speaks in present tense when the show's more than over.  JDtalk 08:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In contrast to this result..." 

message: The two paragraphs in the Reaction and criticism section should not be linked because using the word however means we're trying to say that the show remained popular with home viewers during its entire run.  The show got less viewers near the end of the season, so it must have already been "not well-received" by at least some of those viewers that stopped watching.  JDtalk 09:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point and agree with you.Shaggy9872004 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linking" of paragraphs 

message: Somebody has said that WedgeTel is not in India, but this and this both say that it is.  I'm hoping that somebody else can give a definite answer.  JDtalk 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: J Di, do you believe Network Ten, who hosts the show or Australia Television. The site calls the chainsaw guy, hard luck murderer and Mark Wary 'Mark Warey',which I can explicitly tell you is spelt like this, 'Mark Wary', from The Wedge's Official Site.Shaggy9872004 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything on the Ten website that says where WedgeTel is.  I don't have a clue what the rest of your post is supposed to mean.  JDtalk 19:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: J Di, the subheading says 'Call centre'.  Shaggy9872004 08:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said before, the website doesn't say where WedgeTel is.  JDtalk 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that's why it should be left alone.Shaggy9872004 09:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on this page have I said anything about adding back that they are from India?  JDtalk 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WedgeTel in India? 

message: I believe now that I found some positive comments about the show in it's first paragraph from the critics, we should change the title into either 'Success and criticsm' or 'Success, reaction and criticism' because with the new found info I got, some of the critics applauded the show for the success it had. Shaggy9872004 12:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section's title is fine; as I pointed out before, reaction and criticism are not both negative words and they aren't synonymous.  Could you also change "famous magazine" to the name of a magazine?  J Di 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the magazine is called 'Famous magazine'. My point to change the title is that: The section talks about the mixed success of the show, right? And it also talks about critics criticising the show, right? So why not the title to 'Success, reaction and criticism' or 'Success and criticism. It meets all the detail in that section.Shaggy9872004 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the "and criticism" then.  J Di 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we keep it as 'Reaction'? Shaggy9872004 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what would be left after the words and and criticism are removed...  J Di 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice discussing with you. *scurries off to change*Shaggy9872004 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the change of the title 'Reaction and Criticism' 

message: Too much bloat in this article - we do not need a section for every single skit in each season. --Tzler 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overbloat 

message: :Image:That's Valid.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:That's Valid.jpg

message: :Image:We're Moving.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:We're Moving.jpg