Talk:Gravity Falls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Credits

Episode came out early on itunes today. Should I post the credits somewhere? --Pyritie (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Principal cast credits are already referenced in article so, unless something has changed, don't need to be modified. Article starring cast order should match show opening credit order so check for that. Guest cast generally go with the episode in the list of episodes article they guest star in and don't normally go in the main article unless recurring or otherwise significant. Once an episode has been aired or otherwise widely available the episode itself is the reference for its content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Characters

Shouldn't we add about Old Man McGucet, Mystery Man, Deputy Durland, The other officer and Lil Gideon they have appeared in a few episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.49.194 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If the characters are significant to the show, have appeared more than once and have some details that can be added such as who the actor is who voiced the character and some details about the character, then it is reasonable to add to the article. The section should be split with headers into Main and Recurring if this is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro

I noticed that the shows intro resembles a cross between the Warehouse 13 and Haven intros. 74.69.214.197 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

you should add more characters like Quentin Trembly the 8th in a half president of the united states in which had babies as congress man and made Mabel pines a congress woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:8580:2D:E870:445D:DDB:21F3 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has put anywhere on the site anything about Mr. Pyramid Man or any of the strange symbols from the half a second they appear on the theme song, or the secret backwards saying, 'three letters back', or the codes at the end of each episode. My brothers and I have reason to believe that Mr. Pyramid Man can be found at least once in every episode, and the way to crack the code at the end of each episode changes every six episodes. Does anyone know how to add that as a little section on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.193.164 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Before anybody puts that stuff on the page please find a reliable source that will back it up. Ratemonth (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Other media

I added a section for Gravity Fall's appearence on Mad, but something went wrong. Can someone fix it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.35.27 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Releases

Doesn't need to be there, it's unsourced. 75.111.63.85 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's no reason to blank a section entirely. LieutenantLatvia (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR then. 75.111.63.85 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Broadcast says "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged". Read style guide for more. Also the section is unreferenced so this also reduces the value of having that detail in this article. I support removing the section completely per the style guide. If it is put back then tag the section with {{Unreferenced section}}, wait a month then remove any entry in the table that is still unreferenced. If nothing is left, remove the section completely. Note: the guideline also states "All information must be verifiable by reliable sources." so references can be required and unreferenced info removed if info is in doubt. Good practice is to tag and give people a chance to provide a reference if info is plausible. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability

This article does not meet notability per the message in the edit summary which you summarily twice dismiss falsely, Geraldo Perez. In effect you have made a personal attack and did not act in good faith in say I did not act in good faith.

• "Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk): Tag was not added in good faith - No question that this article meets WP:N."
• 1 edit by Spshu (talk): Specious - this article meets all the requirement at WP:GNG, no rational argument that is article is not notable. - with both reversals of my edit even incorrect marked as MINOR and using TW.

Sources in the article are either:

1. Disney based sources (fails "Independent of the subject") disneychannelmedianet.com, tv.disney.go.com, disney.co.za, disney.com.au, disney.co.uk, www.disneyxd.ca, family.ca, disneychannel.disney.com
2. reviews (fails NPOV and is "trivial" not significate coverage) Variety review, TV.com, IMDb, Metacritic, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, Wired Magazine
3. consider unrealible sources: twitter, TV.com, IMDb
4. trivial coverage: "Friday Cable Ratings: 'Let it Shine' Premiere, + US Open, 'WWE Friday Night Smackdown', 'Common Law', 'Fairly Legal', & More". TV By the Numbers. Retrieved July 8, 2012. - Sure isn't largely about Gravity Falls, use regular rating coverage.

That cover all your source. Not a single "Significant coverage" article. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Article obviously meets WP:GNG:

• The reviews and coverage in Variety, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News and Wired Magazine are the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Your only argument is that this coverage is trivial, not significant coverage. You assert that opinion as fact. I strongly disagree with that determination. I expect most people who participate in AFD discussions would as well. This is my reason for not originally considering your tagging of this article serious as this level of coverage is generally sufficient for pretty much every AFD keep decision I have seen.

As for the other sources:

• Disney sources are valid primary sources used for article details. Valid for how used in article, no claim they establish notability.
• Rating sources are support for, obviously, ratings information.
• Verified twitter from the show runner is definitely a reliable primary source and is valid for uninterpreted, non-self-serving information this person would be directly familiar with.
• IMDB is only used for link to IMDb review info. Valid use in this case as a primary source.
• I agree about TV.com not being a reliable source.

I apologize for not originally taking your concerns seriously - it looked at first as drive-by tagging to me to an article that definitely did not deserve the added tag. This article talk page message after my first (WP:BRD) revert might have headed off some misunderstanding. Now let's see what other editors think about the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No look again as I indicated that the reviews are point of views (NPOV) in addition to not "significant coverage" as they are routine like ratings or TV schedules. Spshu (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, add the twitter accounts are meaningless. They are 140 character blogs (plus the hash tags), so are not consider reliable as they are easy to create false account. Spshu (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how an in-depth reviews and coverage by "Robert Lloyd, Los Angeles Times Television Critic", "Brian Lowry TV Columnist for Variety" and "Matt Blum from Wired" (NY Daily News is kind of light) don't meet the requirements for significant coverage by independent sources. They are much more than the routine regurgitation of press releases we sometimes see as news articles. Of course reviews will reflect the point of view of reviewer, they are still valid secondary sources that give non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only place where NPOV really comes in play is for the wiki article themselves, we only require that sources give independent coverage not that they don't have a point of view. It is up to the editors on wiki to select sources that balance the article, not to exclude sources just because a particular source has a point of view. The fact that there are three review articles that talk in-depth about the show is sufficient to show that this show has been "significantly noted", notable. Most news articles about any TV show will likely be in the form of a review unless they are passing press releases or info derived from them. In-depth reviews are about the best thing we can get to establish notability on television and movie articles.

The point about the twitter accounts being "Verified" is that twitter has demanded and has received proof that the account owner is the real person named. See [1] An unverified twitter account can't be used as a reference as it could be a fake account. Verified twitter accounts are not fake. How or why they should be used depends on the content. A lot can be communicated in 140 character chunks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this reported at WP:RFPP and thought I'd stop by. Geraldo Perez is totally correct here: the reviews count as reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Whether the reviewer has a point of view is irrelevant. Tagging is inappropriate here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree with Mark, the multiple reviews definitely demonstrate notability. Please note that questions of NPOV and notability are distinctly separate. —Dark 08:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For organization notability, "routine restaurant reviews" are not "Acceptable sources". "capsule reviews" ~300 words) are not significant coverage for films. Just having reviews doesn't mean that demostrates notability they are "routine" ie. review space has to be filled with some review just like the TV guide section. Variety review (308 words, capsule review), LA Times (473, ?), NY Daily News (351, capsule); Wired (793, full review). So most flunk the capsule review test. Therefor, even if reviews did count you don't have multiple sources: "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." Gee, it is the verifiable facts and content that needs to be supported not the "Reception" section.

Secondly, "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity" which reviews do not pass as its some one's opinion (NPOV) thus doesn't receive enough editorial oversite to have "editorial integrity". So no NPOV and Notability are not seperate here.

twitter.com/verified does not prove any thing as it has been suspended and links seem not to work there. At this point to me, Twitter Verified is meaningless. Twitter verifies them not WP. Second, if this the only way the information can be had is it really notable/important enough to be in the article? Spshu (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay let's break this down. WP:NN specifies that a subject is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The point of contention that you have with this article deals with "significant coverage" and "reliable", if I am not mistaken. In the former, you have suggested that, just because a review is under 300 words, you have dismissed it as a capsule review and not significant coverage. Please be aware that it is the content, not the word count, that matters. If all the reviews contained are spoilers, then sure, dismiss them as capsule reviews and perhaps not significant coverage. But the sources in question present critiques on the tv series with some amount of depth and fulfil the requirements of significant coverage. Regarding your latter point, you totally misunderstood the reason for editorial integrity with regards to notability. Editorial integrity is to ensure that the sources are not skewed so much in their view, in that they are unable to present an independent insight into the subject. In general, all reviews by major newspapers are assumed to have editorial integrity and are therefore reliable in terms of the notability perspective. If you disagree with this, feel free to take the matter to articles for deletion. I highly advise you against it though. —Dark 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Please be aware that it is the content, not the word count, that matters." The above policy state capsuled reviews are regular and routine, so word count does matter as it is POLICY, you may not dismiss. Second if it did they don't pass your content part of your position, yup, the reviews do not support anything out of "Reception". So they fail "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."

" In general, all reviews by major newspapers are assumed to have editorial integrity and are therefore reliable in terms of the notability perspective." That is your person opinion. Also, I didn't want this to go to AFD. So I shouldn't give Perez or any one much of chance to find article to make it notable?

"In general, all reviews by major newspapers are assumed to have editorial integrity and are therefore reliable in terms of the notability perspective." Reviews are point of views by definition. The reviews once again are only used except for one in the "Reception" section, so even if you were right, the use of them at this point say otherwise. Spshu (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because they do not support anything out of reception, that does not mean they fail. You'll be hard-pressed to find a source that covers the entirety of a Wikipedia article. There is a significant difference between the way you interpret policy and the way that other editors interpret it, quite honestly you will need to reconcile that difference if you intend to work on notability issues. On editorial integrity, that is not my personal opinion but the standard in which most admins identify reliability. In my view, I do not believe Perez will need to change the article in terms of notability. —Dark 02:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Per quoted (that I quoted TWICE) guideline/policy, yes, it does. I don't expect a single source to cover the entirety of a WP article as I DIDN'T state that. I was only point out per the guildline that only one of the reviews that you claim establish notability is used as a ref in the verifiable content part of the article which is the part that must be notable the opinion part. See, you can not even understand the guidlines so you go casting about for objections like " There is a significant difference between the way you interpret policy and the way that other editors interpret it," The sentence is quoted fully and there is no other way to interpret it, so you statements have no integrity to them and your view point should be dismissed. So what that it has been interpret incorrectly before. Perhaps this a wake up call to interpret correctly.

I didn't make up the capsulated reviews standard. Here is the WP:NF Reliable_sources quote:

"Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database.[1]"

Capsule review states: "Capsule reviews generally appear in publications like newspapers and magazines, and can range anywhere from just a few sentences up to around 300 words." Spshu (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the beginning of the article: "produced by Disney Television Animation for Disney Channel" -- right there, that's notability. This discussion is closed. DS (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not inheritable, DS. The discussion is not closed. With both your lack of the noninheritable rule of notability and your attempt to close the discussion, I suggest that you resign as an administrator ASAP. Spshu (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discission was closed without any other comments.