Talk:Monsters HD

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Television: Stations

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

minor edits[edit]

Made minor edits to reflect the end of the monster HD website etc. RIP 69.127.228.109 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Tag[edit]

A obscure, defunct network doesn't need a list of every movie is supposedly aired. Article has 3 questionable references of poor quality. Instead of removing article improvement tags, how about improving the article.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Significant Coverage from Reliable Sources with Citations and Improved Article and Tags[edit]

The first and longest running linear horror channel in the US received significat coverage in media, has an existing Toy and DVD line, and is still owned by a major cable programmer, AMC Networks, after being put into limbo by an $2.4 billion lawsuit which was recently settled in October 2012. ""'KEEP""' --LONGEDDY (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence hinges on weasel word. Also myself along with another editor have scrutinized some of the Reliable sources, for example a self published blog is not a reliable source. Now if a reputed writer has a blog on a reputed media site, that is different. Also the citation's are often not supporting the information. The significant coverage pertains to the parent companies and parent networks which are all defunct. I don't think this article is notable enough to justify a freestanding, poorly written, poorly formatted article. Either a delete more merge seems more in order.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""'PLEASE""' check the references and citations that you removed & undid again since they do support the information relating to the channel (not the parent companies). For example: the blog is from a reliable, reputable source which backs up the information detailed in the article relating to the channel's promotional character. Horror writer and comic book artist Steven Bissette is areputable educator and has a website which is archiving his old blogs (StevenBissette.com). The significant coverage and the additional information relating to the channel's programming WAS REFERENCED in the reputable horror magazine RUE MORGUE with pages noted and a link to the actual magazine cover story and section on the network. Article page numbers are cited. Highlights of the network are also noted in the magazine article. It supports the article and the relevance of the channel (not the parent companies or networks). Significant coverage and additional information relating to the channel's boutique DVD line and original Monsterama programming were clearly referenced in the reputable video review magazine VIDEO WATCHDOG by publisher/writer Tim Lucas. Again, this citation supported the channel in the article's marketing as well as it's existing DVD line (not the parent companies). The same is true of the citation relating to the channel's existing toy line from AMOK TIME which continues to sell and market action figures and busts under the MONSTERS HD line as reported and reviewed on horror website FANGORIA.COM, a reputable ancillary horror genre outlet from FANGORIA MAGAZINE (which was also cited in the first sentence) to support the channel's significance (not the parent company. Again, this article does justify a freestanding article with confirmation from an administrator, or other editors that don't have an agenda, that the information is clearly supported by the citations. LONGEDDY (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that blog and I am not the only editor that has checked those "references". Also I don't think because AMC owns VOOM which is also defunct also with Monster's HD, (please see the very references you keep applying, Monster's HD is gone and has been for over 3 years)that it is worth mention robert kirkman and the walking dead here. So now we have another revert even though you have been advised about edit war by myself and another editor, and we have 30 references. Ok I going to check each and every one. Do you have a reference to support the slogan?--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi Open$0urce - Removed Walking Dead Reference. I agree and removed. I think I am getting the hang of it but still have so much to learn. Sorry. As for the slogan, i think I found one and another editor was kind enough to remove the protection. As far as other references, thanks for checking. If you find something problematic, I will do my best to remedy or find alternates. Much appreciated for you rime and effort.LONGEDDY (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better than it was, but a somewhat side effect of one persons effort is neutral point of view or lack there of. Also quoting or over reliance doesn't always negate weasel words. I have made comments on forums and blogs, are they worth quoting, especially to project a subject in a positive light, nope.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy issues[edit]

Several references do not support or mention information. Will go line by line (AGAIN) and remove bad refs. fact tag each line found to have a bad or questionable ref. Lastly attempt to find reference or delete per wikipedia guidelines.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Lot of reliance on print only references such as Fangoria, Rue Morque, and some other very non-mainstream publications.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the references I removed yesterday had 0 mention of what they were supposed to support. Also 0 mention of Monster's HD. Coincidentally a lot of print references which are a challenge to verify--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Facts are substantiated and backed up for Rue Morgue by online citation and reference from Best-Horror-Movies.com. {Please read the articles cited if you still have questions and let me know what you might think is not in good faith relating to citations. I stand by the facts and welcome all "Fangoria" "Rue Morgue" readers to chime in if it isn't true. Anyone? In addition, the Rue Morgue publication is available for purchase as the link suggests if you really need to triple check. WP:AGF The Rue Morgue cover story articles are even referenced in the link . In addition, unclear of what you refer to as very non-mainstream publications. HorrorHound is a leading genre publication and so is Video Watchdog. Both have been around for quite some time and are available in Barnes and Noble nationwide and are still being published.. The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope was also available in Barnes and Noble and Borders. LONGEDDY (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded and improved article with additional section to substantiate additional questons on "Slogan" WP:AGF. to reiterate (AGAIN) reliable sources on the subject. Will continue to expand. Would appreciate constructive additions/ improvements instead of threats of deletion and edit wars. The suggestion of adding sections to this article was a good one and continues to fuel the article. How about a section as I proposed on other entrants in the horror television category in the U.S. and abroad. I welcome it and will also try to expand on that.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally concur on WP:AGF, statements such as "subjective edits" and insinuating that nominating for deletion has something to do with AMC lawsuit is not WP:AGF Actions speak louder than words, there are other articles not related to this one and Voom, should check them out as a lot of articles need reference improvements. I welcome additional editors to chime in on the discussion. Would love to get another point of view on this article as well as reach a consensus--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well several of the print articles were from 3+ years ago, with the heaviest reliance on ones from 8 years ago,so doubtful Barnes and Noble will carry. Will check with local library. Also still seeing some questionable references. Kinda hard to cleanup when it appears a lot of stuff is being added and not verified. Also have concerns of undue weight to minority opinion, advocate editing, and single point of view editing.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Meets General Notabililty Guidelines. Even the website Best Horror Movies.com cites the magazine. You will have to order the magazine in back issues at Rue Morgue. Look at the link again for the citation. Die hard horror fans know of the mag. Check it out. A valuable, verifiable resource just like Cinefantastique, Fangoria and other publications that are relied upon in the Horror Category. Again, adding additional information which is from reliable sources to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LONGEDDY (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well like I said on the nom for delete page, I am moving on to the many other things on wikipedia as I do not conduct or condone advocate editing. Heavy reliance on subscription only print references can still raise verifiability issues per wikipedia policy.0pen$0urce (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Review[edit]

Well pretty simple you have one editor making a lot of edits, the neutrality can intentionally or unintentionally be skewed. Would like a review from a neutral non-active editor. Have great concerns of wp:advocacy based on edit history of one editor, tone and verbiage used in discussions to include insinuations.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This neutral non-active non-editor just read the piece. It all seems to be pretty benign to my eyes. The most likely part to be skewed would be the discussion of the lawsuit and demise of the channel, which seems to be reasonable factual in it's reporting, without any gross insinuations. (I happened upon this article by doing a google search for the Monsters HD channel after seeing an advertisement for it today in a back issue of Rue Morgue magazine) 72.39.66.149 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad[edit]

This reads like an advertisement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]