Talk:Quality television

message: Hi, I object to the proposed deletion. Frankly, I find the proposed deletion very harsh, especially given the number of fancruft Original Research, unsourced articles out there that don't have a deletion warning. This article, though a humble stub, describes a term used in print and referenced in the article. 
Let me do the pitch... there's art film, which serious, independently made film that is aimed at a niche audience, rather than a mass audience; they often has an unclear or ambiguous plot, and explore a character's inner psyche. Now Ms. Thompson is arguing that art television is television that shares some of the same traits as art film.Nazamo 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is absurd; it cites Britannica, but the quotation has nothing to do with "art television" — it's about the art of television. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: More and more material is being added that is either completely irrelevant to or only vaguely relevant to the term "art television". --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Hi, I am adding more and more info to try and improve the article. The proposed deletion notice stated that it was like a rehash of a book chapter (e.g., Kristin Thompson). The Brittanica material was admittedly an addition of dubious value, but some of the new additions are on the topic. I have shown that several UK scholars use the term "Quality Television" to refer to many of the same programs referred to by Kristin Thompson. The new title for the article, "Quality television" is more defensible. Regarding Jason Mittell's suggestion that the information be integrated into another article, I note that there is no article in the television genre article list on quality television (or a similar topic, such as "serious television").Nazamo 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More and more info 

message: Currently, most of the quality television is anime, so I'm surprised there's no mention of it whatsoever. 95.181.12.52 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No anime WTF? 

message: The quotation in the introduction (For example, Kristin Thompson's claim that "quality television" programs include ...) is not from Kristin Thompson, it's from another Thompson. You can look it up here: http://davidlavery.net/Collected_Works/Essays/FFWSBtVS_Intro.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.212.104 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompsons confusion 

message: I tagged this article with quite a few cleanup templates.  Unfortunately, it's got many issues.  Here's a quick overview:
*Many of the references are dead.  See this report for details.  I'm not sure, but it looks like they're Google searches that have used as references.  Since they time out, I can't be sure.  I tried to extract the actual URL from one or two, but they didn't load.  I gave up in frustration and didn't try the others.  Someone needs to convert these into working, actual URLs, or they need to be removed.  The act-aet.tv link is also apparently dead.
*Some of the references that work are simply vague assertions.  This is not how references work.  Asserting that a researcher once used a term is not a reference; you must actually provide the source (book, journal, URL, etc).  I debated removing these references, but I ultimately left them alone, thinking that they might be salvageable somehow.  If nobody can come up with actual, real references, then they need to go, too.  The TV Guide citation is really very borderline, and I think it probably needs to either be filled out with issue and page, or it too needs to go.  Similarly, there are a few books that are half-cited.  They're missing lots of information (ISBN, page number, and even title), with entirely useless links that go to review sites.
*Of the references that are left, they're really not notable or reliable enough.  A quotation from a course syllabus?  That probably needs to go.
*Vast portions of the article go without a single citation anywhere.  They're full of original research and puffery related to what I can only assume are editors' favorite TV shows.  This article only just barely escapes being an example farm, though, now that I think of it, maybe I should have tagged it with that template, too.  It's debatable, but it might cut down on the useless pop-culture shout-outs.
*This article breaks almost every rule of the manual of style that I can think of.  I suggest that someone familiar with the MOS come in and do some merciless cleanup and editing.  I'll try to get around to it, eventually, if nobody else does.
I suggest recruiting some veteran editors and doing a rewrite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Flow (flowtv.org) is an online journal dedicated to this article's topic.  It may have some very useful articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially useful source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quality television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.kamera.co.uk/books/new_hollywood_cinema.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quality television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://studiegids.uva.nl/web/sgs/nl/c/6785.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070723172715/http://www.act-aet.tv/enapropos.htm to http://www.act-aet.tv/enapropos.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070723172715/http://www.act-aet.tv/enapropos.htm to http://www.act-aet.tv/enapropos.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to merge Prestige drama into this article. The section Quality television#Narrative complexity in television drama appears to be more detailed version of a "prestige drama" without the inline citations. Викидим (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal