Jump to content

Talk:Over the Garden Wall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"First miniseries"

[edit]

What about the Clone Wars miniseries about ten years back? 24.110.21.248 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Descroptions

[edit]

The episode descriptions given here are shite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.210.73 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @65.95.210.73:. You're right, the episode descriptions could *ahem* use some work. Some are too long, some are too short, and some are just, as you put it, shit. But guess what? This is Wikipedia! You can edit the descriptions yourself to make them not-shitty! We need as many people editing this as possible to make it the best it can be, and I for one would love to have you editing this article. Luthien22 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic (see the views of TV series vs. the three other films: [1] [2] [3]). 23W 09:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which one, the 1934 play-based film or the 1950 comedy sketch film? --George Ho (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More print sources

[edit]

The miniseries format is so hot, even Cartoon Network is getting in on the action. Good thing, too: Over the Garden Wall is fantastic. Created by Patrick McHale (Adventure Time), the 10-part fairy tale (airing on five consecutive nights) stars Elijah Wood and Collin Dean as brothers on a journey through the woods that's equal parts creepy, charming, and just plain weird. Above all, it's never boring, and should be enjoyed by kids, adults, and talking bluebirds alike. A.[1]: 53 

Skip it! This week's losers and must avoids: ... A five-night, Halloween-oriented fairy tale that tries to blend fantasy, horror and humor. Close, but no candy corn.[2]: 44 

  1. ^ Rahman, Ray (November 7, 2014). Collis, Clark (ed.). "What to Watch". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc.: 53–55.
  2. ^ Fowler, Tara; Newman, Judith; Shapiro, Ellen (November 7, 2014). Gliatto, Tom; Snyder, Steven J. (eds.). "People Picks". People. Time Inc.: 37–44.

23W 04:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refideas

[edit]

23W 10:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Previous move discussion was in 2014. In 2015, the miniseries won two Emmy awards (and a third for the pilot), a Reuben award, and other awards, along with its continued critical acclaim and praise from audiences. Incoming wikilinks and daily pageviews:

factor Miniseries 1919 1934 1950
links 315 11 19 13
views ~1000 ~10 ~10 ~10

I do think that now there are more indications that the miniseries is the primary topic by these merits, which point to its long-term significance over the other works called Over the Garden Wall whose significance is currently uncertain. At the very least, the miniseries should be the primary topic until the significance and "primary-topic-ness" of one of the other works is established. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Various melodies and songs are heard throughout the series, often with pre-20th century influences."

[edit]

pre-20th century? Surely this should be early 20th century? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: The source (TV Guide) says "pre-20th Century." Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's right, though, nor in line with actual interviews with the creators. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's not right. But if The New York Times says the sky is green, then it is. Your belief that the sky is blue is OR. To be fair, it can sound like early 20th Century music and yet claim to have pre-20th Century influences. Without a reliable source to say otherwise, I'm going with the source. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It's just a sign that you're using a flawed osourcer, as other sources say differently.
We are never required - or even permitted - to use sources we know to be inaccurate. Here's other sources.
Patrick McHale, the creator opf the series says it's pre-1950s - and we should go with the much more reliable source. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no compromise? "Various melodies and songs are heard throughout the series; one journalist recognized influence in pre-20th century music, although McHale said that he drew from pre-1950s music." Or something to that effect? 23W 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1950 includes pre-20th century, so I don't think it's particularly useful. I mean, there's clearly some pre-20th century music in there - one of the songs is explicitly based on O Holy Night (1847), but pre-1950 includes 1847. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Over the Garden Wall (miniseries)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I saw no issues with how this was written. I've tweaked a few things myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    You have a problem with MOS:PLOT for the same reason as 3B below: the episode descriptions need to be truncated. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes look sufficient based on other TV plot summaries I've examined. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Twitter and Tumblr shouldn't be used as sources, even if those accounts purport to be from a person who would know (and neither of those accounts are verified). Regardless, neither source supports the content so I'd recommend you remove all of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've since cut the Twitter source and the information it supported. There is no content worth keeping if it's not properly sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    The show didn't receive a Reuben Award as the award is for cartoonists, which McHale won. McHale should be listed as nominee. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your change fixed this. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    There's no immediate evidence of COPYVIO but I'll be looking to see if there's plagiarism. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found no plagiarism. Everything used has been quoted. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    This article appropriately keeps some focus on the production and critical reception as well as the soundtrack which accounts for a fair amount of media. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The episode plot summaries are not in keeping with WP:PLOTSUM. I'll WP:AGF on the sources since they're all dead but the summaries are way too long. Even 2 hour-long episodes shouldn't be more deeply described than the plot of the entire series. These things are magnets for WP:FANCRUFT so I recommend keeping them as short as is reasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes look sufficient based on other TV plot summaries I've examined. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit warring but there is regular editing. No problems here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    I'm concerned that these are "fair use" images. I'll be looking at the resolution as I'm not sure if these are "low" enough for fair use. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm told these images are within guidelines for fair use. This is the first time I've dealt with it as most articles I review strictly rely on public domain. This was educational. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm placing this on hold so you can address my concerns. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the original research issue outlined in 2C, and have considerably shortened the episode descriptions per 3B. However, even I feel that the descriptions are still rather lengthy. There's a lot of information to digest in the last two episodes of the miniseries, so I'm finding it particularly difficult to significantly shorten the descriptions for those final chapters in the series. In regards to 2B, I replaced the Tumblr citation with a concrete source, though I have not yet found a replacement for the Twitter citation. I know Wikipedia is strict with its sourcing policies, which is an issue for the Twitter source since McHale's account is unverified, but I do find it extremely unlikely, judging by the content, that that is not his account. I suppose that can be taken with a grain of salt though. –Matthew - (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the last couple changes in order to get this off my plate since you seemed squeamish. I looked at a couple FA-nom articles about TV series and their plot summaries were of comparable size. I still think it's too long but without an objective standard I don't want to quibble over it. It's a cartoon; it's not even worth providing unsourced plot summaries, to my mind. I put way more work into this than I wanted to but I'm finding it necessary in order to get the ball moving forward. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: all moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The case for the move is the same as before - the miniseries is critically acclaimed, won a Reuben and three Emmies and was nominated for two Annies, and its views are two or three orders of magnitude higher than the other films, all of which won no awards and received no critical acclaim nor had a lasting impact on cinema, as far as I can tell from their articles. Despite worries of recentism, the ten-year test suggests than an article about a critically-acclaimed award-wining series is more relevant than any of the mediocre and non-influencial films. Both by usage and long-term significance, the miniseries is the primary topic. --Relisting. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Over the Garden Wall (miniseries). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Over_the_Garden_Wall&oldid=1244405310"