Talk:@midnight

Statistics

While I appreciate the diligence of maintaining the wins table, it doesn't seem that encyclopedic to me. The show is presented as a game show in order to discuss pop culture and internet trends, but is not a true contest that warrants competitive statistics (the article itself could do a better job of conveying this). It is much closer to Chelsea Lately than it is Jeopardy!. I think the "Most wins" table could be removed and the "Most appearances" table could be demoted to a bulletted list of people who have regularly appeared on the show (without maintaining a specific number of appearances). Thoughts? Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you take issue with this article then you must take issue with Around The Horn who has had statistics for a much longer period of time. Not to mention wins and appearances are in fact encyclopedic in nation. Encmetalhead (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen Around the Horn, but after reading the article, yes, I take issue with that one as well. I could still make the distinction that "who is the funniest?" (@midnight) is somewhat more subjective than "who makes the best argument?" (Around the Horn), but I don't see either one as a true competition. If we're going to play other stuff exists, I could point to Whose Line Is It Anyway? (and the American version) as other shows that assign points and declare winners based on the host's judgement of "funniness". For what it's worth, I think the winners and losers are appropriate for the list of episodes article as a documentation of what happened on the epidsode. But to me, comparing wins across episodes seems contrived.

Also, it looks like others have made arguments like mine on the Around the Horn talk page and the way I read it, the current use of the winners table in the article is going against the consensus. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Protection

This television show just requested users edit humorous information into the article, temporary protection may be necessary if any influx arises. 98.195.227.92 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Boo! You're no fun. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.97.226 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

AMidnight / amidnight / at midnight (TV series) & at midnight (game show) / At Midnight (game show) / atmidnight (TV series) & atmidnight (game show) / AtMidnight (TV series) & AtMidnight (game show) -- should redirect here. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable request. Done! JesseRafe (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Article name

It's @midnight it's the common name. It's a natural common name even if the longer name were used. Like "Sunny" for Always Sunny in Philadelphia, nobody would call it official, but it's a natural shortening. Even more so, many official or unofficial, yet inarguably prominent sources use only the @midnight, name -- in both text and in graphics/banners -- to wit: http://www.cc.com/shows/-midnight, https://www.facebook.com/atmidnight, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD7nPL1U-R5rDpeH95XsK0qwJHLTS3tNT, https://twitter.com/midnight, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3279494/. Kinda case closed, no? JesseRafe (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The long form is used on the show's title card, official TV listings, promotional material, Hulu, Google play, Newer videos on the fore-mentioned You Tube page, Google, the Comedy Central shop, Comedy Central press.

Even if its pretty well known as @midnight as the show continues association with the long form will break. Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Come again? JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple formal respectable sources that use the long form title, including the show itself, over time it will become more and more known with that title, making it the common name. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saying that doesn't make it true. What are they? And I can think of few "sources" more reputable as far as this is concerned than the show itself, its network page, and its multiple social media accounts. That said, you missed the point entirely, that even if the "with Chris Hardwick" were official, people would still just say "at midnight", who says "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" or "with Jimmy Fallon/Seth Meyers/etc" nobody uses those longform titles other than the TV guide. Leave it. JesseRafe (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I already listed my sources above. I even pointed out that your you tube source uses the long form on newer videos and that Comedy Central's website lists it in several places besides the show's banner. Also IMDB isn't a very trusted name on Wikipedia. Also The Daily Show is listed as "with Jon Stewart" virtually everywhere, its only recognized generically here because there was only one other host with a very short tenure before Jon. You watch, I wouldn't be surprised if they break it into 3 articles when the new guy comes to avoid an article with too much on Jon's tenure. And we do have separate articles for Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Short tenure? If three years is insignificant then @midnight shouldn't even have an article. Who said or cares if IMDb is a trusted name, the point is that what's the show is called. On its OWN Comedy Central page and its OWN social media accounts. You're unaware of its own branding as unaware of Craig Kilborn or how to spell IMDb, so why should you (who seems to be the sole editor moving this incorrectly) be the one who decides what article this should be under? Occam's Razor. Let it stand. JesseRafe (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with Kilborn's Daily Show not having a separate page, I did have anything to do with that, its just the reality as I see it. Wikipedia:USERGENERATED clearly states IMDB shouldn't be used as a reference. All websites shorted the shows name for Twitter handles, but we don't call Late Night with Seth Meyers "LateNightSeth" or Fallon's Tonight Show FallonTonight. And only one other editor contested this and backed down after my first counterpoint. It was this way for two weeks and nobody else said anything. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, worst reading comprehension of anyone I've ever seen. Goodbye! JesseRafe (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow what a civil mature response. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Right? Yeah, it sure is annoying trying to have a civil conversation with someone who can't even bother to read what you said. JesseRafe (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Treating me like shit from not capitalizing the "b" in the abbreviation for Internet Movie Database is civil? Because you know is so matters Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, you do have a reading comprehension problem! It's really cute, too. OK, bye forever, good luck on your PSATs next week! JesseRafe (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It was originally known as just @midnight. The subtitle was added recently. Subtitles are generally only used for disambiguation purposes. There is currently no reason to change it. And everyone needs to calm down and be civil. JDDJS (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Well-reasoned consensus to retain concise title. Hadal (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

---

@midnight → @midnight with Chris Hardwick – New long form title, used prominently on-air and in promotional material. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own "sources" don't support your claim. The shirt for sale at the Comedy Central Shop says "@midnight" not "with Chris Hardwick", the logo on Google Play likewise only says "@midnight", the press page for the CC site for @M also says its official site is just labeled "@midnight" and that OFFICIAL website also calls it just "@midnight", the Hulu name (seen in the URL) is "@midnight", the banner on the YouTube channel still says "watch episodes of @midnight on cc.com". I mean, c'mon, this is boring, what is your actual argument here? JesseRafe (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were done talking to me. I'm opening this up to other people who can debate cilivly and maybe make other points rather then saying the old title is used on social media over and over again. Grapesoda22 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension skills continue to shine! As you say I only say, "it's used on social media over and over again", did I even say it once? ONCE here? You must be being intentionally obtuse. These are your false examples. You quoted that the T-shirt shop, Google Play, Hulu (is that social media?) etc. said "with Chris Hardwick" but they don't. I clicked on your links which you provided putatively to back up your desperate claims. JesseRafe (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point that my sources go against my claim is ridiculous honestly. The shirt was made before the title was changed, but the banner on the shop uses the long form. The banner for Comedy Central's press site used the new title, not only that but it mentions the show by the long title in the first sentence. Hulu also uses the same banner, even with the old URL they still bothered to change the banner. And seriously you're really gonna make that argument with the Google Play page? seriously? Grapesoda22 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support or better still Midnight with Chris Hardwick per MOS:TM In ictu oculi (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it would be At Midnight with Chris Hardwick because the @ symbol is pronounced. However, I would disagree with changing it. JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• @midnight As this has the potential to have different hosts in the future like The Daily Show we should follow the lead of that article and I feel that should be reflected on the The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore article as well. Encmetalhead (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if another host takes over its still the common name in the mean time there's nothing to stop is from moving it back should that day come. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• User JDDJS weighed in in the above section to not move, and was the previous editor to move it over Grapesoda's spurious move. As the article and show were both originally "@midnight", what is the reason for the more complicated longer lesser-used name? Should France be replaced with the page "Republic of France", or "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"? There should be a reason for a move to an article namespace that most people either won't use, necessitating the servers having to use the redirects much more often, or resulting in people piping over the official name because it's unwieldly and little said. Simplicity, no? Why horse around with a name nobody uses, not even the show itself? JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

He also said to be civil, that's nice of you to only mention the part of his message that helps you. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The original name of the series was @midnight. The Comedy Central website has it listed as @midnight [1]. At this point in time, there is simply no reason to extend the title. The WP:COMMONNAME is still clearly @midnight. The "official name" does not really matter. The article is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. event though the official name of the series is "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.". Same exact case with Agent Carter (TV series). JDDJS (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title is WP:CONCISE. -- Calidum 03:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Encmetalhead and the official website doesn't state it like that LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calidum. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lady Lotus and Encmetalhead. Most of the time, newscast, talk shows, etc, don't have the host name in the title. For example, David Muir is the anchor for ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, however, the Wikipedia page is titled ABC World News Tonight without with David Muir. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Move to At Midnight with Chris Hardwick to avoid vanity logo styling per MOS:TM / Toys Я Us. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the rationale of this use of @ per the MOS. It is not merely replacing the word "at" meaning the show comes on at midnight, but the @ sign is an integral allusion to the show's web-culture-based content. Imagine the show were called "*midnight" -- calling it on wikipedia (and nowhere else in print) "asterisk midnight" would be ridiculous. In short it's not a vanity spelling, but the "@" has informative content and is not a mere cute replacement for "at". JesseRafe (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • And "Toys Я Us" is an integral allusion to the playful nature of children, and "macy^*s" conveys a culture of being a really special place to buy clothing. IMHO, logo special-character styling to convey some sense of "culture" is the sort of thing we're trying to avoid by having MOS:TM. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I couldn't disagree with you more. The backwards R and the asterisk are completely subjective interpretations (regardless of whether it can be proven that's what they intended to convey) and exactly what I meant by "cute" it's merely stylized. The "@" has semantic value and actually, objectively, imparts value on its own. Value, that incidentally, would be lost with "at". They are not comparable. JesseRafe (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Using the @ symbol is no more a vanity logo than "&". Ampersands are always used in article titles when it's how they spell the title. JDDJS (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The WP:MoS has separate guidance on "&" (MOS:&), which differs from the treatment of other characters. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose move as proposed, unnecessary natural disambiguation, arguments in favour seem to rely on a common misunderstanding of WP:AT, see WP:official names which addresses this. There may be a case for moving to At Midnight with Chris Hardwick, but the above discussion is sufficiently tainted with non sequiturs and personal attacks that probably best to just close it and if anyone wants to investigate this alternative, start afresh and try to avoid such arguments. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, I saw we follow the lead of other shows, especially because it has the potential to have future shows, besides this appears to be a more common name. Kharkiv07^Talk 23:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Special episodes

I was thinking that the special episodes and tournaments should be mentioned. Such as the one week tournament format where three first shows winners end up in the final show of the week. Or the special duel-off episodes, like 29 July 2016's "Once and Future President" or the Bernie V Trump episode with Bernie Sanders impersonator versus the Donald Trump impersonator. There's also the week-long special appearances like "Benson Bowl" and "Bunches O' Funches"; and the Comedy Central week. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• @midnight Non-Trademark-infringing International Competition 2016 For Gold, Silver, and Bronz Medals ^TM -- tournament -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Should the special live event aired on Facebook from SXSW count in appearances and wins? Jzummak (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Where's the leaderboard?

I don't see it at the @midnight website anymore. This should be taken down as maintaining such a table will now be considered original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)