Talk:Daria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hey, this is an encyclopedia, y'know!

Come on, everybody, this is an encyclopedia. Whilst Daria is my favourite TV show too, I can't help but feel that the article on the subject far too closely resembles a fansite. I really feel it needs to be tightened up, given a more formal tone and have all the characters' individual articles merged into the main Daria one. I mean, what would Daria say to a great international project like this being turned into a TV archive?

I think the character articles are fine just where they are. We don't want to have the entries get too long, splitting it up like this is good. - james_anatidae 10:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that if people are really interested in that level of detail, then they would be able to see the same information - if not more of it - by clicking on one of the external links given in this article. The point of the Daria entry is to give a basic overview of all aspects of the show in a formal manner and without too much focus on the more trivial aspects. It is possible to give too much info in this kind of context. Plus, merging the character articles with the main one would mean that casual readers are likely to learn more about them, since they probably wouldn't click on each character's link.

But the same could be said of several other television shows that have articles on this wiki. I don't recall real limits on what can listed here (unless it belongs at one of the other wikis, wikiquote, etc.). Look at these two examples I was able to find in less than five minutes: Category:Simpsons characters, List of characters from Family Guy. Why pick on Daria when these both have more content?

You talk about going to fan sites, but those tend to be very fluid, being created and disappearing quite often. Wikipedia is supposed to be permanent. I say leave it alone and let it grow naturally. Anyway, if we merge the character articles, won't that be "too much info" in the main one? - james_anatidae 01:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the article on Harry Potter. This has the potential to be the most extensive encyclopedia in the world. What's wrong with articles on characters?

If you want, I'll merge them myself and then post the results here. Then those that care enough can decide. - Aaron Jethro

Please do, this entry reeks of fancruft. It needs to have its language cleaned up, and the individual character pages should either be merged into a daria_characters page or deleted altogether.

Trent Lane and Trent Reznor

If I'm not entirely mistaken, the character Trent Lane was actually patterned (unofficially) after Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame. Their faces, voices, and attitudes almost match, and MTV had Nine Inch Nails music videos in high rotation around the time Daria was in syndication (late 1997).

Incredible POV and inane conspiracy theories

From the article: "This conflict of interest may explain why the mainstream media is uncomfortable with a show such as Daria, which is savagely critical of its goals and method of achieving them." Whoa, someone needs to take off the tinfoil cap. Because Daria showed one episode mocking the business world, there is an entire conspiracy to prevent the release of an uncensored Daria DVD? Get over yourself!

Daria, an original production of a Viacom channel, is the mainstream media! The mainstream media loves faux rebellion, as long as it sells. That's the bottom line. Yeah, I'm sure the corporate world is really scared of an animated series about high school kids that aired on the most corporate channel in the world, MTV. Look, The Simpsons and South Park make similar "anti-business" statements constantly. It's the profit that matters. Daria hasn't seen uncensored DVD release simply because they're not sure about its profitability.

Points well taken, objectionable segment deleted, some material about the censoring of the show moved to an appropriate place earlier in the article. Author of the above, please refer to Wikipedia:Etiquette. Happy Thanksgiving! - RudolfRadna, 23 November 2005 4:18 (UTC)

Sexual content

Although the show contains sexual content, the most common sexual content is when Daria's parents, Helen and Jake, plan to have sexual situations. - PJ Pete

Specific citings of pop culture references

Could someone reword the opening paragraph of this section? I think the point about the caricatures in the closing credits is a really good point, but I think it could be articulated better. - Satchfan 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User KnoxDowd chose boldly to remove the extensive list of pop-culture allusions, saying that it was "unencyclopedic, unnecessary, and self-serving." Although this was a major change, as one who tried in the past to clean this up and expand it, I would have to agree that such intense citation really belongs on a fan reference site.

I did add a brief paragraph noting the episode-titles-as-puns aspect, which was much of the rationale for this removed list. I made the episode titles link to the appropriate WP articles. We should use these features fully, folks! - Greybird 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links section

I have removed a bunch of links from the External Links section that do not comply with Wikipedia's policy on external links (see Wikipedia:External_links). Fan sites, forums, and blogs are not allowed under the External Links policy. Please do not replace them. [Link corrected, see 9 September 2006 comment below.]

I think it's a bad idea not to link to Outpost Daria or PPMB. They are the two major sites related to the show. - Jonathan D. Parshall 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Forums are specifically stated as not to be linked to. Also there is a question about copyright since Outpost Daria has the transcripts. Other shows have gone after sites that host transcripts. Babylon 5 is a perfect example.

It seems like the article's going to need a rewrite now to eliminate references to the fansites "listed below". On the plus side, hopefully this will finally put to rest the question of the character articles ... the argument "if people are really interested in that level of detail, then they would be able to see the same information - if not more of it - by clicking on one of the external links given in this article" is no longer true, after all.

The guidelines in the policy at Wikipedia:External_links (the unsigned first comment's link above has been corrected) do not bar all fan-site or forum links, as such.

From "Links to be used occasionally": On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.

From "Links normally to be avoided": Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

I would contend (along with Parshall, above) that, taken together with the content of this article, these guidelines call for at least two major fan sites to be included. They provide necessary links to a community that discusses and makes new creations about this series. Neither is a "fanlisting," both serve as focal points for activities beyond discussion, and both provide (directly or implicitly) links in their own right to many other such sites, as well as information about them.

• Outpost Daria has been by far the largest and longest-running Daria site for news, discussion, media coverage, and fan creations since 1998, the second year of the airing of the series.

• The Paperpusher Message Board is and has long been the major locus of discussion about the series. It is far from serving solely as a forum or message board, and also contains huge numbers of essay, fan fiction, and fan art works, many of them posted in serial form.

I will be restoring these two links to the article, along with adjusting references to fansites within the article itself.

(The Daria Fandom Blog, which would until recently have also been a candidate for this same function of providing many links in its own right, unfortunately is now defunct.)

Any concerns about the observance of copyright rules and precedents at an externally linked site are the business of that site, not of Wikipedia, and do not rule out such a link.

Even so, little or nothing at Outpost Daria or similar sites goes notably beyond the generally accepted bounds of "fair use" commentary and review. That is, unless all fan fiction and fan art, as such, is construed as doing so. - Greybird, 9 September 2006

Thank you for fixing the External Links link. It was correct at the time of posting. I do note that it has been changed since it was added in.

I've gone ahead and removed the forum link yet again. From the External Links page, forums are to be added if and only if they are "mandated by the article itself." The policy uses the example of an article about an author linking to the author's blog. This is clearly not the case.

To be accurate here, this policy's mention of forums ("Links normally to be avoided," item 9) does not call for this, not in the sense you describe. No such "if and only if" is used, and the example now cited is exactly that, an example among other possible scenarios.

For now, I won't be restoring this link, though I will ask for clarification on this point from those maintaining the External Links policy page. A mention of an active fan community, as in this article, becomes somewhat pointless if no direct access points are provided for that community.

This situation, where some of us do see such a "mandate," would at the very least merit another illustrative example in Wikipedia's policy. - Greybird, 17 September 2006

I would like to agree with Greybird in the strongest possible terms. Anyone looking at the Daria entry is likely to be a fan of the show. Fan links are helpful to them - certainly at least one. Wikipedia is MORE than just a paper-bound encyclopedia; it can (and should) take advantage of the dynamic features of this new medium (e.g., liberal use of hyperlinks).

Unless there is a shortage of disk space, I think ALL relevant information should be here. If Google is the "search" of the Internet, Wikipedia should be its "browse".

I didn't know that this draconian policy about fansites existed. I wonder what other useful information we're NOT giving people in order to maintain the fiction of being as stodgy as the 1952 Encyclopaedia Britannica, in the unnecessary hope that the mainstream will take us seriously. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going now to find whatever wiki forum is in charge of this and raise some minor hell about it.

Thank you, Greybird. - Sys Hax, October 11, 2006

I would like to add a link to the "blog" section at the bottom of the page for the Daria Fandom Blog II. The link would look like this:

• Daria Fandom Blog II (fandom news, fanfic/fan art updates, musings, and the largest collection of Daria-related links on the Internet)

Please let me know if this is allowed, and if so what should be done next. Thank you. The Angst Guy (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A link has been added, more compactly reworded. T.A.G. was free to do so himself, of course. I'll add a second voice here: The links list is truly extensive, almost beyond any list that can normally be expected for a popular-culture creation. Even unto Wayback Machine traces of long-gone fan sites. The reference value alone, to me, strongly warrants its inclusion here. - Greybird (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to be going through this cycle again. Some are going to object to any "fandom" site being included as an external link, whether or not it has any independent reference value. And we're going to get re-edits, such as the removal of the item noted immediately above, later on 6 July.

I'm tired of arguing about it. But we should be more consistent. If any blog that's primarily fan-oriented is to be omitted, then the Daria [fandom] Wiki (which is nearly entirely about fans and fan creations, rather than being a reference to the show as aired) should also be omitted. Which I have done. - Greybird (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had another round of such changes in early January. I will refer inlookers to the extensive discussion above. In essence: Some relevant and content-filled reference sites are appropriate, including some that may be fan-maintained.

I have restored three of these sites: DVDaria.info (a sub-site of the-wildone.com), for news on full-set prospects; Outpost Daria (restored in lieu of Lawndale Online, due to far larger content and new maintenance); and the Daria Fandom Blog II (as noted, for its intensely, extensively detailed links directory). I have also moved one such link up to the video-releases section.- Greybird (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence

... but not the kinds of evidence that will get you past the verifiability threshold. I've removed various speculations regarding the undocumented "editing for content" purported to have been done by various networks. - 64.5.98.6 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How are these speculations? I've seen the Noggin episodes and some are chopped up so bad that it's near impossible to understand the plot. They even talk about editing in the article about The N. - Jonathan D. Parshall 00:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Has The N said so, or Viacom, or the creators? Wikipedia just doesn't rely on having its editors give assurances as to the truth of their contributions. Moreover, were the episodes, if they were edited, edited for content or runtime? Who can say? The original editor thought he could, but on what basis?

Finally, cites to other Wikipedia entries can't really be what citation per WP:V means. The point is that Wikipedia accumulates solid factual and scientific investigation conducted and published elsewhere, not that Wikipedia is merely internally consistent. - 64.5.98.6 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think you're being far too strict here and a tad high-handed for a brand-new member. This is an article about a cartoon, not hydrodynamics. The Noggin edits are common knowledge among any fan of the show and we don't need a PR release from Viacom to know this as an incontrovertible fact. Three minutes with Google got me these references:

• "Daria is currently in re-runs on Noggin, which has decided to bowdlerize it; unfortunately, some of the sharpest material has been cut."[1]

• "I don't see why they censor Daria with some of the stuff going on Degrassi recently."[2]

You want some more confirmation, make a post at PPMB and you’ll have plenty of people backing me up. - Jonathan D. Parshall 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, in Jonathan's talk page you said: "Surely you know what I'm getting at? Please re-assess my PoV and expand upon your reasons why Wikipedia is the place for all this info, as opposed to a fansite. Thanks for your time."

No, this information is relevant. First it was "Daria hasn't really been bowdlerized," now it's relevance. What is your problem with providing complete information? The stuff of fansites that doesn't belong here is "List of reasons why she should have gone for Trent instead of Tom". But censorship of the show by the only network that shows it, and the URL of a fansite, are both INFORMATION ... useful information of the type that the ordinary people who actually USE Wikipedia come here for.

Who do you think reads this article, investigators in China researching decadent American animation? No, it's FANS. And they look at Wikipedia as an INFORMATION HUB on the subject. Reject rumor, humor, speculation, and disinformation; but no true facts relating to the subject should be omitted.

If it's true and someone cares enough about it to type it in in the first place, then someone else is loking for it and it should be here. - Sys Hax 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not Aaron. Rather, multiple editors, it seems, question the appropriateness of some of this article's content.

Second, as laid out at WP:V, the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

The sources given above to substantiate the claim that Daria was censored on the N are simply not reliable enough to support inclusion. See WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. ("Sources of dubious reliability are sources with ... no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.")

Third, as laid out at WP:NOT, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

Wikipedia is at least somewhat in the nature of an encyclopedia. While not confined to the space limitations, articles should be geared to the needs and interests of a general readership seeking an introductory treatment of the subject matter. Fans may come here to look for information, but Wikipedia is not a fan website. The external links will lead to locations more appropriate for trivia (like the theme song lyrics) and hypotheses (like discussions of the purported censorship) which I am going to remove.

If the alleged censorship can be documented, I am happy to include it. The lyrics, on the other hand, while I agree they seem to be faithful transcription, do not belong in the article by WP:NOT. - 74.136.207.99 23:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I will allow that you think you are looking out for the best interests of Wikipedia and can see that the lyrics are not suitable for this article, but your actions regarding the Noggin edits are driving me up the wall.

First, you are being way too strict about this. You may be following the letter of the law, certainly not the spirit. Plus, it looks to me you're pulling far more out of your references than is really there.

Second, you claim that my sources are not reliable enough. Beyond the fact that this seems to imply I'm a liar, hopefully this is good enough for you:

"Fans of Daria have been bitterly disappointed by the fact that the series has been heavily censored by Nickelodeon and the Children's Television Workshop for its broadcast on The N, the prime-time version of its Noggin channel. We feel that if the show was on TNN it would be seen in its uncensored glory for the appreciation of its fans."

Third, I find it highly offensive that you would set yourself up as an expert on this project and edit articles when you CAN'T EVEN BOTHER TO SIGN UP AN ACCOUNT!!! Leave this article be, Mr. 74.136.207.99 (or should I call you 64.5.98.6?) or I'm bringing you to the attention of an administrator. - Jonathan D. Parshall 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we all want to see this article end up as a high-quality article about Daria. To do so, we should confine our edits to information that can be documented. I am sure you are being quite truthful as to the fan sentiment that the show has been censored on The N. But Wikipedia's recent embarrassments have not come from a shortage of assertions in articles, rather they have come from too many assertions later shown to be untrue. Verifiability is our best prophylactic against these mistakes recurring. Thus it is essential that editors be able to back up their substantive claims in articles.

I am also troubled that what ought to be a statement of fact supported by dispassionate evidence has come to take on the tone of the sorrows of the long-suffering Daria fan. Perhaps they are "bitterly disappointed." Perhaps in the best of all possible worlds, Daria would have been syndicated on the supposedly censorship-free TNN network. But this is an article about Daria, not its fan community. If Daria had been censored, and that fact could be documented, it would be a legitimate issue to identify in the article.

That Daria fans are unhappy with what they perceive to be slights against the show is not appropriately treated in article about the show. Such feelings would be covered in the article "Daria Fan Community," an article that does not exist for want of notability.

The insistence that it be included seems, frankly, like a soft form of propaganda -- suggesting, "this show must be groundbreaking, or why would it be so censored." You might recall there was once a section of the article making that claim explicitly, since removed as unverifiable, but it seems it's being brought in again.

Incidentally, I have an account and will use it henceforth (without suggesting that having an account should lend any weight to one's editorial concerns - Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all).

So, if the claim can be documented by a reliable source, by all means, add it. If you wish, I'll submit to an RfC on the matter. - Pop Secret 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise version of the section.

I also notice you have restored this information:

"Fans have made an attempt to continue the show in their own way. They do this by writing fan fiction and creating fan artwork. It has been estimated that there now exists well over 3,000 fan fiction works and hundreds of pieces of fan artwork. Some of the websites report receiving hundreds of visitors each day.

"One dedicated fan even spent months animating an original (short) Daria episode. While opinions differ about the quality of the story, the superb animation is indistinguishable from the MTV show."

I don't think the existence of fans who have written fan fiction or fan art is distinctive enough to Daria fandom that it should be included in this article. We don't refer to the countless Metallica tribute bands out there in "Metallica." - Pop Secret 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have modified this slightly, saying that these edits by The N have been "reported," since they have undeniably been extensively and minutely reported for years at PPMB and other venues. That fact is immediately verifiable, even if the specific edits may not be.

One of the transcripts posted at Outpost Daria reports the excisions in great detail, from single words to entire scenes. These were made to "Is It Fall Yet?", one of the two telemovies that have been released on DVD and are readily available. - Greybird 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvements needed

In my honest opinion, the entire article needs some serious copyediting and references. If I see no improvements in the next months, I might adopt the page. - Nat91 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes / episode numbers

I'm probably just confused here. But: "Spanning from 1997 to 2002, the series consisted of a total of 68 episodes including two telemovies [...]"

More episode numbers than episodes? It looks that way to me. At the very least, could someone explain this to me? - The Chairman 08:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is explained in the page of Daria characters, but perhaps a key should be provided on this page. Any ideas of the most appropriate place to put one? - Satchfan 01:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most US series have around 20 to 22 episodes per season. It has become fairly common to refer to the second episode of the first season either as "1S02E" or simply "102." That means that numbers 0-100 are blocked out, as are numbers from the mid-one-hundred-twenties to 200, etc. Occasionally, pilots pick up the number 000, 001, or 100. - samwaltz 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Samwaltz is absolutely correct. I was hoping to point Satchfan to a more comprehensive Wikipedia page, but I can't find one. This may be something that Wikipedia doesn't have yet. Can someone point us to it if it exists, or suggest a good name if it doesn't? - Wyvern 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been corrected: pilot, 65 episodes, two TV-movies. An index of episodes with production numbers exists. I haven't been able to find anything more general, either, at WP as to series-episode nomenclature. The production numbers as assigned by MTV, however, are used extensively throughout fansites, such as at Outpost Daria. - Greybird 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis or interpretation isn't appropriate

A lengthy "analysis" section was added yesterday, in two editing steps, by an anonymous user. Although it could be said to make many cogent points, it also admitted to being an interpretation of the story arcs of the series. Such a piece is very much in the nature of a personal essay, which is, unfortunately, not encyclopedic and is strongly discouraged by broad Wikipedia policy. This was most easily resolved by reverting to the previous (22 February) version of the page.

I should add, though, that the same anonymous user, and any others who offer such analyses, are cordially invited to share and discuss them with other Daria fans, especially by joining the PPMB forum. - Greybird 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where they'll be treated very poorly. [anonymous]

That's rarely true, in my experience, though you'll get vigorous discussion. Not every debater is well-behaved. Yet those interested should try the forum themselves and make their own judgments.

(By the way, bricks usually gain more credibility if you attach your name when you throw them. {rueful smile}) - Greybird 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship!

Does anyone really believe that The N hasn't been censoring episodes of Daria, rather than just cutting for length? Anyone? Show of hands? I think that this issue needs to be revisited, and given proper consideration.

I don't suppose that a mention on the news page and a few essays at Outpost Daria, which I believe to be the largest and longest-running Daria fan page, count as citable sources by the people who excised the mentions of censorship, do they? - WookMuff 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue involved was verifiability. (See the debate in "Hearsay" above.) Pop Secret had a valid point about this. What can't be denied is that many fans have reported such cutting, as I noted above. I also added a link in the article to a report at Outpost Daria on The N's numerous edits of "Is It Fall Yet?".

As to the term "censorship," this issue involves private property, not government actions, and we should be precise about that. (My libertarian crotchet, perhaps.)

If you're using this colloquially, to refer to edits for particular purposes, rather than merely for length, you have a point. Many fans have correlated the kinds of edits that were made. Most involved mentions of drugs, alcohol, or suicide.

Several episodes that were not shown on The N at all have no other apparent explanation for their absence, with their stories having nothing controversial in other respects. (Such as "The Lost Girls," a visiting magazine editor noting having been plied with drinks, or "Just Add Water," a cruise ship's captain being intoxicated.)

Very little of this, though, was documented beyond forum postings. And the whole issue is now moot, anyway, beyond viewers' tapings of these episodes, for The N stopped showing Daria in June 2006, as currently noted in the article. - Greybird 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Full-DVD-release-campaign links and info

Several recent edits and reversions have been made to further mention an online petition for releasing Daria in full on commercial DVD. Additional links to and discussion of that petition within this article are, in fact, not necessary. Such links and discussion are available in great detail at the DVDaria Blog, already noted in the External Links section. - Greybird 08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing all mention of the petitions and fan efforts, however, as was done in an edit made supposedly to remove "petitioncruft" on 14 August 2007, goes to the other extreme, giving far too little information in the article. I have thus restored nearly all of that deleted text.

The efforts briefly noted here, at DVDaria and at TV Shows on DVD, are worthy of broader note precisely because of their size and MTV's continued stubbornness. Nearly every other original program ever developed by MTV has long since been released in full on DVD already.

Smaller companies rush in to do such projects that larger studios disdain to do — such as the forthcoming second DVD release by Shout! Factory of ABC/Disney's My So-Called Life. MTV will neither make such a release, nor turn Daria over to such a company to do the legwork of getting music clearances and handling the promotion.

This much resistance to corporate intransigence is unusual enough to be relevant for an article such as this. Describing relevant fan or petition activism is not, as such, "cruft."

(Other restored information notes that the existing TV-movie DVDs are, in fact, region-free, as against erroneous data at Amazon.com and elsewhere, and this is also highly relevant.) - Greybird 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the entire series will be released on DVD? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

'Satirizing popular culture' section

This section is nothing but original research. Someone needs to add sources for it or remove it. - Thaddius (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although Thaddius raises a reasonable point, "nothing but" and "original research" are somewhat exaggerated. The first two paragraphs of the section do reflect a consensus about the series' emphasis among informed fans and observers. Yet they are not readily verifiable and do not reduce to or suggest specific citations or resources. These grafs, I suspect, are what he is primarily disputing.

The later grafs, though, have specific references to program elements that are readily supported by viewing episodes or by reading transcripts, as well as by the extensive resources at sites such as Outpost Daria. Although such support isn't wholly specific, it's at least readily available. This fits with standards implicitly accepted at Wikipedia in describing, for example, details of comic-book titles or characters.

I have removed the first two grafs, made some rewordings for clarity in the others, and renamed the section. I believe this warrants removing the "citations" tag. - Greybird (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in "citations needed"

In two large rounds of editing during early January 2009, two editors created many "citations needed" codes. I have removed many of these recent insertions, and adjusted some others.

Although some codes did (strictly speaking) note un-referenced statements, I would maintain that an inconsistent standard is at risk of being applied here.

I noted in the section immediately above that many elements are readily supported by viewing episodes or by reading transcripts. I'll also note that some elaborations upon what is visible in the credits of cablecast shows were not flagged as needing citations, such as the notes on "Is It Fall Yet?" using rock musicians for character voices.

I contend that many of the items that some editors presume "need" calls for citations are readily available, without further need for detail, on the same terms used at WP for many other TV series and movies — through the episodes themselves. And that many other calls for citations are being made selectively as to subject matter.

It's much better to take the effort to actually provide citations, as I for one intend to do more of in the near future, rather than constantly interrupt vast stretches of text to call for verification. If we took the "verifiable" criterion as strictly as some may want, huge numbers of articles about popular culture at Wikipedia would cease to be readable — or to exist at all. Including this one. - Greybird (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof on providing citations is on the person who adds or restores text, not on the person who removes the text. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

References to the TV-movies' titles

Although the usage on Wikipedia is mixed, the series' two TV-movies ought, I contend, to NOT have their titles italicized. Those productions were never released theatrically. (They only have separate listings at the Internet Movie Database because they had separate releases on DVD.)

Moreover, "Is It Fall Yet?" and "Is It College Yet?" function, in terms of the series' storylines, as far more being like two extended episodes — as the "Fall" article itself has long acknowledged, and as they now both do.

"Fall" was shown between seasons four and five, was a direct result of countless plots and characterizations throughout season four, and intensely foreshadowed season five. "College" was shown after season five, was a direct result of countless plots and characterizations throughout the series' last two seasons (and longer), and served to wrap up many (though not quite all) character and plot arcs. - Greybird (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's been released theatrically is irrelevant to italicization. Titles of works should be italicized, be it a film, TV show episode, song, or video game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.132.6 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OWN issue

With all due respect to an obviously knowledgeable and passionate editor, Greybird has essentially taken over this site with questionable edits that, in particular, give boosterism to one specific fan site (though, thankfully, no longer so far as to include the fan's name within the article text).

Removing "citation requested" tags crosses a certain line. The argument Greybird seems to be making, as I understand it, is, "If we aren't tagging everything that needs citation, we're being selective." I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that says that if we can't tag every single thing that need citation, we should tag nothing. We tag things as we notice them. Please do not remove citation tags placed in good faith.

Personal blogs and usenet forums are not simply allowed as reference sources. I've already provided links to the relevant Wikipedia policies. I don't believe we should be fighting over this, given that these are such basic prohibitions.

Likewise, the stricture against petitions. It seems to me to be playing a loophole to say that we're not going to link to the petition itself, but to sites that link to the petition. There are hundreds of TV shows that haven't been released to DVD so far. We all have our favorites. Even major, Emmy Award-winning classics such as Taxi have only some of their episodes on DVD. It really is not unusual.

Titles of made-for-TV movies are italicized at Television film. It really isn't relevant that the Daria TV-movies were not released theatrically.

Why don't we start by making one edit at a time that we can discuss like colleagues here on this page. What do you say? - 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the irreducible starting point for this is to simply revert it to your own last version, heedless of anything I have discussed, either in edit summaries or in the many topics above? No, thank you.

Constructing such an "ownership problem" is little more than a complaint against those who end up fully or intensely using a "commons." Well, Wikipedia has failed nearly from the beginning in that respect, as has every such commons in human history. In any event, you're practicing this impulse as much, or more, than I have been.

It's a condescending dollop of whipped cream on top of the edit "wars" that makes them particularly sour. The cherry on top is that I have taken the trouble to set up a permanent editing account, and you (an IP address) have not.

I also won't respond to unwarranted personal aspersions, except to note that I do NOT own the Outpost Daria site. As the first page of that site says, if you had ever bothered to look, it's owned by Martin Pollard.

You've managed to finally crystallize my long-standing misgivings about Wikipedia editing. I am no longer actively editing this - it's all "yours." - Greybird (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)