Television Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Based on my viewership of the show, it seems that Percy sent Kasim (sp) to kill Micheal's family and not Michael as it states. I mean what would that achieve, but killing his family gets Percy a lieutenant that is highly trained and motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.195.126 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, 51K page views in one day is not entirely bad. :P ChaosMaster_Chat 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These headers are vague, and repeated requests for explanation here have been ignored. There are ovever 3 million pages on WP, and thousands on TV articles, aso "compare to other pages" is also vague. The accepted standard for TV article pages is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television). Please explain where the article fails to meet the standard guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs expansion, copy-editing, and clean up. Specifically the development, lead, and broadast section (I attempted the later of the three). ChaosMaster_Chat 00:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion will happen, in time. The only real expansion that could be done now is to go into more detail on plot and characters, which is not warranted, as these pages are only intended to be summaries, not detailed compendiums. "CLean-up" and "copy-editing" are still vague. I'm a fair copy-editor - I've looked at the articles, and nothing obvious jumps out at me, which is why I'm asking for clarification. I honeslty haven't a clue what your issues are, and apparently, you really don't either, or you'd fix them yourself, or explain them. - BilCat (talk) Opps, that last part was way too snarky! - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, pretty much every article can be expanded as well as better written, for a show with only 2 episodes aired it's a fairly decent article. I see no issues that would require copy-editing. If there are specific issues address them specifically. Since these tags have been first added several "copy-editings" and "clean ups" have been performed, but not to the high standard of the tagger resulting in the re-addition of these tags every time. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(television)#Broadcasting_lists

The consensus on Wikipedia project television discourages Broadcast sections, and suggests keeping to English speaking nations and providing citations that show notability. It is not enough to just verify. Do not remove citation need tags until citations satisfy WP:NOTABLE. -- Horkana (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively remove the listing entirely but do not leave in untagged items without something to show notability. -- Horkana (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links from the Channel broadcasting Nikita is only enough to WP:VERIFY it is being shown. Editors have failed to show these foreign broadcasts are notabable by referencing other coverage besides the channels promoting themselves. After repeated removal of the citation needed tags I have reluctantly removed the non-notable international broadcasters. -- Horkana (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mentioned somewhere that the network is tweaking the show to appeal for to women 18-34? Jayy008 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source it could be added to production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go ahead and do it now. Jayy008 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edits, but it may need copy-editing or some other information added from the source. Jayy008 (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think this is notable for inclusion? Ostroff and Fonseca discuss big changes. Jayy008 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CW episode list, next episode Jayy008 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain this edit? can you provide the source int he guidelines which states this? here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TV#Cast_information there is no mention of this "guideline". it DOES say For the main article of a series, it may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". please provide a link to verify you statement.

additionally, the guidelines state several ways to "properly" do the cast section. why are you insisting on changing this to prose, when clearly there was nothing wrong with the way it was previously? it fit guidelines. this article has been around for 10 months with no issue. I am sure there is a guideline which states to leave this as it was, to follow the current standards on the page. that is how the page was started. why must you change this now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.4.80 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was similar things on other Television pages and they always get changed to prose. Thank you for showing me those guidelines, I've always preferred a list, it's just they always get changed. Jayy008 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that we have too many episode summary details in our cast listings, which should ideally be more focused on real world information (which we do have some of). In other TV show articles I've worked on, eventual character deaths and the like are largely regarded as episode summary. I feel that should apply on this show as well (so Thom's and Jaden's deaths, and the plot surrounding the death of Michael's family should be pulled). It's not that the information is a spoiler that I have an issue with so much as it's an issue of recentism to my eye. What do others think? Millahnna (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the character is dead, it should be noted. Jayy008 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The character section is to describe the character, the fact that they're dead seems rather important to that description. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was actually enough space in the edit note I would have said this in the first revert. The very definition of an episode summary would be something like "in episode 6 X did this and therefore Y happened". And whilst I understand your logic in calling it an episode summary the bottom line it is not. The fact is by your own logic a lot of things should be pulled. If I had space in the second revert I would have mentioned this as well. But what about the detail about Alex being a sex slave. Owen killing Daniel? Owen falling in love? If you wanted to get really draconian about it, you could make an argument to delete the whole of the recurring cast because it offers way to much information. Again consistency is key and unless there is a mass re-write it is better left the way it is. In the end though WP:SPOILER is the golden rule. Meowies (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tubey Awards are currently listed with a link to Television Without Pity. However I don't find any mention of the awards in the article on TWoP nor is there currently an article or redirect for Tubey Awards as evidenced by the red link. If these awards are significant enough to be in the article on Nikita then they likely are notable enough to have some explaination in some article. If they aren't then it's questionable if they belong here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think they're notable. I think they should be removed. Jayy008 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for the awards itself but you can see on it's website all of the nominees and such. They have put their second list of nominees and I have added them, however, I have no idea how to work the column so it's all scattered. Sorry for making such a mess, I just wanted to take the time to put the new ones up. Can someone please fix it for me? ~ Anonymous

I saw the DVD of Nikita already on the shelf here in the Philippines (August 19). I don't know when it was officially released here. TJ Reyes 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Reyes (talk • contribs)

They haven't been credited in the series since their deaths (Ashton since episode 12 and Tiffany since episode 20) and apparently they won't be appearing on season 2, so shouldn't we remove them from "starring" on infobox and keep their names listed as "stars" only in the first season article? What do you all think? Decodet (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for discussion here. It's a TV issue as a whole. We can't remove previous stars as when the show ends who was in each season is pretty meaningless. Also, they weren't removed from the credits, Ashton Holmes was on the credits until episode 14. I don't know about Hines. Jayy008 (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Holmes was credited until episode 14 and Hines was last credited on episode 20. Decodet (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, they can't be removed. The infobox on the main page lists all cast members who have ever had star billing in original credit order (the pilot) followed by the order they joined the series. Jayy008 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I understood - if Nikita is on season six, for example, Holmes and Hines should still be listed along with other possible actors that has joined the series? Decodet (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. But if it gets too long then this can be done. The basic point is that when the show finishes, who appeared in each season doesn't matter. Also, there would be a lot of disagreement on who is important and who isn't. I did bring this up for discussion recently, and all characters must stay. Jayy008 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help me correctly put in the external link for http://nikita2010.wikia.com/wiki/Nikita_Wiki

I keep getting '%7C' added when my link-code goes to the site. (Find it at "External Links" in WP article.)

It is a good site and I'd like it included. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit, but I think this is an inappropriate EL under WP:ELNO #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." TJRC (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was misusing the vertical-bar '|'. I think it of value to WP readers. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should talk. I may have misnamed the site (my word-choice about 'fans') —the site seems very reliable. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the new link is more useful than the external link just above it, "Nikita Episode Guide". — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as of this date, this Article has mostly white space at the top of the article, in the middle. Could this open space be filled with a picture or two? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple pictures! Decodet (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nikita (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/wiser/2683844,CST-FTR-paige08.article
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.star.gr/tv/en/Pages/Series.aspx?artId=42&artTitle=nikita
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ant1iwo.com/webtv/show-page/?show=37581

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added "the show is made entirely available on the free CW Seed starting December 2020.^[1] in the "release" section. Editor Sleptlapps persecuted me with a usual bad faith. How is that acceptable here? Thanks.

Context and ping: User:Sleptlapps removed the edit here. Given the language used (referring to it as "entirely free" for example) and the sourcing (it's a reprinting of a press release), it reads like an attempt to sell the show/service. Also I'd advise watching the hostile wording. Accusing others of persecuting and assuming bad faith is a violation of WP:CIVIL CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Entirely free" means the entire show is free, not partial. If I was directing people to buy the release, hurting their wallet at a time of pandemic, then it's true promotion for sure. I guess I am always the one to blame, since I didn't see "press release" at the top. The jokes were on me. I was trying to be factually correct from the title of the article, which was Sep 2020 vs Dec 2020. I didn't know The Futon Critic would put press release on their site, but obviously I guess he presumed i was guilty before innocent. Please stop this nonsense. If he is civil, he could have been less condescending. It's so frustrating here. Supermann (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for misquoting, the actual quote should be "entirely available on the free [channel]", which still reads as advertising a service. Promoting something does not necessarily mean getting people to pay for something, but can also mean getting people to use a service, such as to increase ratings. To clarify, I am not saying that was what you were doing, I am merely explaining a fallacy in your argument. Furthermore, Sleptlapps left a templated warning on your talk page, and was not accusing you of malice. If you'd rather people avoid leaving templated messages such as that, you can easily leave a message at the top of your talk page requesting people not leave templated warnings CiphriusKane (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't even know what "leaving a templated warning" means. All I can see is just endless presumption of bad faith. Instead of devoting energy to inform readers of knowledge, we are wasting time on argument, fallacy. I am not interested. I just want to empower our readers with free info they could use. Have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It means they posted Template:uw-advert2 to your talk page. Templated messages are tools to quickly notify others of issues, which can seem impersonal and condescending, but bad faith? Hardly in this case. It's a fair use, as the edit was promotional (I'm the third editor to say as such). I think it'd be an idea for you to strike the accusation of bad faith, as quite a bit of what you've written here is bad faith ("I guess he presumed i was guilty before innocent" for example) CiphriusKane (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being the third really doesn't mean much. There could be 500 million on my side if Wikipedia isn't blocked in China. wikipedia.org is 100% blocked in China | GreatFire Analyzer We agree to disagree. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Supermann please don't threaten other users with canvassing. Sleptlapps (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrain yourself from labeling other people with the word "threaten." I feel threatened by you. If you look at the opening sentence of "Canvasssing," "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That's all I was suggesting. We need participation. We need turnout to really show whatever we are writing are informing the millions of people who are reading but not writing. Speaking of participation for this 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Election, voter turnout is really low per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021#Outreach. Please don't pretend there isn't a likelihood of those 500 million Chinese disagreeing with me after all. Supermann (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Supermann: This edit is even more promotional than this edit (which may have passed with a discussion on the wording). It feels like you've completely ignored concerns about the wording and implications of selling services. I am asking that you discuss this before readding blatantly promotional content that others have found problematic (ideally without mentioning China's population). Pinging @HighInBC: as somebody who's commented on this before CiphriusKane (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. How is this PROMOTIONAL per Wikipedia:Spam when the disadvantage of CW Seed have been exposed and there are no sales aspect? CW Seed is part of CW, where the show was originally released. It's not about telling people the show is otherwise non-free on Apple TV+ where you can buy it at $29.99 per season. Your reasoning beats me. If we are talking about apples vs apples, then Zack Snyder's Justice League shouldn't mention anything about HBO Max which is not a free service. I finished catching up the show on CW Seed without any piracy and paying a single dime for any product advertised during the commercial breaks. I am proud of myself and lament the fact that only people residing in United States can watch it for free. Thanks and let common sense reign! Supermann (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]