Talk:666 Park Avenue

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	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 Episode coverage task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Show inspiration

I wonder if the show's name was inspired by 666 Fifth Avenue? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exteriors are filmed at The Ansonia, which is a landmark building on NYC's Upper West Side. If you read Vanessa Williams' article linked with the Production section, she explains who/what the show is based on. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the book and show?

I've read the first book in the series and offhand I can see that there are a lot of differences between the book and the series even without seeing the first episode. For example, at the beginning of the books Jane is engaged to the son of the Dorans and is never an apartment manager. She's an architect and works as such. The Dorans are also slightly older and really, there's no apartment to speak of- at least not in this aspect. Most of the first book is Jane discovering her witchy powers, realizing that her future mother in law plans to kill her, fighting an attraction to another guy, and lots of other things that don't appear to be present in the series and might never appear. This looks to be an adaptation in name only, with the most basic premise taken and re-adapted. I'll try to work on what I can after seeing the show, but a section that briefly touches on the changes would be a good idea.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be good to have some contrasts with the book discussed - hopefully they're discussed somewhere else first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The series finale episode "Lazarus"

I think we should wait until Summer 2013 before the series finale episode "Lazarus" is included on the 666 Park Avenue page. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we wait, when we have the reference and information for the episode? --Tvlover96 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eps. 10 and 11 are now available online. MMetro (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where online? --Tvlover96 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The foreign airdates should not be allowed on the 666 Park Avenue page

Those foreign airdates should not be allowed on the 666 Park Avenue page. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly? You can't just say something shouldn't be allowed without giving a reason why. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'you know how many shows cancelled in the US are shown in full in Australia? The UK is another place where those 'unaired' episodes are often broadcast. This isn't something new today with just this show. The final 2 episodes of ABC's Threat Matrix were shown in Australia on 7, Eli Stone was shown on Sci Fi, the 2 skipped episodes of Eastwick were shown on Hallmark in the UK, the last third of E-Ring was shown on TG4 in Ireland and on 9 in HD in Australia. With Human Target 13 of the 25 episodes were shown in Canada in advance of their American broadcast. With The Listener all of season 1, 3 episodes of season 2, and 5 episodes of season 3 were shown in various countries in Europe and Africa prior to broadcast in Canada. With Murdoch Mysteries 4/6 seasons have been shown in the UK prior to Canada, some by hours and some months in advance. Foreign broadcasts are usually noted in such circumstance. International broadcast roughly 6 months in advance of domestic broadcast is worth noting if episode lists are something that Wikipedia should include. If past practices are an indication of future actions there is a good chance ABC will not show the episodes in the summer. ADH, your opposition to things foreign is also nothing new but i have never seen it this overt. Take a moment or three to really calmly think about this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While normally I don't agree with Adam, but with this I do agree. It's not there we have anything about other countries, it's just that once a show gets canceled yes, it's shown in other countries, but then everyone adds in the date for their country, and we have about 10 dates for one episode, and most times they're without references, so how would we know. At least with the american air dates, we can confirm them by the reference added to the amount of U.S. viewers columns. So I agree, we should just stick with the american air dates.--Tvlover96 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few people are adding in and reverting dates for Australia. None of those people seem to have cared to check if their source is actually correct. It was intended to be shown starting 21 January 2013 but there was some delay from Warner Bros. in getting the episodes to FOX8. FOX8 announced on their facebook page that they hoped to have the remaining episodes for 4 February 2013. People seem to want to go back to the articles which say 21 January and disregard notice from the broadcaster that such information is out-dated and incorrect. There are references available but so long as that article stating 21 January effectively trumps all correct information the information on these four episodes here will remain grossly inaccurate. Refusal to include broadcast outside the USA is censorship. One can get the number of viewers for Australia too.
It is quite contrary to logic to use "original air date" and then to not actually list the original but rather the third or seventh because of where it was shown those first two or six times. This is a flaw throughout Wikipedia, common to shows said to be American because in American TV the word "original" has a meaning different from what the rest of the world understands the word to mean - 'first time shown in the USA on this channel' versus 'first time shown anywhere on any channel in any language'. Smallville and Bones each have at least one season which was shown a day or more earlier than the respective episodes' US broadcast. Half of season 2 of Sanctuary was shown in the UK before Canada or the US; it is a Canadian show and the articles list the US broadcasts and call them the original dates - there is an absolute disregard for domestic broadcast of Sanctuary. The point is there is precedent for ignoring the domestic broadcast in favour of the foreign, and this time that precedent goes against the US.
It would be nice if people would actually do a little research instead of reverting to the article which says 666 Park Avenue ep 10 was shown in Australia on 21 January (it actually says it will be not that it was shown). That however is asking for too much effort from some people. So the article remains incorrect because that is easier than edit-warring with the ignorant. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The airdates will never not be included. It's a well established president on Wikipedia that the first international airdate is listed only if it is before the U.S. airdate - which is what makes the date notable. The U.S. airdate is also listed as that airdate is notable as it's the first time the episode aired in the country of origin.

It's an established president and it's not going to change just for one article because one user doesn't like it.

- Wattlebird (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Wattlebird, we are arguing the same side here. My somewhat covert point was that the alternative would be to change the heading to U.S. Air Date and remove the Spanish and Australian entirely. It isn't preferred since it is a form of censorship, effected when someone comes along and removes the hypothetical note that would be added regarding broadcast in Spain and Australia for whatever reason. To call the US the original when multiple other countries have broadcast it previously is grossly misleading. That it is a US show originally and primarily first broadcast in the US is reason to include the US dates for the last four episodes as secondary in the case of this show. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the norm was to put the first airing of the show and then include a table of some sorts with the different international times/channels on...? MisterShiney ✉ 22:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the norm for premiere dates for each country, but when an episode airs elsewhere before it airs in the US, the first international airdate is listed and then the US airdate (if there is ever one) is listed underneath. - 222.153.223.36 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Cut it out and discuss the issue here, or I will fully protect the page per request at WP:RFPP. Steven Walling • talk 04:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Facebook, despite claims that say otherwise, is a valid source as long as certain conditions are met (as stated in WP:SELFSOURCE) which they are in this instance.

2. Why do we keep reverting to dates that are wildly incorrect. When that article was published, the episodes were set to air from January 21, 2013. But things have changed since then and no episodes have aired yet.

So let's pretend the Facebook reference isn't a valid source for a second, which data would you rather have on the article, current and up-to-date information with a questionable source, or incorrect information with out-of-date information? But that's moot anyway as the source is legit, and whether you want to accept it or not, any reverts that remove these dates are invalid and should be reverted themselves.

And we all know that AdamDeanHall is only reverting because he's an idiot that acts like he has final say on what should/shouldn't be on Wikipedia, since he doesn't want these dates on the article at all - even though listing the first international airdate outside of the U.S. is a well-established president on Wikipedia.

- Wattlebird (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration but calling someone an idiot won't aid in anything other than securing yourself a block. Many of us have encountered AdamDeanHall in many places; from my experiences it appears he doesn't like anything that isn't American, be that broadcast dates, filming locations, or show origins. The Australian broadcaster's primary means of public communication is via their Facebook page. Ignoring it because it is Facebook is a bit petty. Insisting upon incorrect information that once was an accurate forecast but became inaccurate prior to the date of the event declared in the source is rather silly. FOX8 changed their schedule regarding 666 Park Avenue on 20 January 2013 but noone reported on that. A reliable source that has time-sensitive information that was subject to revision subsequent to publication is only good for referencing initial intent but it is not being used that way here.
As a note, episodes 10 and 11 are still available for purchase on iTunes as of writing this; they are however offered in the stores of different countries. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my intrustion; I have no dog in this fight and would like to offer a few opinions on the matter.

First of all, I see nothing in our policies that allows Facebook to be cited as a source for a tv article. As per FACEBOOK (italics mine):

As an external link: Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence.

As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)

Common issues: Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged (ELNO #10). Facebook is particularly discouraged as viewing the page sometimes requires registration (ELNO #6). Facebook and Myspace pages (other than official links) could be characterized as fansites (ELNO #11). Be wary of fakes.

As well, WP:SELFSOURCE is of little functional use in this particular case:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As per the above, using FB as a source fails, as the program has a significant web presence on ABC (the network of ownership). Furthermore, While a Facebook page about 666 Park Avenue is probably about the show and not a real estate company, fan sites are rife within FB; it is often quite difficult to distinguish from the valid pages from the fancruft. As Facebook regularly takes down pages (1) with astonishing regularity based upon apparent whim and malformed reasoning.
It fails SELFSOURCE too, as it is definitely "unduly self-serving" - it is promoting a television program (and only about that program), for crying out loud. Also located in a FB search for the program reveals a "Save 666 Park Avenue" page as well. To me, that is about two steps below one of those online petitions to save tv shows from falling under the programmer's axe. We have no idea where the provenance of the Facebook page; anyone with an interest and 20 minutes can make a Facebook page, complete with pictures and links. I've done it to announce the birth of my kid as well as last years' Wapatoolie Party Directions (now that was a show!)
Facebook, while a fun social networking website, is a Crap Bag of Crazy, and we do the encyclopedia a disservice by touching it at all. If we have a regular, reliable source that provides the information needed, we use it. If it does not, we wait until it does. We - and I almost want to shout this from the wiki rooftops - are not in a hurry. There is no rush. There is no such thing as "timely" when it comes to encyclopedias. You do it right the first time, so you don't end up in a hullaballoo when the crap source is eventually challenged which, if it is substandard, it always is. Aim to make excellent articles off the bat: why else are you here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to come in and say pretty much exactly the same thing Jack. Would also like to add that under the criteria for a Reliable source per WP:SELFSOURCE, facebook "may be used as sources of information about themselves...These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." MisterShiney ✉ 17:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the fact that this Facebook page is the official page for the Australian network that the show airs on, therefore they ARE providing information about themselves.

So you guys are in actually in favour of having information on the article you know is incorrect simply because there is a 'better' source, which happens to be an article that was written before unforeseen circumstances pushed the dates back? What the hell?! - Wattlebird (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what you are arguing against? After various sources reported that the remaining episodes of 666 Park Avenue would be broadcast by FOX8 in Australia FOX8 posted on their facebook page that they are having trouble getting the remaining episodes and will be showing repeats for a few weeks. If that can't be used as a reference for FOX8's own actions regarding the show then nothing is acceptable. One could read that self-published source to the understanding that only notices on Facebook about Facebook by Facebook are acceptable. Does Facebook even have a Facebook account? You are actually arguing in favour of using a source which has incorrect information simply because the correction was issued by the broadcaster via a notice on Facebook. If the official Facebook pages of the broadcasters are equal to a fan petition to save some show or announce the birth of your children then their own websites are as good as any fan site - all being unacceptable. The US broadcaster's significant web presence (greatly disagree with you on that by the way) is just that - the US perspective. This is however not about the US broadcast but the AU broadcast so what ABC does is irrelevant unless it is broadcasting the episodes, which ABC is not doing.
Even the US broadcaster has a Facebook page specifically for the show - http://www.facebook.com/666ParkAve By your reasoning it is an unreliable fan site rife with cruft so who cares!
FOX8.tv's schedule has episode 10 on 11 February 2013 at 9.30pm but it is self-serving. http://www.fox8.tv/guide/ or http://www.webcitation.org/6EBkiQ6oO since it only lasts for a week on their website.
You might want to inform yourself before you make declarations. ABC is just the US broadcaster; the show is owned by Warner Bros.
If this seems quite absurd then know that that is what i think of arguing against using accurate information simply because it isn't proffered via a formal press release. The 10th episode isn't being broadcast in Australia until 21 days after what was listed in the article when i started writing this. Even the notice FOX8 posted on facebook was just an estimate of 4 February and it too ultimately is incorrect according to their own schedule posted today on their website (the archive link above). So many people are so quick to 'fix' the article but so few actually invest the time to check the accuracy of the references of events that may or may not have actually come to pass. Facebook proves the scifinow.co.uk was ultimately incorrect and current schedule proves the Facebook estimate was ultimately incorrect. This isn't bio-chem difficult to comprehend and yet the edit warring continues and the status quo is the most inaccurate of it all. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm going to stop you there, Wattlebird & Deliriousandlost - the program is an American one, made by an American television company. Of course we are going to use American sources directly related to the series before we are going to use what is - at best - a marketing tool for the network in another country, and with slightly better provenance than some guy in his Mom's basement. For the information you are seeking to add, Facebook isn't considered reliable. Sorry. This isn't just me saying this; its come up a number of times in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard^[1]. Each time, it fails the reliability criteria.

If ABC is not talking about the episodes, then that would seem to be the fault of ABC being the morons they often are. It is not within our wheelhouse to sidestep the better source to find one that our own policies say is generally unreliable. If you do not like the policy/guideline in place, seek to change it. If the information is as important as you seem to think it is, all you have to do is WAIT. More reliable sources will come forth.

Last point: programming/air dates are notoriously unreliable; often, not even the network has anything more than a general idea as to when a program is airing. Lots of stuff can get in the way, not the least of which is inherent incompetence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed the dates have been changed then there in the very least should be a mention on either the Official/Broadcaster Website which would be a suitable reliable source. It is unfortunate that Facebook is just not quite reliable enough. MisterShiney ✉ 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between the network posting something on their official website and posting it on their official Facebook page? How does it make it any less credible? - 222.153.223.36 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian broadcaster has finally scheduled the remaining episodes and you are dismissing that too!!!!! Do you think they will misplace the episodes now that they have them or something? I wonder what FOX8 would think of you calling them and their website are "a marketing tool for the network in another country, and with slightly better provenance than some guy in his Mom's basement". If Australian broadcast information is inappropriate for American shows with unaired episodes that are shown in Australia why is American information appropriate for Canadian or British or Australian shows which are shown in full in their respective domestic markets?
Warner Bros. said they would have the remaining episodes to FOX8 in time for broadcast on 21 January. That was the plan. It didn't work out that way but many sources did report it, as though it was a sure thing. FOX8's facebook notice was essentially that 'stuff got in the way' and they hoped to have it sorted for 4 February and that the previously announced date of 21 January was no longer accurate. Today came and FOX8 had another repeat scheduled. Their schedule for next Monday comes available and it finally has that elusive 10th episode listed - something that hadn't been the case these past few weeks.
ABC has a reputation for promising summer broadcast and then changing their mind in favour of some reality show so there is reason to believe Australia will be the only (or first) English-speaking country where the whole show is broadcast. If Warner Bros. had been able to get the episodes to FOX8 in time for broadcast on 21 January there wouldn't be this big fight over whether broadcast in Australia even merits mention because the edit war which drew so much attention to it wouldn't have happened.
If you want to argue there is uncertainty because of potential for a hurricane or an earth quake then that applies to every broadcaster everywhere including The Bachelor and Castle tonight on ABC.
When 22 January came along and the 10th episode hadn't been broadcast on FOX8 as scifinow.co.uk reported it would be one would think people would realise the reference was at one time accurate but that things had changed. Surely when 29 January came and neither ep 10 nor ep 11 had been broadcast people would realise the information in the source was out-dated. No. That is instead when use of the scifinow.co.uk reference became ever more prominent and its gross inaccuracy was ignored. Now, noone else seems to care that the episodes are actually appearing on FOX8's schedule. fox8.tv > tv guide > select 11 February from the drop-down menu and you would see ep 10 @ 9.30pm. In previous weeks it didn't declare any particular episode, just that some episode of 666 Park Avenue would be shown that night. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the IP address contributor found a direct link via Foxtel's website. I suppose that does work. I might just continue with the page archives of FOX8's schedule too since that might be the closest thing to a long-term reference to be had. It is times like this one wishes Australia had something akin to TheFutonCritic's press release schedule archive. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all comfortable with the anon making any contribution to this article, as I have a strong suspicion that it is actually Wattlebird/MyLeftNut (now indefblocked) seeking to evade a block, as per this complaint. Please consider this when considering anything it has to say. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that Wattlebird appears to have royally screwed up today but that shouldn't negate the source, which is from a quite reputable third-party (the Zap2it of Australia, to make a rough comparison). delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The information I am sure is legit, but we are trying to create something here that is reliable and when we ourselves say that Facebook is not really that reliable, no matter the writer of the source, then we should where possible try and find something else. The point Wattlebird made was valid. His behaviour, not so much. So have we found another source for the info? MisterShiney ✉ 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the ONLY real question here is: will any given reference be durable enough to get the article to FA listing. If the answer is no, either find a better source, or wait until one appears. Seriously, if it is an important fact you are seeking to cite, someone a helluva lot more notable than us or Facebook will make it. Stop being in a hurry and think of the long game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, anyone would think I killed someone. The sockpuppetry ended up providing resolution to the conflict here... Can't we all just be friends? - Wattlebird (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being for be benefit of Mr Jack,
Yes, we have been through it before. You and MisterShiney basically laid out your "we don't like Facebook posts from anyone" arguement but you didn't have people agree with you and your opinion isn't exactly in agreement with any rules or policy or guidelines either. http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/666-park-avenue is a self-published source and yet every somewhat recent tv show has its comparative link included in its respective article. Press release are the broadcasters' self-published communication to news media. Facebook posts are the broadcasters' third-party published communication to their audience. It is abundantly clear you abhor the latter and embrace the former. If one is fundamentally unacceptable they both are because they come from the same reliable and verifiable (or not) primary source.
As it read last i looked at it the 11th reference is about the Australian 'for real, we swear this time' schedule and do you know what the source is for the article used as the source in the WP article? It is a Facebook post from FOX8. Citing a guy who quotes it or citing it directly. Funny how people will argue the former to be more reliable when technically it would be more like hearsay. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think these are rules that MrShiney and I cooked up to make your life difficult, Deliriousandlost. They aren't. As per WP:NOTFACEBOOK, we do not use FB as it fails a number of inclusion criteria. Since the whole point of creating Wikipedia articles in the first place is to work to polish them into Featured Articles, we need to fix smaller problems before they become large problems down the road. Crappy, unreliable sources are one of those issues. If this is as viatally important as you seem to think it is, find a source that fulfills our criteria for inclusion which isn't Facebook, and all is good. Until then, we cannot include it. If at this time you still feel as if MrShiney and I are off our rockers, go ask an admin or post in the RS noticeboard. You can even search for prior discussions about using Facebook, which will likely save you lots of time and energy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the discussion about this very thing above, and I note that this same information has been provided to you numerous times before. I am going to assume good faith here, but you are ranging precipitously close to WP:IDLI, which will funnel out all that assumption of good faith like air from a leaky balloon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, let me be really blunt. I see this as a personal crusade from you which has no basis in policy but rather entirely is based on your personal opinion which incorporates some really twisted takes on various guidelines and as such is summarily dismissed but is given such courtesy response so as to inform you of such. I find your involvement here to be nothing more than a chance to exercise your "I DON'T LIKE IT" position regarding Facebook since you have contributed nothing but objections to either the article or the talk page. I thought i had made that clear already but apparently not since you levy that very charge against me today. Try actually reading that "not facebook" link instead of just assuming its content based on its name and you should see that it is about the inappropriateness of using Wikipedia as a substitute for Facebook and has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriateness of a broadcaster's use of Facebook to publish a schedule update being used as a reference in Wikipedia. You have made it clear what contempt you have for Facebook. You have made it clear that you have contempt for anything from not-the-American broadcaster of a show. You have made it clear you don't really know the things you direct me to inform myself regarding. You have made it abundantly clear that you will absolutely embrace the regurgitation of the information a broadcaster publishes on Facebook so long as said regurgitation is also not found on Facebook however you fail to explain how the information is made acceptable via regurgitation when its origin remains unacceptable.
The short of this is that your position doesn't have "better provenance than some guy in his Mom's basement". delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deliriousandlost, this isn't about you. Or me. Or you and me. It's about the plain simple fact that if the information you seek to cite is important enough, it can be cited to a reliable source outside of Facebook. I have nothing against FB or even you. We cannot use Facebook because the information could change or vanish, and we'd have no recourse. Most reliable references - and that does not translate as being just from ABC or an American source - are reliable be definition because we can trust the source to actually be there longer than a fart in the wind (read: status update). The changeable nature of Facebook prevents it from meeting our criteria for inclusion in most cases. The use you are suggesting is not one of those uses. That isn't me. Ask around. And please, if you have personal issues with me, use my talk page; the article talk space isn't supposed to be used for the sort of…speech… you posted above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final four episodes of 666 Park Avenue to be shown online this summer?

I speculate that if and when 666 Park Avenue DOES return, the final four episodes may be shown online at ABC.com. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? You're speculating, which has no place on Wikipedia. - MyLeftNut (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is no place for Sherlocking here. Stay on target, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As always ABC does a dumb thing here by cancelling this show. They (ABC bosses) did the same thing with the BRILJANT show RUBICON. That was a true shame on them also. ABC doesn't seem to realise that in Europe we love both Rubicon and this show... One wonders who makes those strange decisions overthere at ABC. Rubicon and this were great and succesfull in Europe Oh well.....if we were boss at ABC we would do a better job anyway. ;- ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.174.43 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Skyscrapers?

I get why its included in the first two wikiprojects: its a TV show and its set and filmed in New York...
But why is it included in the Skyscrapers project? It's a fictional TV show based on a fictional book, set in a fictional apartment block. So.... how does that fit with the project's aims to "improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia"?
Rushton2010 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Moms?

This group should not have credit for the show being taken off the air. It did not have good enough ratings to continue. 75.134.26.34 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 666 Park Avenue. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1000187159893

Beheru yesin zeyena 196.190.186.136 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]