This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
@Waxworker I undid your reversion because you removed the entire pop culture section rather than flagging areas where stronger citations can be added. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waxworker I added an additional citation to IMDb. I also viewed a clip on YouTube to verify accuracy. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OiYoiYoink: - Fandom wikis and IMDB are both unreliable sources per WP:FANDOM and WP:IMDB as they are WP:USERGENERATED. If reliable sources don't discuss it, it shouldn't be on the article. Waxworker (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pop culture reference is self-explanatory... there are not many legitimate nude TV talk shows with midnight in their titles. Given this, I believe those sources are sufficient. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OiYoiYoink: - Per MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance". Reliable sources need to discuss the reference in depth, and IMDB and Fandom are unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will amend the text to make more supportable. Important to note that there is no reference provided in PTV to support the similarity to Playboy After Dark. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria what level of evidence are you expecting to cite for the plot of the television show? I had included a hyperlink to the wikipedia episode page that gave a synopsis (PTV), in addition to citing several sources. Also, are you also taking issue with citing the New York Post? Because I see you deleted the entire section. Please provide additional details. Thank you. OiYoiYoink (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OiYoiYoink, per MOS:POPCULT these sorts of sections need reliable secondary sourcing that supports not only that the reference exists, but that it is significant to the subject. A simple synopsis of the episode covers the former but not the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the context OiYoiYoink (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
