Talk:King of the Nerds

	Television portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Elimination Table[edit]

The way this is set up seems very muddled with too many categories perhaps three, Team win, Geek off win, geek off loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.162.178 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "Low" is a poor choice of words for someone who won a Geek-Off. That's probably a carry-over from reality shows where the people with the poorest performances are up for elimination, but that's not always the case here. I'm just not sure what better descriptor there is. -WikiFew (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "RISK", instead of "LOW"? Similar to what The Glee Project used? WANI (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than "low," so I'm going to update it for now. -WikiFew (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of changes to help clear things up:

Remove the "WINNER" and "RUNNER-UP" categories entirely. The results will be clear at the end of the season.
Change 'WIN' to 'SAFE' since their status is safe from elimination.
Change 'IN' to 'BYS' as they were a bystander, watching the Nerd-Off.
Change 'RISK' to 'WON' since they won the Nerd-Off.
Change 'OUT' to 'LOST' since they lost the Nerd-Off.
Possibly group the teams by color, instead of interposed?

Is there any way a spoiler tab could be set up to contain this table? I ruined Season 1 by scrolling down, before I could even see the episodes. Or even reverse the table, so the winner is the last entry seen, giving one the opportunity to stop scrolling... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.136.135 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not employ spoiler warnings, per WP:SPOILER. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil's Age Discrepancy[edit]

The Virgil Griffith page lists his age as 29, with his date of birth as 6-Mar-1983, citing the Notable Names Database (NNDB).

This page lists his age as 28, citing an article on The Futon Critic website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.17.95 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB is not considered a reliable source, as per these three discussions that have taken place at WP:RSN: [1], [2], [3]. Since I've seen Futon Critic used as a source across many TV-related articles, I would go with that. There's also the Small Screen Scoop source already cited in the article, which probably got its info from TBS itself. Nightscream (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production section[edit]

Anyone else think the production section needs a copyedit? Most of the information in the section is a direct copy and paste from the reference listed, which is a copyright violation, no? In addition, the information in the section is describing the series rather than talking about actual production. There's a sentence about that goes on in the first episode, shouldn't that information be included in the first episode section? --Recollected (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw this after I removed the content. Yes, it was a copyright violation,so couldn't stay. I'm not too worried, though - after the first episode the show looks like fun, so I expect the article to develop well. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've eliminated a phrase suggesting that Jon took no direction from Virgil during chess. I have a source which says otherwise: Episode 1 commentary Corydon76 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC of warnings posted to violator of WP:BLP[edit]

[The following involves uncited claims of alleged last names. If no sourcing supports them, there is no confirmation these names are real. False last names have been entered into reality-show articles on Wikipedia in the past.]

At 67.142.130.18

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to King of the Nerds. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to edit-war over this, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At 67.8.25.186

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to King of the Nerds. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and in this case violates the policy at Biographies of Living Persons by adding unsourced personal claims about living individuals. If you continue to edit-war over this, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Mackey's profession[edit]

While some of you may feel that the article does not accurately represent her profession as a YouTube personality, the sources listed do not actually reflect this. The articles sourced refer to her as a "[g]ame reviewer who has more than 100,000 subscribers for her gaming vlog". I propose that we use "gaming vlogger" as a compromise between both sides, as the term "YouTuber" does not actually exist in the accepted English lexicon (while vlogger and blogger do), and this does still accurately describe what she does. If the term "YouTuber" is non-negotiable, then we will need to find a source referring to her as such that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR.

I also propose that we protect this page, since I can only see this getting worse. --Zarggg (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a veteran of other WP reality show TV editing wars: we should only use information as presented by the show at the time of filming - in other words, on screen chevrons or descriptions, and press/media provided by the producers of the show at the time its broadcast. What might be the case "off" the show is not for us to interpret; though we can include such information if there are articles from RS after the fact that assert that. --MASEM (t) 07:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "edit war". I see one anonymous IP editor who was violating policy, and has now been blocked for it. Reverting policy violations isn't an "edit war". Nightscream (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Corrections[edit]

Switch "Genevieve defeated Virgil 1,100,000 to 1,129,000." to: "Genevieve defeated Virgil 1,129,000 to 1,100,000." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshaiku (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo[edit]

I know this doesn't really matter, but I just wanted an opinion on this. I'm looking to upload the logo for the article. I'm just not sure which one is more appropriate. There's the block letter logo used on the main website ([4]), and then there's the shield version of the logo used in the show's introduction and when the show cuts to commercials ([5]). Any thoughts? WANI (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that the first logo is the newer one for S2, compared to the shield logo for S1. From a WP standpoint, the first one would be a free image (it is simple text and font, ineligible for copyright) and would be preferred, but we also want to use the more accurate one. Until we see S2 air and confirm which logo is used, upload the first one as a free image and then we can change back when we have S2 to check. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on this topic, should I upload the other version of the logo? WANI (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last names[edit]

As has long been established in reality-show articles and in WP:BLP, we cannot give purported last names of contestants without reliable journalistic sourcing, such as hometown newspaper articles and reputable national magazines. Wherever the purported names here came from — and there were falsely cited to a source that did not give their last names — we can't include them unless they come from such reputable sources and not mirror sites or self-published sites that seem to have copied the uncited names right off this Wikipedia page. Let's please treat this as an encyclopedia article and not fan page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty...well, after some searching, I could find individual sources for most of the cast (not all of them). I found a recent Forbes interview that includes all of their last names; however, I'm not entirely sure if it counts as reliable, and the names are only found in an image caption ([6]). Thoughts on this? WANI (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Forbes is certainly a reliable source, and the same people who edit the articles sign off on photo captions. The Jan. 23, 2014, date concerns me, since that may mean they took it from the Wikipedia page, but there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia-guideline reason not to use it. Myself, I'd only use it for names not already otherwise cited, as you seem to be doing.

And let me compliment you on your work scouring the web and digging in to help make the article more encyclopedic! I've personally seen instances where incorrect or evan vandal-falsified last names have gone in, so you've done some important work. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate Page For The British Version[edit]

Since Its Airing July 12,2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.91.98 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on it in my sandbox. I'll set it up soon. Wani (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on King of the Nerds. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King of the Nerds. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140626011402/http://www.tbs.com/shows/king-of-the-nerds/ to http://www.tbs.com/shows/king-of-the-nerds/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]