This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC 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
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
On the facebook website, the thumbnails for the full episodes have actually episode titles that we can use instead of simply calling it "Week 1", "week 2", and "week 3". Also to add in the original SKAM also produced by Julie Andem, the episode titles were always quotes from episode, just like SKAM Austin. VietPride10 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and well. That's a strong case for why those sentences listed in the episode descriptions are actually the episode titles. However, the episodes are listed as Week 1, Week 2, and Week 3 in their official titling on Facebook. Similar discrepancies can be found on other television pages here on Wikipedia such as A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series)#Season 2 (2018) where the on-screen title of one episode is listed as "The Austere Academy: Part One" but it is listed on the actual website/apps as "The Austere Academy: Part 1". Policy has been to follow how the network/streaming service lists the episode as being titled. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found that can support the notion that the episodes' official titles are what is now currently included in their description section on Facebook, they should be left as is. Have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't actually (please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb) as IMDb, much like Wikipedia, can be edited by anybody. – BoogerD (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @BoogerD: I was just wondering: I get that the lead section values brevity, but there's a difference between shortening text and removing information. I mean specifically Slate's review of the series. You wrote that "Removed what was essentially a rewording of what was already included in the body of the article" - Of course it was a rewording of the article's information. As I've understood it, the lead section should summarize the article and not fill in new details. I took what I had written in Reception and tried to make it as short as possible. Right now the lead makes it seem like the only discussion about the show was its instant viewership figures, but I would think the significant use of Facebook and omission/negative use of other social media would be notable criticism for a social media series. Additionally, you re-added info that "The first of these short clips was released on April 24, 2018" - we already state the air date of the first episode, which is something anyone can watch at any time. It is harder to go back and watch the individually-released first clips, so the specific date of the first clip is losing relevancy, even more so as the series gets closer to season 2. 46.9.64.129 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been approximately three days without a response. There are many potential reasons a post doesn't get a response, but in this particular scenario, the user I wanted to debate with was specifically tagged and there has been plenty of time to post "Will respond a little later" if more time was needed. Since that hasn't happened, I feel it's okay to proceed with my edits under the thinking of "silence equals consensus". I acknowledge that it's not a policy nor a definitive conclusion, but it's the best I can do. If you disagree with my edit on the live page, please come here to have a discussion with me prior to reverting; that way, we try to follow civil discussion guidelines. I've been waiting three days to make the edit now, so even if my edit will be changed later, I hope any other user can offer me the same patience to have a proper discussion here. Thank you! :) 77.17.117.126 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have had a number of issues going on both here on the Wiki and in my personal life the last few days and accidentally let this fall through the cracks. After first reading your message here, I wrote out a few notes and intended on expanding on them later in a formal response but I must have just simply forgotten. Here are a few of them regarding your first message:
1. First off, I'd like to simply thank you for taking this to the talk page. I'm glad to be discussing this with you. I've been dealing with a recent spat of editors ignoring messages and refusing to engage in dialogue lately. These folks have often been ready to engage in an edit war without ever even entertaining the idea of working together. So, like I said, thank you for taking the initiative to come here and talk.
2. The lead section of an article should give a broad overview of an article. It should inform the reader of what the article is about and give them a gist of what is notable about the article. It should not just paraphrase what's in every section of the article.
3. Right below the lead is the article's table of contents. Most well-written articles have been split into sections and subsections. As everything in the article cannot be included in the lead, the table of contents functions as a means of helping users to find the section they are looking for or simply informing them it exists.
4. As it relates to the date that the first clip from the show was released: the date was re-added as it is important and as it is not included elsewhere in the article. This specific date is the time at which point the series really began in earnest. It is irrelevant as to whether it is "easy" to find the very first video as it historically began that day and will never retroactively change and it is verifiable as it is still up on the show's page. Lastly, the date of the release of the second season's first "clip" won't ever really be all that relevant but the date the first footage of the show was released to the public will always be important to the history of the program.
Sorry if some of these points sound a little rough. I had them sitting in a tab for the last few days and tried to flesh them out quickly in order to respond to your latest message. After looking at the most recent version of the article, I must say that it looks pretty good. I do intend, however, to make one or two adjustments based off of what I've said above. I hope you'll accept my apologies for my late reply and that you'll return here to discuss your thoughts on this matter. It's a pleasure editing with you. – BoogerD (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @BoogerD: This situation gave me the ultimate ability to express a few thoughts, so sorry for this becoming a long answer. Going to follow your setup with number-based points in my response:
1. I was actually active on Wikipedia for a few years on a registered account, but decided to quit the project about a year ago, only making some casual edits and trying to distance myself from the community, for a variety of reasons. I've pretty much abandoned all of the pages I used to edit on, with the exception of SKAM Austin and two others. The reason is largely precisely because of editorial disputes, so I fully understand the frustration about people not communicating. However, and I apologize if this sounds aggressive, you are currently engaging in a practice that is known for causing edit wars. If you read my previous reply, I waited three days (which is a long time in the Internet age when you are passionate about something) for a response before deciding to go ahead with my edit, and asked anyone to "please come here to have a discussion with me prior to reverting; that way, we try to follow civil discussion guidelines. I've been waiting three days to make the edit now, so even if my edit will be changed later, I hope any other user can offer me the same patience to have a proper discussion here". Right after posting your comment above, you went ahead and reverted the edit to the lead, giving me no chance whatsoever to reply. The reason I am stating it this way is to let you know that, for many people (including me), we edit about our passions, and we want the world to see what (admittedly we) think are the best versions of an article; when someone comes along and quickly changes the most visible parts of it, many become angry, frustrated, and immediately abandon the idea of peaceful discussion. I believe the ideal way is: when an article has a consensus on its status, and an edit comes along gets reverted, the user who got their edit challenged goes to the talk page to express their thoughts. That's what I tried to do. Either a discussion takes place that reaches a conclusion, or the infrequent matter of silence occurs, and after a period of time, the user re-adds their edit under the "silence equals consensus" guideline and that edit becomes the standard. Any user objecting to that must then go to the talk page and start a dialogue, but the live page stays at its standard until that discussion is over. Unfortunately, you skipped over that part now by immediately making changes. Aggressive or defensive users might have immediately reverted your edit now to illustrate that your version is technically the challenged one right now, but I don't have the energy nor will to cause any pain points.
2. That is definitely true, but in short articles, there is less material to cover overall. I was under the impression that as an article gets filled up, information in the lead gradually evolves to cover what is most notable, while it may as well cover as much info as possible in as little space as possible when there is little information in the first place. That, however, I am willing to concede that I am wrong about. Changes my personal perspective of the lead sections of every short Wikipedia article I have ever visited, but that may, if true, but my issue.
3. Again, true, but "Reception" doesn't really say all that much. I agree that anyone can scroll down to it, but I was also under the impression they should actually "ideally" not need to read the details in the article to understand the context around a show. That's my personal opinion, though, and I've disagreed with other policies in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that that is an established policy that I just hadn't properly "inspected", for lack of a better word.
4. OK, that part I agree with. That explanation convinced me, you're right. But if the date of the first clip really "is not included elsewhere in the article", it actually should be. It's notable, as you described.
With all that said, this type of situation brings back so many negative memories to my mind, having, at my most intense, been up at night to debate intensely with someone. I wanted my Wikipedia editing habits now to be purely casual, at best avoiding discussions altogether through non-controversial edits. That is difficult on Wiki, though, as quarrels quickly spike in talk pages. So I think, at least for now, my editing on this page is done. I hate to leave the lead as it is right now, as I don't really understand the reason for promoting two Norwegian articles in the lead, one probably clickbait and the other a debunk-article without additional, what I believe to be, more important reception information, but I yield. I can at least walk away knowing I've done some notable work on the Reception section itself, so I can feel good about that. I wish you good luck forward! 46.9.64.129 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your most recent message. While it is long, it is also clearly thoughtful and I certainly appreciate that. I haven't had the chance to fully read it all the way through. I'm heading out for a few hours but I promise to respond to this with the equally thoughtful response it deserves. I didn't want you to think that you'd have to wait another three days to hear from me. Please be patient and keep an eye out for my response later today. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
