Talk:30 for 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

Not sure of the best way to add external links to all the documentaries... for example, http://30for30.espn.com/film/kings-ransom.html would be the external info link for the first film, but is it wise to put 30 links on this page?
Coleslawsome (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Episodes or Films?[edit]

Each installment seems to be both its own separate creative entity and yet still apart of the series; should the titles be in italics (Film) or quotations ("Episode")? I personally say italics are the right decision, for the 30 for 30 was not a weekly series, and the moniker serves as a connector more than anything. But before I change the list section, I will wait for any (unlikely) input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentysixpurple (talkcontribs) 20:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Can somebody verify the October 2011 airdate of "Steve Bartman:Catching Hell". It was supposedly going to air this Spring.Heat84 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 30 for 30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Miocic saves Believeland[edit]

I thought the coincidence of Stipe Miocic breaking the 51-year-old Cleveland Curse three hours after ESPN aired a show about its continued existence was a historical moment in synchronicity. Someone else thought it was trivial and not entirely appropriate here. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

It's just trivia. It has absolutely no effect on the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed quote[edit]

It was a Bill Simmons quote from 2011 talking about the future of 30 for 30. Now, five years later, there's no reason for the quote, because the future has occurred and we've seen what ended up happening. [1] Enigmamsg 02:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. Six years ago. The cite was a chat with Bill Simmons from the fall of 2010. Enigmamsg 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Enigmaman Regarding all of your edits seen here: Don't remove Simmons from the infobox. Just because he is not involved now, doesn't mean he never was. The infobox reflects the whole series, for which Simmons is a producer. Second, when the idea of the series was conceived, Simmons was not a former ESPN.com columnist. "Former" does not need to be put anywhere near Simmons' name. Having, or not having "former" is not going to change anything that was true at the time it was stated. Thirdly, there was absolutely no reason to remove the quote in the "ESPN Presents" section. It provides useful commentary on how those films relate to the 30 for 30 brand. I don't know why you did that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
He is still in the infobox as creator. He is not currently the producer. Please stop inserting information that is factually incorrect, and additionally, please stop using rollback on good faith edits. Rollback is intended for obvious vandalism, and Simmons is not the producer. I don't know why you insist on maintaining factual inaccuracies. Once again, Bill Simmons is not a producer of 30 for 30. He was the creator of the show, and that I left in the infobox. Simmons is a former producer and a former columnist for ESPN. Those are facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be kept up to date. You pretending that it's four years ago does not change the fact that it's 2016 and these things are no longer accurate. Enigmamsg 05:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You are 100% incorrect!! Wow. Bill Simmons is a producer of 30 for 30, even if he left. I am not pretending that it's four years ago. Simmons is a producer on any films released before he left ESPN (and probably a few after he left too). The template documentation at {{Infobox television}} states that you list all relevant creative members in the infobox, in original credit order, even if they left. For another example, if you have executive producers A, B, C on a TV series for its first two seasons, then in the their third, B leaves the project, do you remove them? No you don't. So that is that point. And once again, when the series was conceived, Simmons WAS NOT a former X and Y. Those titles do not need to be updated to reflect his current status. Including "In 2010" in the second paragraph of "Background" is fine, though not really necessary. And finally, you have AGAIN removed a contextual quote for "ESPN Presents". There is nothing wrong with it in the article and does provide nice context and background to why those films were not considered Volume II films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you are 100% incorrect. Wow! Your actions are beyond the pale. This article was written and referenced 4+ years ago and you are using rollback to revert any attempt to update it. The fact that the article is quite dated can be easily seen from the references. 30 for 30 is a current project. Bill Simmons is not a current producer. He did produce many films before departed, and he is listed as a producer on THOSE. Additionally, he is in the infobox as creator, so your repeated claims that I'm deleting him from the infobox are false. I merely removed him from producer, as the infobox as it stands is intended to list the current people involved. If you want to list all the past people who worked on it, you are welcome to make a note, with the dates they were with 30 for 30.
The article is written for the PRESENT, not the past. Bill Simmons is not a producer for 30 for 30. He was a producer in 2014 and earlier, and obviously has credits for the many editions which were produced while he was there.
Bill Simmons is a former columnist for ESPN. That is a fact. Bill Simmons is a former producer for 30 for 30. That is a fact. You are using rollback on good faith edits. That is a fact. Enigmamsg 22:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is written for the PRESENT, not the past. Really? The article should be reflective of the topic as a whole, not just the present. As Simmons is not at ESPN anymore, yes a reference should be added to the article in that context and as a separate statement saying such. But that doesn't change what he was a producer: at the two points in question: at its creation (a producer and ESPN columnist) and when he talked about "ESPN Films Present" (once again, same). That also does not mean he gets removed from the infobox to reflect "current" status. I have also notified the television project to this discussion for others to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:TV articles should reflect the entire history, not just the present. WP:TVCAST specifically says Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. While this was originally aimed at actors, it has always been taken to refer to presenters, producers etc in order to comply with the requirement that articles should reflect the entire history. So, even though Simmons is no longer a producer, he was, and therefore should remain listed. --AussieLegend () 11:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is written for the present, meaning if something is in the past that's denoted separately. The article should not refer to Simmons as an ESPN.com columnist when he does not work for ESPN. This whole bit doesn't belong in the article anyway: ""We're spinning off the 30 for 30 series next year into something that will probably be called 30 for 30 Presents or something like that... we're going to be putting out 4–5 sports docs per year on the level of the best 30 for 30 docs and getting the best filmmakers to do them. Same creative team is involved. We have some terrific ideas in the hopper. So even though the SMU doc will be the 30th one (right after the Heisman ceremony) don't think the spirit of the series is going away." That has all been covered by what 30 for 30 did release in the ensuing years. Speculation from Simmons in 2010 or 2011 is irrelevant when we have the actual facts. The only time it makes sense to include such a bit is when the future is unknown. Enigmamsg 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You're ignoring what WP:TVCAST says, that articles should reflect the entire history of a series. When writing a newspaper artical we use the present tense, but when describing something that has happened over a long period of time, we use the historical present. --AussieLegend () 02:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)