Talk:2018 in American television/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orphaned references in 2018 in American television

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 in American television's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dcbizjournal-tmddc":

• From WRC-TV: "NBCUniversal to launch Telemundo station". Washington Business Journal. American City Business Journals. September 12, 2017. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
• From 2017 in American television: "NBCUniversal to launch Telemundo station". Washington Business Journal. September 12, 2017. Retrieved September 13, 2017.

Reference named "mediamoves-tmddc":

• From WRC-TV: "Telemundo ends affiliate deal with ZGS to launch O&O in D.C." Media Moves. September 11, 2017. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
• From 2017 in American television: "Telemundo ends affiliate deal with ZGS to launch O&O in D.C." Media Moves. September 11, 2017. Retrieved September 13, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

In the March 29th item about Scoobynatural "A pair of mystery-centric shows, Supernatural and Scooby-Doo, will cross paths in its first ever television crossover between a live-action series and an animated series..." whose first television crossover? The CW? Because if it's television in general, Jessie and Ultimate Spider-Man in "Halloween Night at the Museum" would like a word--Harmony944 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 28, 2018 entry

The entry for March 28 on Axios report on Trump's comment on Amazon's tax treatment appears to have dubious necessity in the article. The story focuses on Amazon as a whole rather than its streaming platform or content related to it. TVTonightOKC 19:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I want to move Trollhunters in the Programs ending table from TBA to May 25, as per its inclusion in all those "Everything coming to and leaving Netflix in May 2018" articles, but I'm a bit overwhelmed by the intricacies of the table--Harmony944 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I accidentally planted Last Man Standing in the middle of the already-scheduled returns. It'd be great if someone could please fix it--Harmony944 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NBA Finals v Stanley Cup Final

The NBA Finals is listed at its starting date and by its entire stretch while the Stanley Cup Final is listed by and at its end date. Should there be some consistency here and the Stanley Cup Final moved to May 28 or is it because of the NBA Finals YouTube TV sponsorship covering that stretch while the Stanley Cup final defeat just happens on that one night?--Harmony944 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I changed the NBA entry to match the NHL entry. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Belmont Stakes/Justify Triple Crown

I know that this is not 2018 in sports, but I can't help but feel like Justify's Triple Crown achievement should get a spot in notable events. So I think I'm going to seek out ideas on putting a more TV-tied spin on it, such as how did it do in the ratings?--Harmony944 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP (that starts with a 70) intent on removing Jerry Springer from Programs ended

Can someone please find out what his deal is? Because that user is removing content confirmed by multiple sources, information listed in notable events, and yet keeps doing it why?—Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 04:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 04:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Just report them to WP:AIV. Removing factual well sourced information without an explanation is vandalism. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate 'the'

I am a member of the Wikipedia typo team and one of my current projects is cleaning up duplications of the word ‘the’, which is one of the most common duplicated words. Sometimes it’s simply typed twice, sometimes it’s typed prior to and within a wikilink, and other times it’s because of the misguided notion that ‘the’ should appear twice when the definite article appears before a name that starts with ‘the’. For example, it is improper English to say “I’m going to see the The Muppets movie” or to “I’m going out to buy a copy of the The New York Times newspaper. The construction "the The Walking Dead panel" is also wrong. Try saying it to see how awkward it is - and the rules of spoken English are much more flexible than written English.

Please leave this with one 'the'. Thank you.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying I don’t exist to justify a reversion is incredibly silly. Just because I haven’t constructed my user page doesn’t mean my talk page doesn’t exist. You’re claiming the grammar is incorrect when in fact both of your examples prove that your error was removing the wrong “the”. The panel still needs its article. The title of the piece can spare its “the”, but doesn’t necessarily have to.--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 01:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Rising: Secret Warriors

How should we handle it? As a direct to video movie or a movie made for Disney XD/Disney Channel that gets listed in the television movies section?—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 03:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) http://ew.com/tv/2018/07/16/marvel-rising-new-generation-female-fans/amp/

Put it under TV movies.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Two Additions

Paradise PD (new animated series premieres August 31 and Elena of Avalor: Song of the Sirenas premieres September 21. I’m too new to make these changes—Sarcathmo17 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Project Runway Departures

Are the departures of Klum, Gunn, and Posen from Project Runway notable enough to be a listed event?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes we usually list these types of events. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

E!’s Citizen Rose

Should we list it as a miniseries? It has set parts, but the premiere and finale are months apart, so I’m not sure if we should list them in debuting and ending instead--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a limited series, basically the same as a miniseries but longer, so just put it that section. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

October 14 CW Sunday item

It seems like the opening line is a bit incorrect. See, The CW has already reclaimed the hours with two episodes of Masters of Illusion and a Penn & Teller: Fool Us, as I’m watching now. Obviously, the item was more focused on the bigger rollout of the night for the fall season with Supergirl and Charmed, but the start of offering its programming has already happened. So there should be some rewording going on, don’t you think?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes update it accordingly. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s a Wonderful Lifetime

22 other movies, a total of 14 originals and 9 aaside from The Christmas Contract. Should we list all of them? Or should we try to discern original from acquired and just do the originals?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Just list the originals. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

And if they can’t be discerned from available articles?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Check imdb.com for the years of release. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular

Should RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular be mentioned? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes put it under Television films and specials. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

YES Network

I saw the article regarding the Yankees maintaining full control of YES network. Can you replace the text “The sale would exclude YES Network, which airs New York Yankees, Brooklyn Nets, and the New York Giants and Jets games.” with “The sale would exclude YES Network, which airs New York Yankees, Brooklyn Nets, and the New York City Football Club.” 2601:540:7:931E:4946:A51F:BF7A:BB6C (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

See above except here’s the source. This is the right source I’m talking about. 73.117.8.64 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: That source doesn't say that the Yankees have full control over the YES Network as of now. It states it could end up back under full control of the Yankees baseball club, which owns a 20 percent stake meaning Fox still owns its 80% and Yankees still owns their 20% as of now. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Alucard 16 That’s not what I meant. The article says:

“The sale would exclude YES Network, which airs New York Yankees, Brooklyn Nets, and the New York Giants and Jets games, that could end up back under full control of the Yankees baseball club, which owns a 20 percent stake, as the Yankees and a sovereign wealth fund have submitted bids for the YES Network.”

The source says:

“New York’s YES Network, which airs New York Yankees, Brooklyn Nets and New York City Football Club games, could end up back under full control of the Yankees baseball club, which owns a 20 percent stake. The Yankees and a sovereign wealth fund have submitted bids for the network, CNBC said.”

So we need to replace “and the New York Giants and Jets games” with “and New York City Football Club” 2601:540:C:50A0:6408:40F4:3C4F:FA3 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done After re-reviewing the request at the insistence of the editor on my personal talk page I made the change as requested because the source provided in the article does not say New York Giants and Jets games it clearly says the New York City Football Club. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Debut updates

• Cousins for Life premiered November 24
• Nightflyers premieres Sunday 12/2
• 3 Below premieres 12/21
• Project Blue Book needs a transfer to 2019 in American television as it premieres on January 8

I hope this is alright. I’m too new to put it in the main article--Fradio71 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I added them all. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 deaths in American television. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, should be revisited if and when both articles, especially this one, are smaller. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well keep trimming it then, but remember to keep the newest references and delete the older ones. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Other people can also be involved in trimming the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been for the last week. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not calling you out at all. Ideally more than two people for an article of this size though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it's still 621K bytes so something besides duplicate refs and the deaths section should be deleted/split off. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The technical network changes? I imagine this could be down for previous years also. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I will make 2018 in American television network changes unless someone comes up with a better name. And it can also be moved to a different name after it's made too. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay but that only removed 52,746 bytes. The Television programs section is the longest one though, it seems. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

But you're doing such a great job. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's just really not WP:CIVIL to be telling other editors what to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't. I was just making an observation. Sorry I wrote that poorly above. I changed it to clear up any confusion. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know what needs to be done to this article(You can either email me, reply here or can mention it in my talk page).Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I Feel Bad’s “concluding”

I know NBC put in its PR spin said I Feel Bad would have its future decided in the spring, dancing around the word “canceled”, but it’s hard to deny that with that conclusion happening tonight (Thursday), when safer shows concluded their fall runs two or three weeks ago, that I Feel Bad is dunzo. Would it be okay to add it to the Programs ending section, but hide it just in case?--Fradio71 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's cancelled then put it as such. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Page length

This page is already 795,771 bytes long - that's far too big - and the year is not yet over. What's the best way to split it?

for example, we could have one article per month, and/or split "Networks and services", "Television stations" and "Deaths" into separate articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say delete everything in the Television programs section per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also I think almost all of the entries in the Notable events section are way too detailed and most of them have an excessive amount of sources. Also the Deaths section needs to be trimmed. A lot of the entries there have too many works listed (being on one episode of a show isn't noteworthy unless they won an Emmy for it or something). How about just deleting the entries of people who aren't notable enough for their own article? TomCat4680 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries isn’t the answer. For example Black-ish’s 100th episode as recapped by TVLine. There’s an EW article about it too How to Train Your Dragon 3 to end entire franchise from Collider, pertaining to Dreamworke Dragons’s end. And that’s just off the top of my head. It’s not our fault that television content is so expansive nowadays. So many streaming outlets, so many programs. Also, as far as deaths? Is exponential population growth our fault too?--Fradio71 (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The unsourced entries should have been removed a long time ago. Whoever posted them were given ample time to source them and never did. I know it only made a small difference to the size by removing them, but letting them remain was violating WP:V. I added the now-sourced Black-ish entry back in BTW. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fradio71: So what's your solution for reducing the size of the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have some experience cutting down superlarge articles, and this article looks like a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. I would recommend the following changes in accordance with relevant expertise in the subject area:

• A drastic reduction in the events timeline. This should only include significant events and not be a summary of the daily television news. Anybody should be free to remove events, and people can bring it to the talk page if they feel it should be kept.
• Some tables like episode milestones or programs ending probably aren't necessary for this article.
• Far too much written prose for many entries across all tables, with far more detail than necessary.
• List of deaths would be better kept as its own article.
• Multiple references are unnecessary, this article does not need 1500 references.

This article has a strong possibility of failing an article for deletion process, where WP:TNT may apply. The frequent editors of this article may want to start the article all over again anyway if they feel that would be easier. Otherwise, the remedy for this article is to delete entries, delete references, and split sections off. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing programs ended entirely with no alternative is a dangerous, nonsensical precedent. If you're removing the shows that ended in a year, what's to stop someone from calling for the removal of the year's debuts too? And deleting the whole article because it's too big? What kind of expert's advice is that?--Fradio71 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been long articles that have been deleted because it was considered they were too long and too hard to fix. I've found some ways to cut down the size of this article and I don't think this article should be deleted, but if it was it would be to start over per WP:TNT. The biggest problem for the article seems to be the excessive detail of timeline entries, and entries that aren't closely related to American television. As for debuts, I think they are more important than programs ending, particularly non-notable endings. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

How are endings any less notable as a concept than debuts? How would you define a notable ending?--Fradio71 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Some of the entries are “excessively” detailed because they tell the full timeline of the story. Removing sources of the following up to those stories means your removing sources of the statements. The original articles aren’t always updated with the new information and instead the new information gets new articles. Removing follow up information means you’re leaving the items incomplete. Splitting the new information into when the new parts happened makes it harder to follow. I’ve noticed you’re removing articles that reveal premiere dates from the television debuts section. This makes no sense because that means you’re removing the thing that sources its position in the table in the first place. Hell, the Big City Greens item also explains its move to Disney Channel, when the pickup source only mentions its original home Disney XD Honestly I think all the trimming that’s been done needs to be added back until an actual solution is found.--Fradio71 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see the full story, read the source. What we put here should just be a brief summary of them. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn’t always HAVE the full story. When a series is picked up, no one knows when it’s going to premiere. You had no right to make the removals you made when you did without discussing them.--Fradio71 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of right to remove unsourced entries. It's called WP:V. If you find sources for them, I'll be more than happy to add the info back. I was talking about the events section though BTW. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry I was talking to Onetwothreeip’s removal of sources for the debuts of shows. He removes the articles that have the premiere dates of the shows in question, leaving just the pickup articles. Removing the premiere date sources means their place in the table is left unsourced. My apologies for directing my frustration at the wrong person.--Fradio71 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This article should not be a running account of everything that happens on television, even if it becomes the subject of a news article. As for removing sources, I have only removed sources from entries which had multiple sources, and this article does not need entries that require more than one source to verify. Everything in the article still has a source, at least from the last time I edited. Regarding debuts I think they are important to this year in television while programs that finish syndication are more likely to be obscure, but this was only an example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s not everything that happens in television in a certain year, in this case 2018. If anything, the pickup source is the one that should be removed. And why is a show that doesn’t last long notable enough to be included as a debut, but not as an end when it gets quietly canceled part way?--Fradio71 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like debuts have the opportunity to become quite notable, while not all programs finish with high notability. Either way I don't see that as a high priority. Not every entry I've gone through had multiple references to begin with, so which entries are you talking about? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as events, using this edit as a starting point, the Davidson/Crenshaw story source only goes as far as the initial comments (Kenan’s words about it don’t need restoring, but the Crenshaw SNL appearance source can be), and many many of the debuts affected here have their premiere date announcement articles removed, leaving only their pickup articles--Fradio71 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the debuts section that Fradio was talking about. Onetwothreeip deleted newer sources when he should have deleted older ones. I updated the Davidson/Crenshaw story's source too. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Were the ones in the other reference removal edits rectified too? --Fradio71 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't bother. I'm guessing most of them were from the same day though. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fradio71: I ask you again: what's your solution for reducing the size of the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s already been cut down by 100K+ bytes. There are 26 days in the year and all the year’s premieres have been presumably announced, meaning the TBA stuff will be shed to 2019. I think introducing any more cutdown measures would be spiting the nose to compliment the face.--Fradio71 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not as urgent as 100K bytes ago, but it's still the nineteenth largest English Wikipedia article. Removing the TBA things would only remove a few thousand bytes at best, assuming they don't happen in 2018. At the same time though, there doesn't have to be one "solution" like Pigsonthewing seems to be suggesting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fradio71: So, to be clear, the page is currently 621,153 bytes long and you propose not to significantly reduce it further? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's 567,332 now actually. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To compare, 2017 in American television is 639,597 kb. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to refer to the datestamp in my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s time

This obsession with trimming down the article has to end. We’ve done as much as we can--Fradio71 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the eighth largest Wikipedia article. More sections can be split. Duplicate references can be removed. More events can be trimmed down or even removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two main sections left. There is nothing left to remove. Further removals would mean arbitrarilt picking off shows or entire networks you don't feel "deserve" to be there. I'm sorry this year in television was "too busy" but that doesn't mean you can prune it until there's nothing left--Fradio71 (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"Obsession"? What happened to assuming good faith? And no, it is not. In fact, it is time to start cutting this behemoth of an article into reasonably-sized pieces. Not one single cogent argument for keeping it as it is has been made. And, as you can see from the "Section sizes" template at the top of this page (which you recently, and unsuccessfully, tried to remove) there are a number of sub=sections that are more than large enough to be stand-alone articles. 'Programs debuting in 2018' alone is over 93Kb; 'Programs ending in 2018' over 46Kb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Good faith went out the window when you decided a 100K byte cut wasn't good enough for you. When you flat out ignored opposing arguments. When you put the "Section sizes" template like it was a Scarlet letter shaming the article for being so big. You stopped arguing in good faith a long time ago--Fradio71 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is and was oversized by more than 100kB, much more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying that as if it's fact. We've removed entire sections for you. We've reduced our sourcing for you. All because you found them "unnecessary" for reasons you've refused to explain. Nothing we've done is good enough for you. What's wrong with this being a big article? Why is the year of events in this industry so unimportant To you that you need hundreds of thousands of bytes of pertinent information removed? Fradio71 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall you doing any of that. These were things that I have done. The references I removed were unnecessary because other references were being used to back up the information it was citing for, so they were just taking up space. This isn't merely a big article, this is currently the seventh biggest article. Pertinent information has not been removed, they have simply been split into other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And what’s exactly wrong with this being the seventh-biggest article? Are you willing to trim the eighth biggest article? What about the sixth? What is your deal that this article shouldn’t be allowed to hold such a distinction?--Fradio71 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's indicative of this article being too large. Yes, I am willing to trim the eighth biggest article and the sixth biggest article. There is never a good reason for an article to be the largest article, the best articles are nowhere near this large. I'm happy to answer any queries you have about page shortening and splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, the article being “too large” is subjective. I must reiterate that no one agreed to tear the article limb from limb like you are trying to do. You can’t spin off every section of an article as it’s own just so you can feel important by setting a precedent NOBODY ASKED FOR--Fradio71 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a bold and proper split per WP:ARTICLESIZE. This article is the largest article on English Wikipedia. No matter how hard it is to define "too large", this article certainly is. The debuts section was the largest, so I split it. It should be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been told when a bold edit is made, Status Quo applies. Status quo is that the debuts section remains on the main article. All of a sudden what was the eighth largest article is now the largest article. Which means you made it your mission to make this the biggest article just to make bad faith argument that it should be stripped of its parts until there’s little substance left in the article and instead the bulk of it is on spinoff articles. Your obsession with trimming it down after more than 200K bytes were stripped away to appease you has gone too far.--Fradio71 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And what is your objection to the split? Likewise we've split other parts of the article. A couple of weeks ago this article was the eighth largest article, and it is now the single largest article, and it has been bouncing around the largest articles as other articles have grown and been cut down and from this article increasing and decreasing in size. The articles that were at any time larger than this article were also too large, and 200,000 bytes ago this article was much more than 200,000 bytes oversized. I didn't make this article the largest article. When a topic is sufficiently large, it is natural that information about it becomes spread over several articles rather than be contained in one unnecessarily large article. Even WP:ARTICLESIZE says the general guideline is that articles over 100k should be considered for splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My objection to the split is there is nothing wrong with the largeness of the article. You refuse to address the actual points I’ve made and in fact are completely ignoring them. I addressed exactly why the split is a bad idea. If you’re arbitrarily allowed to call the article too big, then maybe every other article on Wikipedia is too small--Fradio71 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems with very large articles: hard to edit (especially on visual editor), hard to download/view (especially weaker internet connections and smartphones), more information for readers when trying to find what they are looking for. We don't want to overwhelm readers with too much information on one page and we don't want editors to be dissuaded from contributing even more. What are your reasons against the split? This is literally the biggest article on Wikipedia right now. Even if some other article becomes larger, that won't mean this article suddenly becomes not too large. I also don't know why you're merging this subsection back into the main section when I have twice(?) now sought to start a new subsection for this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of you two going back and forth and getting no where why don't you start a new section (not under a subheader) and place Template:Split section to start an official community discussion to gain input? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm essentially waiting for the others to contribute to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: alright, a discussion has been started below at #Split proposal and a template has been placed on the page directing editors wishing to discuss to that section. It also places this page in Category:All articles to be split TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)