Jump to content

Talk:King of the Nerds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.86.42.38 (talk) at 02:10, 22 February 2013 (Danielle Mackey's profession). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelevision Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Elimination Table

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?

Virgil's Age Discrepancy

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

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

[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

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]
She and Genevieve are both NILFs! 72.86.42.38 (talk) ~