Talk:Executive Stress

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

Tags[edit]

I am deeply unhappy about AnmaFinotera's retagging of this article, and I feel it may be personal against me after my original removing of the tags. With regards to references, we now have three reliable and seperate references (which are cited inline). This is not a well-known or mememorable sitcom, so the available sources are few and far between. I did an extensive Internet and frankly this is all that is available. Therefore tagging it with "refimprove" is unrealistic and the tag will be there forever. In addition, I have seen many articles with less tags than this, and for an article this size 3 is enough. The second issue of "expert attention". Again, thats unnecessary. The article is set out correctly, with as much information as possible, references and so on. "Expert attention" is unwarranted. We have to be realistic about what we can get for a page, and for this programme this is about all we are likely to get.--UpDown (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop taking the tagging personally, and I wouldn't have had to keep retag if you had simply asked me about them after I put them back the first time. The accusation of stalking is completely unfounded and border line uncivil. The article needs clean up. Ref improve isn't unrealistic. Where did the original air dates come from? Those need referencing. Also, the internet isn't the only place for references, there may be off-line sources available. I tagged it for needing expert attention because the article does NOT meet the TV MOS at all. An expert from the project is needed to deal with the organization and fix up the episode list so to bring it inline with what a show article should look like, since no one else is doing it.AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to be realistic. All airdates come from the British TV Comedy page, which I reference in the opening to ref section. Offline sources are not available, as I said this is not a memorable to well know sitcom. We have to be realistic. In addition, we cannot have an episodes table (like you suggest), as there would be not plot summary to put in it (no sources available for one). I will be asking other users for involvment here, as I am unhappy with your unrealistic expectations. The article does meet standards, its set up as necessary and so. If you have problems with content, fix them yourself. I am removing the references as they are not needed as from what I have said above.--UpDown (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of summaries is not a reason not to use the episode table, nor it is a reason not to have the article properly formatted. A source isn't need for the plot and it gives the episodes a start point for someone else with access to other sources to put in the summaries. The page does not meet the TV project standards, which you would see if you look at the MOS. The sections need reordering and the episode list needs fixing. A plot synopsis would also be helpful, as well as a character list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I will insert an episode table, but there will be no plot inserted (eps are not on DVD, meaning I cannot write my own). As I said before, please reorder the sections yourself, to my knowledge they meet standards. Surely it would be easier for you to change the section order rather than tag them? And there is a plot section. All characters are listed in cast and a further list of names would not be necessary and its not possible to add further details about characters. I still believe you really need to think abour realistic expectations for an article. It is just not possible to get an article like this to the quality of say an article on Lost, EastEnders or Dad's Army. If I could expand it, I would, but its not possible.--UpDown (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said you have to write your own. I've fixed up the article organization and added some missing info I found in less than five minutes of searching. You said that my expectations are unreasonable, however I'm guessing you didn't realize that the series is currently airing in reruns in Australia? So even if you can't write plot summaries, other Wikipedians there might once there is a place to do so. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Australia airing, I've removed that as the ref (which was one I already cited) didn't mention that? I will change to episode summary later, when time allows. I've reverted change to 26 minutes (unreferenced), and change to US-style dates (per MoS for UK programmes & people). Do we have a cite for Andrew Lloyd-Webber. As you have edited to the standards, can the tags be now removed.--UpDown (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the source (copy/paste error) and changed the dates to US styles per the infobox instructions. I'll added a reference for Andrew Lloyd-Webber. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour?[edit]

Thanks for adding the episode table. However, is the colour needed? They have no connection the programme and, in my eyes, are an unnecessary distraction. Is there a policy or guideline?--UpDown (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the standard formatting for an episode table with multiple series/seasons (the color association makes it easier for folks to see which episodes are in which series). If you look at most episode lists of good TV show articles and FA episode lists, you'll see a similar format. Those are some standard colors, though they can be changed if needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I haven't noticed colours on most episode tables, but its standard then I'll go with it. One other thing, I thought that TV.com (like IMDb) is not seen as a reliable source, because its user-inputted? If it is a reliable source, then it will be useful to know. I also intend to start a discussion on the How to write a TV article page, as I strongly disagree with the section order it prescribes, with production at bottom and so. I've always understood that production is first, then cast/characters then episdes then reception and DVDs etc. I note that FA Lost follows this, and I'm sure most others do. --UpDown (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TV.com is considered a reliable source, in the absence of an official source, for episode air dates, some show details, and episode titles, much like IMDB is better than nothing for basic cast and crew listings. It has some user submitted sections, but it is a little more regulated than IMDB. If you disagree on the TV article, you'll need to take that up with the project, however I believe there were some recent discussions about it that you might want to read. There are some exceptions, of course, and note that Lost is a much bigger article with a wealth of production info. AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bit about TV.com, that is useful. Regarding the layout, I don't see what size has to do with it. The layout should be the same for all artices, regardless of size, for the sake of conformity of nothing else. I will try and find discussion, and post accordingly. I just believe that the Lost layout is more logical, to have the making of a programme at the bottom of an article to me doesn't follow. IMO, making should be first, then cast/episodes then reviews.--UpDown (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, that is true, however there are always some exceptions, particularly among TV where the layouts that work for fiction articles do not work as well for non-fiction. The TV project really needs some work done in it. I took a look, and I think I may have been thinking of the film project rather than the TV one, so may want to start a discussion about the section order to offer a suggestion on redoing. You may want to post on the main project talk page, though, to get better responses. AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that I will post on main page, with a note on the How to write page. I did look myself for a previous discussion, but failed to find one, so I'm glad it wasn't me being blind. Anyway, I suppose I ought to do post soon before I am blocked for 3RR! lol. Thanks for your help.--UpDown (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Executive Stress. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Stress. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Stress. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Executive_Stress&oldid=1201871071"