Talk:Slednecks

Season one "U.S. viewers"

The same source was being used to support the "U.S. viewers" ratings numbers for episodes 1-10 even though it actually only covered the first three episodes that were shown on October 30, 2014. This is contrary to not only WP:RSCONTEXT, but also might be possible WP:OR and WP:SYN. Therefore, I have removed the bad sources because they did not directly support the information they were supposed to support and replaced them with more appropriate links to the same website. I also edited the template parameters as needed to more accurately reflect the source per WP:CITEHOW#Webpages and to possibly prevent future link rot per WP:PLRT. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Using Prose

Using prose would not be an effective form of listing characters and is never used in a wikipedia article to list characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose is preferred to tables, which were discussed at WT:TV and received little support. You are quite wrong in saying that prose "is never used in a wikipedia article to list characters". In fact the two recommended methods of listing cast and characters in WP:TVCAST are both prose examples. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose is not used on any tv shows I have ever seen on wikipedia, everyone uses the way I have, if you could tag an article as an example of what your talking about, that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@ISeahawk:. I agree with AussieLegend on this. A table may seem short and sweet, but WP:PROSE says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Tables are fine and quite useful for list articles, but this article is not a list. There are some articles which do combine prose and tables, but the table is usually just to summarize and often is eventually split-off into it's own "list article" when it get's too big. FWIW, there are quite a few featured articles about TV shows that use prose to introduce the show's characters. Featured articles are generally considered the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer, and can be good guides to follow when in doubt. Degrassi: The Next Generation, Firefly (TV series), Carnivàle, Only Fools and Horses, and Our Friends in the North are just a few FAs. Game of Thrones, Sopranos and Lost (TV series), while not FAs, are also good examples of the use of prose in my opinion. Since there seem to be only 13 characters for Slednecks, it shouldn't be too difficult to write a single descriptive sentence for each. This could be done, in my opinion, simply just using either straight prose or by using bullet points. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Subject Removal

What information are you talking about that needs citations or will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you referring to? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Box at the top of the page saying unsourced material may be challenged or removed. You inserted that box so what material are you referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@ISeahawk: The "box" that AussieLegend added is a maintenance template. More specifically, in this case, it's a {{Refimprove}} template. These templates or "tags" are just one way of letting other editors know that an article may have some problems that need attention. "Refimprove" is used when an editor feels that an article's references might be lacking. Essentially, pretty much everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be supported by published reliable, preferably third-party, sources and stuff that isn't properly sourced may be deleted per WP:UNSOURCED. Experienced editors, instead of deleting right away, often try to fix and improve per articles themselves or tag them to bring them to the attention of others per WP:PRESERVE, but sometimes problems simply can't be fixed so the content has to be removed. I cannot speak for "Aussie Legend", but there should be sources, per WP:RSCONTEXT, which support the "Premise" section as well as official sounding statements such as "MTV announced it will air the 18 half-hour episodes back to back, with a special 90 minute series premiere." and "MTV released the first episode October 23, 2014 on their website." In addition, any kind of interpretation of the show or critical review needs to be properly sourced so that it is not removed as original research. So, stuff like "The series has the same premise as Buckwild" needs to be sourced.

Finally, it really helps others follow the discussion when you sign your posts and use proper indentation per WP:TPG#YES. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Episodes

Does the episode table not provide enough evidence that the episodes are back to back each week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC+9)

Two problems with doing that in my opinion. First problem is that Wikipedia cannot be used as reliable source for itself per WP:WPNOTRS; The same reliable source can be used more than once in an article, but Article text cannot be used to cite or support other article text. The second problem is the phrasing "MTV announced it will air the 18 half-hour episodes back to back." makes it seem as if some official announcement was made. If so, then there should be some reliable source supporting the statement per WP:UNSOURCED. The source should explicitly say the show will have "18 half-hour episodes" and that they will air "back to back" if possible per WP:RSCONTEXT; Explicit is best because it avoids any possible claim of WP:OR or WP:SYN. It would also be best to try and find a third-party source that was published before this Wikipedia article was created or the text in question was added because it appears that some of the more recent stuff just seems to be mirroring this article, and thus would not be considered reliable. Anyway, without such a source, the information could be challenged and even removed by another editor. So, I added the "citation needed" tag just to let others know that someone is aware of the problem, and is looking for sources. Another reason I added the "cn" tag was to show that the EOnline source is just for the sentence beginning with "The series' special 90-minute premier (...)" and not for the "18 half-hour episodes" or the "back to back" stuff. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

Here are some possible sources I have find which may be able to be used to flesh out the article a bit. I'm adding them here for discussion, but will also try to add them directly to the article myself wherever possible.

1. "MTV's 'Slednecks' spotlights the wild life of Wasilla millennials" is an article from the Alaska Dispatch News which gives some background info and the last names of some of the show's cast. Article also includes some info about the shows development.
2. "Meet Alaska's Version of the Jersey Shore: MTV's New Series Slednecks" from E!Online which could possibly be used as support for the "Cast" section.
3. "'Slednecks': How MTV Chose Alaska for Its Latest 'Jersey Shore' Hopeful" from Yahoo! TV that might be useful for not only characters, but also some development stuff.
4. "'Slednecks,’TV review" from the New York Daily News for possible "Critical review" section
5. "'Slednecks' Alaska reality show proves MTV learned nothing from 'Buckwild'" from the Washington Post also for possible "critical review section.
6. "Reality Check: 'Slednecks' and their reindeer games" from Alaska Dispatch News.
7. "Reality Check: Is 'Slednecks' the Alaska reality show we've been waiting for?" from Alaska Dispatch News.
8. "Reality Check: 'Bush people' of Alaska; Wasilla youths on MTV" from Alaska Dispatch News contains really (probably not very useful) general info.
9. "Reality Check: When real life overtakes reality TV stars" from Alaska Dispatch News contains some potential episode 11 or 12 summary info.

- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC); edited 04:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

S1E14

I added the reference here as no other episodes have references for their names, so it would make it unbalanced.

References

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeahawk (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC+9)

@ISeahawk: The link you gave above has nothing to do with Gary Levin so you cannot associate his name with that link. Moreover, references are to be added to the article and not the article's talk page. References need to be as close as possible to the information they are supposed to be supporting per WP:INTEGRITY and WP:INLINECITE. The link you've provided is also a primary source. It can possibly be used, but it it has to be used carefully so a third-party source would be much better. AussieLegend's edit was a compromise; It kept your preferred wording in as an alternate title, but put uses what is supported by reliable sources as the "main" title. This can easily be switched around once sufficient reliable sources supporting your version are found. So, I suggest leaving it as is per WP:STATUSQUO so that others can try to find sources. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's quite often the case that official websites aren't entirely accurate. They do include errors because they're not always under the same control as press releases etc. We've seen this quite a lot in the TV project. The only source for "bitch" is the link provided by ISeahawk. The press release, which has to be considered to be authoritative, uses "B." and all of the sites that report the title use the press release spelling. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It should be noted that this article has been the target of some significant editing by sockpuppets. I have struck out the comments by ISeahawk, who is a confirmed sockpuppet of the article creator. Sockpuppet edits should be deleted, but this would remove context. Striking out seems a better alternative. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)