Jump to content

Talk:Quality television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Art television)

Notes

[edit]

Hi, I object to the proposed deletion. Frankly, I find the proposed deletion very harsh, especially given the number of fancruft Original Research, unsourced articles out there that don't have a deletion warning. This article, though a humble stub, describes a term used in print and referenced in the article. Let me do the pitch... there's art film, which serious, independently made film that is aimed at a niche audience, rather than a mass audience; they often has an unclear or ambiguous plot, and explore a character's inner psyche. Now Ms. Thompson is arguing that art television is television that shares some of the same traits as art film.Nazamo 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is absurd; it cites Britannica, but the quotation has nothing to do with "art television" — it's about the art of television. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the deletion not because it was inadequately sourced (although it's too much of a string of quotations - that could be rewritten if the article were voted to be kept), but because it's not a notable term beyond one book. Art film is a well-established & commonly-used term; art television is a phrase attempting to be coined but has no broader circulation. (FWIW, I am a TV scholar who is actually quoted in this article...) --Jajasoon 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More and more material is being added that is either completely irrelevant to or only vaguely relevant to the term "art television". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More and more info

[edit]

Hi, I am adding more and more info to try and improve the article. The proposed deletion notice stated that it was like a rehash of a book chapter (e.g., Kristin Thompson). The Brittanica material was admittedly an addition of dubious value, but some of the new additions are on the topic. I have shown that several UK scholars use the term "Quality Television" to refer to many of the same programs referred to by Kristin Thompson. The new title for the article, "Quality television" is more defensible. Regarding Jason Mittell's suggestion that the information be integrated into another article, I note that there is no article in the television genre article list on quality television (or a similar topic, such as "serious television").Nazamo 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The list of categories for Wikipedia on Television series by genre includes Children's television, Christian television, Comedy television series, Educational television,Environmental television,Fishing television series,Gambling television programs,Music television channels,Musical episodes,Science fiction television S cont.,Sports television,Telethons,Travel television,Vampires in film and television ,Werewolves in film and television. ..........................I note that the "Quality Television" article could be filed under "Educational Television", as there is a cross-over. ....................Turning now to the actual articles on Wikipedia for "Television genres". They are: Taiwanese drama,Anthology series,Television comedy,Comedy-drama,Culebron,DanceLife,Docu-soap,Dramatic programming,Fantasy television,Fishing television series,Game opera,List of single-camera sitcoms,Medical drama,Paranormal television,Quality television,Reality television,Science fiction Western,Science fiction on television,Situation comedy,Soap opera,Space western,Superhero live-action television series,TV Single Dads,Tabloid talk show,Telefantasya,Telenovela,Téléroman,Televised sex line,Trash TV,Television Westerns............I think that a glance at the list of TV genre articles will show that the "quality television" article is not COMPETING with an existing article on a similar topic (although it could be a subtopic under Dramatic Programming).Nazamo 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No anime WTF?

[edit]

Currently, most of the quality television is anime, so I'm surprised there's no mention of it whatsoever. 95.181.12.52 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsons confusion

[edit]

The quotation in the introduction (For example, Kristin Thompson's claim that "quality television" programs include ...) is not from Kristin Thompson, it's from another Thompson. You can look it up here: http://davidlavery.net/Collected_Works/Essays/FFWSBtVS_Intro.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.212.104 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I tagged this article with quite a few cleanup templates. Unfortunately, it's got many issues. Here's a quick overview:

  • Many of the references are dead. See this report for details. I'm not sure, but it looks like they're Google searches that have used as references. Since they time out, I can't be sure. I tried to extract the actual URL from one or two, but they didn't load. I gave up in frustration and didn't try the others. Someone needs to convert these into working, actual URLs, or they need to be removed. The act-aet.tv link is also apparently dead.
  • Some of the references that work are simply vague assertions. This is not how references work. Asserting that a researcher once used a term is not a reference; you must actually provide the source (book, journal, URL, etc). I debated removing these references, but I ultimately left them alone, thinking that they might be salvageable somehow. If nobody can come up with actual, real references, then they need to go, too. The TV Guide citation is really very borderline, and I think it probably needs to either be filled out with issue and page, or it too needs to go. Similarly, there are a few books that are half-cited. They're missing lots of information (ISBN, page number, and even title), with entirely useless links that go to review sites.
  • Of the references that are left, they're really not notable or reliable enough. A quotation from a course syllabus? That probably needs to go.
  • Vast portions of the article go without a single citation anywhere. They're full of original research and puffery related to what I can only assume are editors' favorite TV shows. This article only just barely escapes being an example farm, though, now that I think of it, maybe I should have tagged it with that template, too. It's debatable, but it might cut down on the useless pop-culture shout-outs.
  • This article breaks almost every rule of the manual of style that I can think of. I suggest that someone familiar with the MOS come in and do some merciless cleanup and editing. I'll try to get around to it, eventually, if nobody else does.

I suggest recruiting some veteran editors and doing a rewrite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful source

[edit]

Flow (flowtv.org) is an online journal dedicated to this article's topic. It may have some very useful articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Quality television. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quality television. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge Prestige drama into this article. The section Quality television#Narrative complexity in television drama appears to be more detailed version of a "prestige drama" without the inline citations. Викидим (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's distinct enough to merit its own article. Given that "prestige drama" is uniquely referenced (local example) as a separate kind of quality television. Ckoerner (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you happen to know the differences between Quality drama and Prestige drama, can you please add them (with sources) to the articles? (and at the very least just spell them here, no sources needed, I will figure the rest out myself). Thank you in advance! I had spent quite some time searching for sources, and, while it is easy to find (many) sources that use the terms as synonyms (for example, [1]), I did not find a single (!) source that spelled out the differences. Our internal links to the Prestige version mean little, as this might be just a use of a synonym. Викидим (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quality_television&oldid=1228055971"