This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
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 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.
Currently having an edit conflict with an editor who seems to have no understanding of the significance of the information they insist upon editing out, citing reasons that are completely inapplicable. This series is unique in that it is the only television series to remake the plot of a film with minimal, superficial changes to the plotline while utilizing significant portions of dialog from the actual film. It is also unique for incorporating countless (over 50) visual references to the original film. To be clear, a visual reference is a non-plot-significant visual element in set/art design, costuming or styling which makes a direct reference or intimation to the original. This has never been done to this degree in any television series, ever. There are countless reliable citations to this content across the web by reputable sources, as well as academic dissections of the significance of this content. It is relevant, it is *not* trivial, and although the way the information may currently rest within the context of the article may not be ideal, complete elimination of it is shortsighted and unacceptable. CouplandForever (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start off by saying I am not a "redditor" but rather a long-time editor here on Wikipedia. I have previously removed the contested paragraph with a clear explanation, citing various policies or essays, multiple times and I have tried to be clear as to why I have done so. I'll reiterate them here: The paragraph is trivial in the sense that is in fact trivia and not wholly necessary in understanding the plot of the series or giving an overview of its production process (see Wikipedia:Handling trivia). Lead sections of articles should offer an overview and summarization of an article and the information already found in it's body. It should not present new information (see WP:MOSLEAD). A paragraph of trivia gives the information undue weight especially in this instance when the information is juxtaposed against more broad content regarding the series' production process and basic plot (see WP:RSUW). Lastly, summaries and character sections don't need sources. They are covered by WP:Verifiability in that their information (baring specific production details) can be verified from the episodes themselves and elements from them such as their on-screen credits (MOS:TV).
I'm not even arguing that the paragraph/information doesn't have place in the article but, in its current state, it is inappropriate. The information cannot solely be sourced from the series (as it points to elements of the film it is based on) and it is because of that more specifically why a reliable, secondary citation is needed to verify the claims being asserted. Additionally, you have stated above how the series is "unique" and pointed out that multiple sources back-up this claim but ultimately do not provide any of them. This would seemingly run afoul of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I am not interested in getting into an editor war over this issue. I a however, very concerned about the quality of the article and feely strongly about the information included being within Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and consensus. – BoogerD (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the information added to the lede is trivial and is of little encyclopedic value. It reads like something that would belong more on a fan page. If I came across something similar on a different television page, especially something unsourced such as this information I would revert immediately. It simply doesn't belong. Esuka323 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur that the information is trivial. I read the edit history. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions, reviews, and analyses of T.V. series. It's NOT reddit! — Lbtocthtalk 23:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
