The show barely merits an article, and then there are articles for individual episodes! I could just feel my brain trying to seperate from my body as I tortured it with the first few words "20 to 1 is an Australian television series ... that [sic] counts down Australian television's most defining moments". At the least, the article should be objective about this trash and read something more like "20 to 1 is an Australian television series ... which presents a top twenty of scenes and incidents in Australian television". Or some such. I have to go shower now. --220.127.116.11 06:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Luckily Wikipedia articles must follow NPOV and you dont have free rain on articles ;) Mike Beckham 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that the wording as it currently stands is MORE neutral than my wording? Mine is probably more clumsy, but the present wording reads like an advertisement. "Free rain"? Sounds like a good thing, these droughts and whatnot... perhaps you mean "free reign". The only reason I don't bother is because of previous experience making helpful and good faith edits to a different TV show article and being faced with an oddly fanatical group of editors who blindly reverted my edits, claiming it was "their" article. --18.104.22.168 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to participate in a childish argument with you but from what I see it follows the NPOV guidelines. Mike Beckham 05:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the anonymous user will find it is "free rein". -Bricks J. Winzer 07:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the IP here, it does read like an ad. Why are all the episodes wikied when only some have a separate article (the "Magnificent Movies" episode for instance, redirects back to the main page). I question the notability of individual episode pages. Also, a question: at Films considered the greatest ever it says 20 to 1 is voted on whereas the show gives the impression that their selected by someone at channel nine. Which is correct? --Aioth 12:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The references in Films considered the greatest ever have been removed, but to be fair if anyone knows anything about the show and its selection process in particular which would make its claims more than light entertainment then please help. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"...it is one of the television specials to mark 50 years of television in Australia." No, it isn't. It began a year before the 50th anniversary of television in Australia, and it isn't a television special. Cyril Washbrook 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result of the discussion was to redirect all of the episode articles to this page's list of episodes.
The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.
Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.
This is a rather new review this time, since these are non-fictional episodes for the TV show 20 to 1. While all the content is technically taken from the real world, and for the most part the events listed in these episodes are notable, I'm not sure the individual episodes for this show are notable.
In other words, the events listed being notable or not don't establish notability for the episode itself. We have TV shows like this all the time that list off real world events, and people like to watch them to learn about the events or to remember the events. The concept is what makes the show notable, not individual episodes. It would almost be like making an article for an individual review of a movie. The comments about these things, the episodes, need to show their impact, if they have any.
I recommend redirecting or even taking this batch to AfD, but lets see what the discussion brings. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of tough. Many are going to say that these are more than articles on episodes, but rather a set of top 20's. The problem is that if we did every top 10/50/100 of something, then we would have masses of articles. I think these lists would be indiscriminate collections of information. As such, coupled with the fact that they are not notable, and the only source is a primary source, they should be redirected.
The only problem is what to merge them to. We can't really list every top 20 on the main article page. The only way to do it would have other related pages, and the logical way to organize that would be per episode. Personally, I don't think the lists are all that influential, and really don't need to be kept. A list like AFI's top 100 movies of all time is an influential and well respected list. These aren't. We might be able to keep one or two for examples on the main page, but other than that...I don't think they should be kept. I(said)(did) 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We could have an article called 20 to 1 lists or something like that - merge all the lists into the one article. That could end up being fairly long though. RogerthatTalk 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it would be 630 entries long. But really, why do these lists need to be here? Again, lists like AFI's are relevant, because they're widely known and people actually put stock in them. Whereas these are really just a television show. I(said)(did) 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe these lists are notable. We should not record them at all in WP. And individual episodes of this series should not have articles. We do not know how these lists are collected, how many people voted, and there's no real way of evaluating if the data collection, sampling methods, etc follow any accepted survey instruments or procedures. Format 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Heya, about how those lists are collected, there's a list of the top 20 of each episode here. However, I'm not sure if it covers every single episode from the start. - Vicer 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above link is a list of episodes of the series. I was talking about each episode's top 20 list. My questioning of how those top 20 lists were compiled (ie. was it a survey of viewers, a poll of those in the Channel Nine canteen at the time, arbitrarily made up by a researcher based on what they felt like putting in the show...?) is in my opinion relevant given the lists are reproduced in WP. I mean, if WP is actually reproducing the entire list, it would probably be a good idea to try and confirm how the list was compiled, and based on what data and criteria. Format 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The top 20 lists are in there. You need to click on the orange headings that say "20 to 1: Whatever whatever". This is all I'm going to contribute to this discussion as I don't have any more to say. - Vicer 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for not checking properly. Since the lists are all there, why do they need to be copied from there into WP. And wouldn't it be a copyright violation? Format 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yikes! These are the episodes minus their commentary. They should be redirected to the main article and we should not add the sub-lists to the LOE there. Somebody, please, where's the policy about Wikipedia not participating in viral marketing campaigns? --Jack Merridew 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to say, as one of the early editors of the episode lists, I felt that the lists may not have been notable, but the entries highlighted articles that should exist (i.e. the list entries are likely to be notable, and not just because of their presence in a 20 To 01 list).
Perhaps they could be kept in a Talk page or in User space... Mark Hurd (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
They were deleted for good reason. There is a link to another site that provides those lists: we do not need to store them in WP too. Format (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to remove two sarcastic commens about the content of "20 to 1" and was immediately reverted. Surely personal opinions are the metier of wikipedia. Describing celebrities as "celebrities" doesn't help the tone of the article. If you don't like the word 'celebrity', then why not find another? Describing the host's comments as corny is surely objective - unless it's been described that way by another reputable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)