Talk:Halt and Catch Fire (TV series)

Extract & Defend / Kali

The episode Kali implied that Extract & Defend is actually the game Rush'n Attack(America) and Green Beret(Japan). Please delete this comment when the wiki is updated.

Ratings

This site has different note on ratings for ep. 2: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/halt-and-catch-fire-season-one-ratings-32782/ 1.3 instead 0.97

Do we know where that site get's it's info for the chart? Because the two major sites used for Wikipedia is TVBTN and TFC and they are conflicting for this episode. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Series title

Halt and Catch Fire (HCF) was actually an instruction on Motorola processors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire BasementTrix (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It was one of many undocumented i8085 op codes which were discovered by third parties, which actually did something, like the 'Store Immediate' STI (ultimate in self modifying code). 'Halt and Catch Fire' HCF halted the processor, and continually toggled all the output pins (hence 'catch fire'). I actually tested these in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.80.251.46 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as can be clearly understood from the article you mention (i.e., Halt and Catch Fire), the definition displayed at the beginning of the first episode is wildly exaggerated, to the point of being false: "HALT AND CATCH FIRE (HCF): An early computer command that sent the machine into a race condition, forcing all instructions to compete for superiority at once. Control of the computer could not be regained." Let's see: Racing, false. All instructions, false (It was basically a single instruction, when it finally did exist and was no longer just a joke, ca. 1974 (though instructions to halt or idle the machine were around in the 1950s)). Competing for superiority (as if autonomous intelligent agents), big, fat, False. Actually, even control of the computer could be regained, in only the very worst case via a hard reset, so that's false too. This Fake Historical Justification business is highly reminiscent of the fictitious explanation at the beginning of S1/E1 of Mad Men, where they tell you in white text on a black background: "MAD MEN | A term coined in the late 1950s to describe the advertising executives of Madison Avenue. They coined it." People have widely believed that false etymology. However, culture columnist Thomas Frank at Salon.com did a very thorough job of debunking AMC's artistic overreach (See this Salon article, 3rd section, 1st two paragraphs). →Of course I understand it's all just artistic license; the "HCF" definition lays out an obvious metaphor for the "race condition", forced competition, and loss of control that not the commands on any early computer could ever possibly have sent the machine into, but rather which the nature & behavior of people sent the whole IBM-compatible personal computer industry into. Which is fine, for what it is; but imho people shouldn't be misled like that, even for the sake of Art, and I'm hoping the present article will soon properly dispel that intelligence-insulting, ignorance-fostering "definition". (Okay, done venting...)--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, HCF being taken to mean Halt And Catch Fire was an early computer JOKE. And it's an obvious one to those who have written assembler code. It's not a real instruction that does anything. All info on the net you've found for it is wrong. 65.25.60.165 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

BIOS Source Code

They go through a ton of trouble to "reverse engineer" the BIOS, when IBM had actually published the 8088 source code, with comments, in their Technical Reference Manuals for PC, PC Jr, XT and AT. At minimum, rather than a hardware break-out box, they could've used the DOS DEBUG utility and disassembled starting at address F000:0000, dumping the results to a file. Other than that, the show seems close to what we did at Phoenix including "clean" engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) 00:57, June 11, 2014‎ (UTC)

The BIOS code was protected by copyright (see Apple v. Franklin for precedence), which is exactly why they had to go through that trouble. It doesn't matter how they acquire the code, the entire BIOS had to be rewritten in a manner that shows it wasn't based on IBMs work, hence the clean room design. The plot is loosely based in part on what happened at Phoenix. --173.76.181.37 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"They go through a ton of trouble to 'reverse engineer' the BIOS, when IBM had actually published the 8088 source code, with comments, in their Technical Reference Manuals for PC, PC Jr, XT and AT."

When did IBM do this? The AT and PC Jr. both still lay in the future when the events of episodes one through four take place; I doubt that even the XT had been introduced yet. (I thought that the original PC was the only IBM PC on the scene so far. Aren't we still in 1982 or late 1981?) Was a Technical Reference Manual for the original PC — including its BIOS — publicly available when our story takes place?

Of course, even without a published BIOS and specs, DEBUG was still available if you wanted to peek at IBM's code. And even with DEBUG, you still had to use a clean-room approach if you wanted to steer clear of copyright infringement, and be able to prove in court if necessary that you had not copied IBM's code.

"The BIOS code was protected by copyright (see Apple v. Franklin for precedence [sic]), which is exactly why they had to go through that trouble."

No one contests the clean-room, reverse-engineering aspect of the story. Even though he said "reverse engineer" in his first sentence, I think Robertkeller was only objecting to all the hoops they had to jump through on the show to get a copy of IBM's code. (His third and final sentence makes this clear.) He was pointing out that a copy of IBM's code (for whatever such might be worth, given the undiminished need for a clean-room implementation) could be had much more easily, without the need for fancy electronic forensics.

"The plot is loosely based in part on what happened at Phoenix."

The show and our protagonists' efforts appear to be based — albeit very loosely — more on Compaq, who reverse-engineered the BIOS for its own use, rather than Phoenix, who reverse-engineered the BIOS in order to license their substitute to others. (Also, Compaq originally produced portable computers, just as our protagonists plan to. They mention Compaq once in passing, but that fact does not diminish the parallels between Compaq and Cardiff.) If memory serves, Compaq was the first company to do this, followed closely by Phoenix Technologies. BIOSes from other companies, like Award and AMI/American Megatrends, came along a bit later.

Just in passing, would the BIOS actually be written in assembly language, or in 8086/8088 machine language?

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:30 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Aren't we still in 1982 or late 1981?"

Actually, we're somewhere in 1983 — just where, I do not know.

And FWIW:

• The XT was introduced in March of 1983, and the PCjr in November of 1983. The AT came in August 1984, three years after the original PC. See IBM Personal Computer: Models.
• Columbia Data Products was the first company to introduce a PC clone with a reverse-engineered clean-room BIOS, introducing its MPC 1600 in June 1982. See Columbia Data Products. See also Clean room design; IBM PC compatible.
• Compaq announced its first product, the Compaq Portable, in November 1982, and began shipping in March 1983. See Compaq Computer Corporation: Introduction of Compaq Portable.
• Phoenix Technologies introduced its first licensable ROM BIOS in June 1984. See Phoenix Technologies: Cloning the IBM PC BIOS.

Oh, and apparently IBM released the PC's Technical Reference manual at the same time as the PC itself! (Or else very shortly thereafter.) See, e.g., Gregg Williams, "A Closer Look at the IBM Personal Computer," BYTE, Vol. 07, No. 1 (January 1982), pp. 36-68, at p. 56 [1]; Norman McEntire, "The Key to the PC," PC Magazine (June/July 1982), pp. 139-40 [2]. (The First Edition of the Technical Reference manual for the PC XT is dated January 1983 — two months before the computer itself was released! [3] See p. ii.) Just as Robertkeller reported above, these manuals contained "a complete, thoroughly commented source listing of the BIOS. That's right, no more disassembling ROMs to decode the I/O routines; they are already listed for you." [4] Making ridiculous what Joe and Gordon spent a large portion of episode one doing, which was Robertkeller's point.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing two separate things. Reverse-engineering is not the same as clean-room technology. In this context, clean-room technology implies no access to the IBM code, right? Robertkeller is describing what they did initially. Initially they reverse-engineered the BIOS using a very labor-intensive process to get the code from the ROM that could have been done much more easily. I know that when I saw that part of the show I was thinking it was stupid. Since they used IBM's code, it was not a clean-room process, right? Later they used a clean-room process for the device for sale.

The terms assembly language and machine language are nearly always used synonymously. Usually if someone wants to refer to the opcode (such as 11110100 for HLT) then they say opcode. For example [8086 opcodes with full instruction set](https://www.computing.net/answers/programming/8086-opcodes-with-full-instruction-set/25356.html) asks for opcodes. Sam Tomato (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Original poster Robert Keller adds: 1) The original IBM Technical Reference manual was generally available at the nearby ComputerLand in late summer 1981. I bought it then and still have it as part of my collection. It's a blue hard-cover, three-ring binder about 9 inches tall and 1.5 inches thick. They sell for about ten dollars on eBay. As some of the more knowledgeable people here say, it does indeed list the complete BIOS 8088 assembler source code with comments. I'm surprised this fact is in dispute. Thus my critique above that the characters went through of ton of unnecessary reverse-engineering trouble remains. 2) I actually first worked at Quadtel, which was later acquired by Phoenix. Before and after the acquistion, we hired "clean" engineers to work on BIOS code. During my initial interview, Ken asked me, "have you ever seen the IBM BIOS code?" Of course I had, so even though I was fluent in x86 assembler I couldn't contribute to the BIOS code base, so I worked on PCMCIA drivers and such. Hope that clarifies.

I also have a IBM Technical Reference Manual that lists the BIOS source code, except mine is for the IBM PC XT/286 so much later. I know I was very surprised the first time I saw the BIOS source code, I sure thought at the time that the source code had not been available to the public. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The show is rife with technical inaccuracies. The show shows them clicking through the BIOS ROM manually and writing four hexidecimal numbers down on paper. This is beyond absurd. The IBM PC ROMS were 8 bit so the hex codes would be two digits, not four. They were doing it manually. This is set in 1982. Back in 1976, I, Rastakins, had the capability to directly read ROMs using a computer. It would take about 1 second and it would be 100% accurate. If they were doing a clean room design they would not need the ROM code. They made a big deal about the BIOS. This is a straighforward program to write if you know the requirements. Requirements are the challenge, not the coding. I could write the IBM BIOS in a month. I HAVE written extensions to a BIOS for disc caching. And I wrote a replacement for the IBM BIOS screen-handling code because it was sooo bad: It did a DIV for every character printed!

There are other technical gaffes:

• They show the code the protagonist is writing. This is in an era where they think a 15 pound computer is impossible, yet she is using 32-bit 80386 instructions which were three years away.
• The programmer says she is considering shift left and back fill the right with three zeros. A programmer would call that an arithmetic or logical shift. The 8088 instruction is SAL AX,3.
• Programmers in 1982 do not have full-screen text editors? I had one in 1977.
• On one whiteboard they have a bunch of gobblygook. One of those items is the x86 status register. The bit format of the status register is of little interest to a programmer and unlikely to be written on a white board.
• At one point a character reads some code on a whiteboard and pronounces it "genius." It was just a bunch of moves and calls. Unlikely to be a genius algorithm. For genius, the code would include an XOR.
• A high point: The mom who helped design the Speak and Spell tells her daughters that it has a 128 Kbit ROM. Kudos! Correct. It would be even more amazing if she told them it was fabricated in PMOS.

RastaKins (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

"...but Joe later seduces LouLu's husband into kissing him and reveals it to her."

Well, they did more than just "kiss" -- Joe took off his coat, and got down on his knees for Pete's sake!

184.186.193.5 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But the guy was not her husband, was he? I've already deleted the episode, but I thought he was a younger, kept boyfriend — perhaps even a gigolo — whom she was clearly keeping, and that there was even a brief exchange between her and Toby Huss's character that made reference to where her (presumably much older) husband was and what he was up to these days. The implication was that she's now getting sex from this youngster 'cause she can no longer get it from her husband, due to his age; that he is perfectly well aware of this, and it's fine with him; and that this arrangement was all kind-of an "open secret." I forget whether they said explicitly whether her husband, or personal inheritance in her own right, was the source of her wealth, but it seemed like a situation where she had married a much older man for his money (which she was now spending and investing) was implied. 2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:30 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Doherty Threshold

(Ep4) So is the Doherty Threshold/Doherty threshold a real thing? That a response time threshold is thought about in UI design is a given, but is it called "Doherty", and if it is, then do we (Wikipedia) have an article on that? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the article from IBM.com, which references a 1982 article by Doherty, so *yes* http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/jelliott/evrrt.html ArtDent (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention a threshold anywhere, let alone a 400 ms threshold. In fact, it actually shows a gain in productivity all down to 250 ms (it didn't measure lower). 2A01:CB04:A91:3A00:85A5:5027:E80D:F095 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fictional (mythical) instruction

I add "mythical" to the page, it was reverted. I made it "fictional" and gave the reason, it was reverted. "Halt and Catch Fire" is, as shown on the Wikipedia page, a bit of fiction: 'The expression "catch fire" is intended as a joke; the CPU does not literally catch fire, but it does stop functioning.'.

There are several computer instruction codes that fall into the category of HCF, but no such instruction actually exists. Presenting this as 'fact' is wrong. My edit should be un-reverted. Joeinwap (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Absent a reliable source for the characterization of the instruction as "fictional" or the like, in the context of this show, our labeling it as "mythical" or "fictional" is WP:OR, and should not be included. Discussions of the instruction outside of the context of the show title are off-topic for the article. They're perfectly appropriate in the article for the instruction, where an interested reader would click to, anyway. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Reliable Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire Joeinwap (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

" Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." WP:WPNOTRS. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There has never been a processor made with an instruction documented as "Halt And Catch Fire". Therefore it is impossible to cite a reliable source. If we must have a reliable source saying that something does not exist then Unicorns should not be called legendary creatures. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Season 2 start date

Any info on season 2 start date?--74.57.167.219 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for balance in representation of reviews

The fact that Metacritic presents an approx. 70% positive metric suggests that 1 in every 3 or 4 reviewers reported a less than positive critical response to this series. In an encyclopedia, these negative reviews should be reflected in that section. (If 3-4 positive reviews can be quoted, an informative negative review should also be similarly excerpted.) Please, introduce balance, and so encyclopedic tone, to the paragraphs on s01 and s02 critical responses. Otherwise, readers who seek balance will go direct to the sources, and not read this, since we have failed to provide reasons that some readers may not like the series. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Does Mutiny = Confinity?

Does Mutiny = Confinity? and therefore, does Mutiny = PayPal?--2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Online sales is what eBay did and does. Cameron was so reluctant to do the financial transactions by Mutiny that she was even reluctant to process credit cards. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

I invite the IP user to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We've both endeavored to discuss on his/her talk page to no result. Let's hope we can get some discussion going here. Meanwhile, I'm off to AN3. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope that this is the correct way/place to discuss this issue—I’ve never done this before, and I find the process a bit baffling. Briefly, the actress playing Sara was intended to continue as a series regular, but that changed midway through season two, and she only appeared in nine episodes. She is in no way part of the main cast, which has always been Joe, Gordon, Cameron, Donna, and Bos. She was simply a recurring character in an early season. Just because she was listed as a series regular for her season does not make her part of the main cast; that’s a technical result of negotiation by her agent. Nobody connected with the show considers her anything more than a recurring character from season two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.12.123 (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here- although you reverted again(which is your 4th) and here you threaten to continually edit war- both of which can be taken as violations of WP:3RR and is grounds to report you(as Drmargi has suggested they will do). Being correct if you are is not a defense to edit warring. That said, the credits in articles about a show are displayed as they appear in the show and as such are not subject to change. Any explanations about cast changes are likely valid content, but that doesn't change how the credits appeared in the show. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage you to self-revert as typically a disputed page is returned to the status quo before the disputed content was changed. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's fairly simple, she was credited as a series regular during season 2, and that's why she listed under main cast. I suggest reading guidelines at MOS:TV; because this is one of those guidelines. I understand your reasoning, but we don't remove actors based on personal opinion or beliefs. I suggest you cease your editing warring over this, because it won't end well. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at what you cited, and I couldn’t find any statement equating “series regular during a particular season” with “main cast.” Could you please quote that statement here, since it’s the critical basis of our point of disagreement? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.12.123 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Series regular" = "main cast" (or "starring"), it's just another phrase for the same thing. "Main cast" is generally the name that is used for it on Wikipedia articles. Any cast member credited in the opening credits is a "main" cast member, and Aleksa Palladino receives that credit for season 2. While obviously she's not as important as the main five characters, she still received that credit; we can't rewrite history. This is how it is done on 100% of TV articles (if they're following the guidelines). We follow what the credits say, we can't just pick and choose who we think is important or not. Now hopefully you won't revert again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And that's where we disagree--"series regular" in a single season does not mean "main cast." I see that you haven't quoted a statement to that effect from the guidelines. I believe that there's some means of arbitration on Wikipedia, so I'm going to investigate that. Meanwhile, now that I know that I'm not allowed to revert edits more than three times in a twenty-four hour period, I will abide by that. But just because you've taken it upon yourself to maintain a lot of television pages does not give you the right to claim hegemony over those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.12.123 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution measures are listed on this page. I would also point out that while 3RR is a bright line in terms of violating policy on edit warring, it is still considered edit warring if you revert disruptively outside of 3RR(i.e. if you revert after 25 hours). Retracting your threat to continually revert would go a long way towards indicating you will not do so.331dot (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And you are now blocked for reverting again. I reverted myself upon realizing I was at 3. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who takes issue with this edit warrior's edits; I apologize for not completing my AN3 filing, but real life got in the way. Mwanwhile, IP, you've got 31 hours to bring yourself up to speed on wiki policy. Not only does the MOS:TV policy noted earlier apply, but the basic editorial policies requiring a reliable source to support an edit, particularly a controversial one such as this, are critical, so that the content is verifiable. Your contention that the inclusion of Alexa Palladino in the main cast, which has stood since the beginning of season 2, is somehow wrong, that I'm the only editor who wants it that way (which should be abundantly clear is far from the case), and that the showrunners are unhappy with the edit based on your word alone simply doesn't meet our basic editorial standards. Your word that things are other than what is in the credits simply will not hold up. Moreover, the semantic hair split that main cast and series regular are somehow other than the same thing is nonsense. I suggest that, once your block is over, that you abide by these policies when editing, or your blocks will simply become longer and longer. Meanwhile, I have restored the article to the stable version long in place before you began editing it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sara Wheeler

I ain't sure Sara Wheeler should be considered as a main character. Yes, it appeared that way in S2 credits, but de facto she wasn't among the main characters. ScanCom (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

She's a main character in season 2, as the actress is billed as a series regular per the credits. This is what determines "main cast" on Wikipedia, not viewer interpretation of who they think is a main character, because that's just WP:OR. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mad_Men_characters#Main_characters this example and rename "Main" to "Primary", "Recurring" to "Supporting", and move Sarah? ScanCom (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because that article is using WP:OR to distinguish between "primary" and "supporting", when all those cast members are billed the same. No reason to move Sarah, actress is billed main cast for season 2. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe MacMillan and Gordon Clark (fictional character) character articles

These articles were created earlier this month and as far as I can tell, they are just the exact same content found in the cast and characters section in this article, except organized in a different manner. If the articles don't expand upon the content already here, then there's no point in the separate character articles and they just just be redirected. Pinging relevant editors: @Tamingimpala: and @Y2kcrazyjoker4:. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts, i started the initial articles, and i expected others to expand em over time. but i think even in current forms, there should be separate articles regardless. Tame (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The series ended four years ago, I feel the ship has sailed in terms of users wanting to expand HACF content. The only editor besides me to do content creation for this series are the two editors (including you) that I pinged. I feel if there's no major expansion over the next few weeks, they should be redirected the main article as the standalone articles are just copy-pasted from here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel there is plenty of opportunity to expand the articles with additional content. But recently, my bandwidth for Wikipedia editing had been limited somewhat. If the articles aren't expanded and remain as-is, I believe it would be better to put them in the Draft namespace until more content can be added to justify their existence. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4@Drovethrughosts, I support the draft idea rather than redirect. Tame (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sourcing

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: What leads you to believe Fandom is a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the wiki content that it hosts (which is not what is being referenced), Fandom also publishes plenty of original content covering pop culture, (TV, video games, and films), written/produced by an editorial staff. This is no different from AV Club, Vox Media, Polygon, Vulture, The Ringer, etc., which are reliable sources for pop culture (although Fandom may have a slightly different business model). Here's an interview they did with Jamie Lee Curtis on the Halloween film franchise. Here's an article/video on the influence of Dune on sci-fi films. Here's an interview with 2 actors from the original Scream movie. Are you questioning the authenticity or editorial integrity of content like this? Because I don't understand the objection. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Doing interviews or publishing original content does not automatically make a source reliable. The site is listed at WP:RSP as being unreliable, and I'm not seeing any evidence to limit that designation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's listed on that page on the basis on wiki content only. The wording is quite specific: "Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources." The first column even distinguishes this type of content from editorial content by saying "Fandom wikis". There's other cases on that page where a source is both allowed and disallowed based on certain content (e.g. HuffPost, Forbes). You haven't given a reason beyond the appearance of Fandom on that perennial sources list that it is an unreliable source for its original editorial content. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And in those other cases that distinction is made. But for this case, I'm not aware of any discussions supporting that certain content on the site is reliable. Are there any? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. It could be for any number of reasons. Perhaps there aren't many people disputing that Fandom's original content is reliable. Perhaps their original content is not widely referenced on Wikipedia and thus the issue has not come up before. Perhaps there is not much awareness that they even have original content. Regardless, the article that is referenced is not a wiki, and the only type of Fandom content that is explicitly mentioned as being blacklisted is wiki content. Until other types of content on Fandom is explicitly outlawed, I see no reason to remove the content from this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that it is reliable. Do you have such a reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we've firmly established that you don't think it's reliable, but your opinion alone isn't enough. I'm still waiting to hear a single reason you think it's unreliable, aside from the "perennial sources" reason... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Aside from RSN discussion, there is also a lack of evidence for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, strong editorial policies, or a well-regarded publisher. Your turn. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the staff that they employ:

• Eric Goldman - Managing Editor: former Executive Editor at IGN for 11 years
• James McMahon - Journalist: former editor of Kerrang!, current writer for Vice, The Observer and The Big Issue
• Kim Taylor-Foster - UK Entertainment Editor: former lead editor for Immediate Media Company, former freelance writer for IGN and Clash
• Matt Fowler - Freelance Writer: former editor for IGN, current freelance writer for IGN
• Luke Hinton - Freelance Writer: current freelance writer for Game Revolution

Ignoring their freelancers for a second, the members of their editorial staff are experienced writers and editors who should have experience with fact checking and editorial standards. Do you have specific examples of work published by Fandom that makes you question these things? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What are the site's fact checking and editorial standards? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This page needs a "For other uses, see" at the top. The disambiguation page already exists. 208.82.100.219 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? It's sufficiently disambiguated. No one is about to confuse this article for any other article (i.e. there's no similarly named show). For specifically titled articles, it is not recommended to have hatnotes linking back to disambiguation pages. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)