Talk:Pilot (The Playboy Club)

Explanation, please

Could someone explain to me why this article exists? I see there are similar articles already existing in Wikipedia for other TV shows. But.....this show broadcast a total of three shows and was cancelled. A pilot episode article for a cancelled three-episode-only show? Just sayin'....... Lhb1239 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there were only three episodes, if the episode is notable then there's no reason why there can't be an article. However, the article seems to be mostly a copy of The Playboy Club, covering aspects of the series as a whole, while it should concentrate only on the pilot. If the non-pilot content is stripped away I suspect that notability won't be demonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought. This article shouldn't even exist. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. If the non-pilot content is removed and what remains demonstrates notability, then the article can remain. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't say, "If the non-pilot content is stripped away I suspect that notability won't be demonstrated."? It looks like your sig following that statement - did someone compromise your account...? The response was in the negative tense, therefore, it seems to me from what you wrote you don't think the article is notable, either (unless, of course, as I stated previously, someone was speaking for you through your account ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll argue that the information in the protest section is relevant to the pilot episode, as much of it presented preceded the premiere of the episode. Once more episode began airing, protests weren't nearly as vocal. I did, however, remove the writing section, as the plot wasn't exclusive to the episode. —DAP388 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The content in the article needs to be directly relevant to the episode. There seems to be a lot of content that is simply copied from the main series article, which isn't appropriate. Instead of duplicating content, if there is a need for that information here, "{{main|The Playboy Club}}" should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What I said doesn't mean that the article should not exist, which is what you concluded. Suspecting that notability will not be demonstrated is not the same as saying that the subject is not notable. You've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't have the time at this point to go through the article to work out what should be pulled. Do you? --AussieLegend (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I concluded what I did based on what you said and what I already knew - not from what you said alone. You did, however, in the words you wrote, indicate you didn't think the article was going to be notable enough to have an article on its own - and that's the reality. The pilot episode hasn't won any awards, wasn't special all on its own, hasn't been noted as being anything overly exceptional, and didn't set a new standard for television programming. Any or all of those things would make it notable. As it is, the series was cancelled and the only thing that made it notable was the stir and protest it caused. Even so, that makes the series notable (and the idea of it notable) - but the pilot? Not notable froma Wikipedia notability standpoint. Not at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always have to argue over trivialities? Yes, I suggested that it may not be notable, not that it isn't notable. There's a difference. Since the article has around 60 citations the immediate implication is that it must be notable. However, as I earlier stated, in a slightly different way, once the general series related/non-episode specific content is removed it may well be that it is not notable. On the other hand, there may be enough to d3emonstrate notability. At this point it's not possible to credibly make a sweeping statement such as it's "Not notable froma Wikipedia notability standpoint. Not at all." --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's no policy against discussing "trivialities" on article talk pages in Wikipedia, then I will take your above question as another demonstration of you commenting on editors rather than edits (in other words, a personal attack). Please keep your comments on topic. As to your final comment: yes, it is possible because it's my opinion. Personal opinion doesn't have to be acceptible to all in order to be voiced. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You really do need to read WP:NPA with a view to understanding it better. Arguing over trivialities is unproductive. Time would be better spent improving the article, either by editing out the non-episode specific content so as to determine the subject's notability, or lack thereof. As of now, it's not really possible to determine that one way or another, so your opinion really has no effect. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. I understand it just fine. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now been through the article and removed all the non-episode specific content. Despite my earlier concerns, the episode does seem to meet the notability requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (The Playboy Club)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Treading carefully here, this show seems to attract some unstable editors. :/

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Some of the characters listed in the plot need to be introduced better. The first paragraph is perfectly fine, but in the second, we have casual reference to "Carol-Lynne" and "Billy Rosen". Given that the later Cast section is pretty unnecessary (it adds nothing but character fluff - if there's behind-the-scenes information about the roles to add, do it. Here is an example of how that would work), the character descriptions there can be used in the plot instead.

   The quote box seems overly long. I'd suggest phrasing it as follows: "The musical numbers provide some pleasure, but the one reason to watch the show is Ms. Benanti, who has the skill to make the soft-boiled tough-guy dialogue work and who often seems to be the only adult on screen. She's paired with Eddie Cibrian as a former mob lawyer [...] His interestingly thuggish face is a good fit for the period, but he's awfully lightweight for a guy who has to dispose of a body in the first 10 minutes of the pilot".

    Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Seems in order.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Ditch the cast list, for sure. I'm also a bit concerned about the dearth of production specifics in comparison to the very beefy reception material, but ultimately this seems unavoidable so it's not a problem for the sake of this review.

   I added some info about how they were casted, and what they said about the characters. There are some info about production on the main page of the series in regards to the pilot episode (such as the music). I was also thinking about adding the info about the conception. Doesn't really make any sense to have its origins mentioned in the lead and not elsewhere in the article. —DAP388 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   That would definitely be a good idea. Doesn't have to be much if there isn't much to add. GRAPPLE X

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stability is fine.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are used appropriately. Three are commons, the one non-free image is suitably tagged with a solid fair use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Going to hold this one until the listed issues are seen to, but it's not too far away from a pass. GRAPPLE X 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   The changes are enough to pass this article. Well done again! GRAPPLE X 15:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilot (The Playboy Club). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127150843/http://stilltalkintv.com/2011/09/emmy-forgiven-broke-sells-playboy-disappoints/ to http://stilltalkintv.com/2011/09/emmy-forgiven-broke-sells-playboy-disappoints

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) 23:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)