Talk:Laff (TV network)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laff (TV network) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Television: Stations Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Sourcing articles[edit]

Electricburst1996, Cease your disruptive editing at Laff (TV network). Your edit summary: "Take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television if you want to complain. None of the other subchannel network articles' programming lists have sources, either. " That an argument that should not be used per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Secondly, subchannel networks that I have been involved with do have their programming lists sourced. Cable channels' list of programming have been stripped bare and restarted by me and other editors. I do not need to go to WP:TV as policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, indicates: "...and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Spshu (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like an actual attempt to discuss problems with the page and ways the page can be improved. This message was copied verbatim from a message previously left on my talk page, and thus an article talk page is not the appropriate forum for this kind of message. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electricburst1996: As you've already been told at the thread you started at ANI, this article talk page is the appropriate forum for this kind of message. You've clearly learnt nothing from yesterday.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like a clarification why this is the appropriate forum for this type of message. It just seems too personal. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Electricburst1996: Well, go to ANI and ask. Your thread's still open... waiting or your boomerang and all (which I may just throw myself after all).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no thanks. I'm trying to stay away from ANI for now... Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Electricburst1996: Well, you'll be back there later today. I'm putting together the boomerang now.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna wait for what's coming at me... Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning that this message wasn't appropriate for this page doesn't hold water, since you also removed it from your talk page without answering it at first. So, is it not appropriate for anywhere? Yet, it contains very valid concerns about your reinstatement of unsourced content that had been removed, with snarky edit summaries. Taking it to the WikiProject could have been done, but there was no requirement to; here was just as good. LjL (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

←Round 2. Electricburst1996, why have you returned unsourced information again? The sources at the top are for only ABC O&O Stations and E. W. Scripps Company stations. Rabbit Ears doesn't include launch dates and databases are suppose to be sparingly used. And Laff's website list is a database and primary sourcing which is not prefer sourcing. Spshu (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: Well, it's all we've got so far when it comes to sourcing. If you can scout out better sources, so be it. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I would just trying to get better sources. I stripped down the listing so I know what stations was sourced, but ran out of time to complete it to the point that rabbitears.info, or other low RS sources, should be invoked (as being the remaining available source). Spshu (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Programming list[edit]

Has to with the fact that most of the show are reruns. And those list will not be compete as not every thing will be outside and should not be as WP:NOTTVGUIDE indicates: "not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". All rerun shows' articles (or potentially their episodes' articles) don't list all TV stations, cable channels and now classic diginets that have carried it. Basically, using WP:SELFSOURCE, which you are using a self published schedule as a source, and WP:NOTTVGUIDE together makes it indiscriminate or excessive listing. If you found a RS that is not self source then I would consider them not to be indiscriminate. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTTVGUIDE: "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." 1) In regards to the upcoming events part, the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20#RfC - Should TV network pages include future programming lists? states as follows: There is an overwhelming majority consensus that these lists are appropriate for inclusion, though not indiscriminately. Participants assert that WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY must be followed strictly. 2) The article does not list current promotions or schedules. 3) How is using the actual schedule not acceptable? I think it's the most reliable source we currently have. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be "historically significant program lists". Thus to get that "historically significant" part, it is best to preclude self sources (WP:SELFSOURCE) like the network's schedule. Spshu (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to escalate. I think the source should stand. After all, you haven't raised a stink about other lists of this nature, have you? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages are not relevant. But on other classic diginets, I have not look at or have not seen excessive listings. Spshu (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]