Talk:Man About the House: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:45, 29 May 2013

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Start‑class

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

39 + 1 short

What is the short referred to in the infobox, it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Paul 1978 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I added it with reference.--UpDown 11:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Radio Times is not a primary, nor an independent source. It's a media publication with a for-profit motive and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.210.225 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not read what the source actually is? It the "Radio Times Guide to Comedy", not the weekly magazine. Regardless for this purpose it is perfectly fine and well used.--UpDown (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not most publications have a for-profit motive? Even, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Should we disregard a reference in The Times, or in a book published by HarperCollins, because they are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox?Tsuguya (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Radio Times can be used as a source. It will have reviews of the show, comments from the creators and cast, etc. This can all be used here if referenced. Format (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst that is true it would be of no use for this series as it wouldn't be listed in Radio Times only TV Times.81.111.126.82 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Do not most publications have a for-profit motive? Even, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Should we disregard a reference in The Times, or in a book published by HarperCollins, because they are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox?[[User:Tsuguya|Tsuguya]] ([[User talk:Tsuguya|talk]]) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 ::Of course ''Radio Times'' can be used as a source. It will have reviews of the show, comments from the creators and cast, etc. This can all be used here if referenced. [[User:Format|Format]] ([[User talk:Format|talk]]) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
+::Whilst that is true it would be of no use for this series as it wouldn't be listed in Radio Times only TV Times.[[Special:Contributions/81.111.126.82|81.111.126.82]] ([[User talk:81.111.126.82|talk]]) 12:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)