User talk:Drovethrughosts

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Orphaned non-free image File:Shrinking (TV series).png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shrinking (TV series).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pitt edit

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to ask a question since it seems you're pretty experienced with articles on television. You corrected the run time on The Pitt as 41–61, but the source states 45–60. Since the template for the infobox specifically asks for a reliable source, I assumed that it couldn't be sourced directly from the episodes, like it seems you did. So can the source material be used directly to cover the info? If that is the case, I think a citation referencing the episodes should be added. Thanks in advance! Poirot09 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poirot09: The episodes themselves can count as reliable sources in this context when we're just sourcing a simple fact such as episode runtimes, and both Amazon Prime and Crave are third-party sources which are notable streaming services. While the source you initially used was perfectly fine, there are episodes shorter than the 45 minutes they stated. And by the way, all the expansion you've done to the article recently has been fantastic! Keep up the great work! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drovethrughosts Thank you! :) Poirot09 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Adam(buffy).jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adam(buffy).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadwood & Justified

[edit]

Neither "not the best souce" (sic) nor "not lede worthy" are good arguments to outright remove material from both articles. Sure, per WP:SCREENRANT consensus is that Screen Rant is only marginally reliable. And, sure, it's not lede worthy. Couldn't you have moved the material somewhere else in the article, instead of outright deleting it? --62.166.252.159 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

For external links my understanding is the rule on fansites is not absolute. The guidelines say for example: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." and " "If editors agree to include a link to a major fansite, they should not link to more than one." Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL

The West Wing Episode Guide links only said "ursuped" because they were all archived from the Internet Archive, and and the individual episode pages include many links to related news articles. https://web.archive.org/web/20200204193141/http://www.westwingepguide.com/

And for the main page I think the West Wing Continuity Guide would be acceptable as one major site. (Same with the Outlander one)

newsjunkie (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're linking to fansites, they need to be notable and reputable, not just ones that simply "exist". For example, why are we linking to "Outlander Watch"? I did a Google search for "Outlander fansite", I didn't come across that website in the first 6 pages of results (I'm stopped looking after that). Why not link to this one, or this, or that? There's ton of them. Per an website traffic checker, "Outlander Watch" gets just a few hundred hits a month, why are we linking to this seemingly random fansite? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that the West Wing Continuity Guide is the most notable existing one and most longstanding one (and possibly one of the only ones still active)?
And that the (archived) West Wing Episode guide would be appropriate for the season pages? As I said the, the individual episode pages contain news article excerpts probably not available in many other places. It used to be the one of the major ones. Since it's archived, one can't really analyze traffic, but can still find various references to it, including some research papers and news articles.
In terms of Outlander, I was originally trying to figure out where the official scripts were still located before realizing the archived official site was accessible. That site and the last one you posted seem a little more specifically focused on the TV show, whereas other ones, like this prominent one pre-date the TV show and has more of a history of also following the books and a demonstrated connection to the original author. I don't know the Outlander site landscape as well as The West Wing one, but those first two ones don't seem to have been updated in some years it seems. I'm not sure just using the keyword fansite is always the best approach because some of them don't necessarily use it their self-description. newsjunkie (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]