Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon WikiProject Australian television is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian television.

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

When Love Comes to Town (TV series)

Can someone update this article and correct the table with the contestants? --Gce (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that George Lazenby, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Ditch Davey

Would someone from WP:AUTV mind taking a look at Ditch Davey and assessing it? Two IPs (most likely the same person) have recently removed some of the content possibly related to Davey's real name, etc., but I reverted them since the edits basically left the article without a lead sentence. It's quite possible that "Kristian Lind " is not his real name (IMDb lists his birth name as Kristian Davey) and all of the sources found online seem to refer to him as Ditch Davey; so, perhaps all of the other name stuff should be removed unless it can be properly sourced. FWIW, the "Kristian Davey" stuff was added by another IP but no supporting sources were provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Only reliable info I can find re his name is from a 2002 Herald Sun article:

ANYONE expecting a Tinseltown-style story about how Ditch Davey got his unlikely name is bound to be disappointed.

The 26-year-old Blue Heelers star blames an older sister for the moniker change.

"When I was born, my sister, who was two, was tongue-tied at the time and couldn't say Kristian. She used to say Ditchin."

The name stuck, and Davey added Ditch to his name by deed poll when he turned 18.
— Cheryl Critchley, "Wrong side of the law." Herald Sun (22 January 2002) p. 104.
Couldn't find anything linking him to the surname Lind. Seeing as it appears he has legally changed his name, it'd probably be best to begin the lede with 'Ditch Davey (born Kristian Davey) or (born Kristian)'. — (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on this Removing any mention of the birthname might be the best thing to do. The IPs were also changing his wife's name from Dunn to Davey, but reliable sources continue to refer to her using her maiden name after the two eere married, so not sure if that should be changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Updating the Behind the News article

Hello, I work at Behind the News and the show' 50th anniversary is next year. As part of this process we've done some original research (talking to past producers) and have a wealth of information we can provide. How do I go about updating the page in a legitimate way? My thinking was to pair up with a wikipedian who is able to look over a Google Doc we will write? Daniel Mee 04:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talkcontribs)

Hi Danielmee. I'm not really a member of this WikiProject, but I'll just leave a few general comments. I am going to write this as if you're a total newbie, even though you're probably not. So, you may know most of this already.
First of all, you will have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter and also may even be considered a paid editor. Neither COI editing or paid editing is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia, but they are highly discouraged because they can lead to other more serious issues. So, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some general information about what kinds of edits the Wikipedia community feels are acceptable for COI/paid editors to make. If it turns out that you are being paid or compensated for your work, then you should make sure you comply with WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY because you will be expected to do certain things to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Service. In general, COI/paid editors are encourage to propose changes that they would like to seen made to articles on article talk pages so that they can be reviewed by others. In some cases, such as listed in WP:COIADVICE, it might be acceptable to directly edit the relevant article itself, but in the majority of cases it's better to use the article talk page. Nobody can force you to do so, but editing on Wikipedia is typically done by consensus and any changes you make to the COI article can simply be undone if someone else find's them controversial. So, it's better to establish a consensus first per WP:CAUTIOUS.
The next thing you need to be aware of is Wikipedia:Ownership of content because nobody techinically owns a Wikipedia article (unless you count Wikipedia) per se. This once again means that article content is expected to be determined for the most part through consensus and is to be in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Disagreements over content are supposed to be resolved according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution so the subject of articles do not have any final editorial control over what goes into and article or what is removed.
Finally, the last thing you need to be aware of is Wikipedia:No original research. Article content is really only supposed to reflect what can be verified through citations to reliable sources. They sources are generally preferred to be independent and secondary, and are required to be published. Basically, Wikipedia is not too interested in what the subject of an article has to say about itself, but rather is interested in what others might be saying about it. A "reliable source" has a specific meaning with respect to Wikipedia, so even though you might considered these past producers to be quite reliable individuals, they probably don't qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Also, not everything which may be true and even verifiable by a citing a reliable sources needs to be mentioned in an article; so, sometimes a bit of editorial discretion might be needed to focus only the really encyclopedically relevant points.
If you have any more questions about this or editing in general, you can also try the Wikipedia Teahouse since experienced editors tend to hang out there trying to help others. Nore specific questions about COI/Paid editing can be asked at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks heaps @Marchjuly: for your help. @Cyphoidbomb: just recently clarified your first point to me over on my talk page which was great; point two I did know and I didn't know about point three. This is going to be hard as no one seems to be talking about BTN except the ABC despite being the third longest running TV show in Oz! I have sent a message to NLA though to see if they can help us... not sure if there are any other ways to get "published"...? Thanks heaps for your help! Daniel Mee 15:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not to say a well researched piece of published material by the ABC on the history of BTN wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. It likely would to some degree or another depending on the depth of the research and analysis and the context of the publication (see WP:PRIMARY). I think the bigger point in relation to your original question is that research musn't be original – ie. it needs to be published first. Original research by the ABC/BTN which is subsequently published would no longer be original research for WP:NOR purposes because there would be a source for that info. Whether the source is reliable or not is, however, another question. (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)