Talk:Zap2it

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zap2it article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: Cinema / Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Reliability as source

I have observed an editor relying heavily upon citing this website for establishing things like episode titles and debut dates.

Although it is possible that this site could qualify as a source for "when an episode was first televised at a scheduled date in the United States", I don't think we should use it for anything beyond this.

One major problem is that people will cite an "upcoming air date" as if it is the "First Aired", which is wrong. Zap2it may not create an entry until it has a time-based televised airing but that doesn't mean this will be the date they will use as "First Aired", since that may defer to an earlier time.

In fact the 'First Aired' often appears to be earlier in the Episode Guide tab. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, I was the one who made the above criticism when I was having trouble logging into my account. Ranze (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone citing this as a reference

I've been annoyed by some things I've seen from people doing this.

Firstly is the appending of the ?aid=zap2it string at the end of a URL. Please take that off. It isn't needed for a link to function, all you need is the number before it. I realize that's added automatically when you visit a page but please take the time to clip it off instead of unexamined copy and pasting.

Secondly is the linking of episode list pages instead of individual episode pages. Please do the latter instead of the former. A problem I'm seeing is misleading "access-date" summaries. People will, at the start of the series, paste the episode overview page and then give a very earlier access-date. Then people will just keep using this same URL to support later episodes without actually updating the access date.

The problem there is that when zap2it initially lists a series, they might for example only list the first 3 episodes and their dates, as only so many are known in advance. But then as people keep adding more and more episodes, it gives the false impression that say, episode 10, had its date and title announced far earlier than it actually was.

I'm going to remove that wherever I see it due to this recurring misuse of citation. Instead, actually link an individual episode page and when you accessed that page, as that may not have been reflected in earlier versions of the overview page.

It's to the point where I'm not going to believe an access-date reflected some later episodes unless someone has copied it to archive.org to show it was there. Archive dates can be checked and are more reliable than access dates. Ranze (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Screener

It appears that Zap2it has changed its name to Screener. We should probably reflect that in the article, however it seems the transition is not complete yet, as TV listings and ratings (TV by the Numbers) are still under the old domain for the time being. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's mentioned in the article, I missed that. Might be too early to rename it though, not sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until URL updates; then we can do a mass update. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to hold off on those updates until the URL is updated for TV listings/ratings anyway. And to be clear, when I said it might be too early to rename I meant some may think so, but I support the move that just happened. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of unreliability

In cases where there are conflicts of information, while I do see zap2it as useful, it isn't perfect and want to point that out here in cases where it contradicts other sources.

To start off, with the show PJ Masks

The problem with these as follows:

Given these examples, we can see that zap2it has a history of including mistakes, duplication, and misleading numbering. While this isn't the norm, it should we shouldn't put absolute faith in what they do and consider that sometimes their claims may be in error.

I don't know if this is due to manual input mistakes or problems with some kind of automated software that doesn't receive competent editor overlook, but we should give priority to more official sources of information when there is a contradiction noticed. Ranze (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zap2it is an official source, and even the best of sources make mistakes. Shouldn't stop using them just because of that fact. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: could you clarify what you mean by the phrase "official source"? Did you perhaps mean "reliable source" or something? If the latter, then I am presenting examples of mistakes to build an argument that it may not be as reliable a source as some others. Ranze (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant official source, which Zap2it is. The fact that it makes mistakes sometimes does not make it any less reliable, and many times it will correct itself if there's a scheduling change, for example. Even the greatest of places makes mistakes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (June 15, 2017)

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screener (website) → Zap2It – As of April of this year, Tribune Digital Ventures has dropped the Screener name from the website, and reverted it to the previous Zap2It brand. However, the article title has not changed accordingly. Traditionally, when the name of a product, network, website or company, etc. has changed, the article title is redirected to the new name, with information included in the article to note the name change. TVTonightOKC 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't you mean Screener (website)? bd2412 T 15:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure – From what I've seen, the website still uses the Screener name for news and Zap2It is used for TV listings. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:91CD:2A60:1B87:37CA (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:91CD:2A60:1B87:37CA – Tribune Digital Ventures discontinued editorial content on the website in late April, and reverted to the Zap2It name thereafter. The news side, under the Screener name, features archived entertainment news content published before the editorial layoffs; the main site, which restored the Zap2It name, now consists only of television listings. TVTonightOKC 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Unsure I'm also unsure about this. From the info you provide TVTonight, to what I looked up, Zap2It is no longer a editorial news organization, simply a television listing site, with TV by the Numbers also still existing. To me, it would seem most appropriate to leave this article as is, and if notable enough, create a new Zap2It article in regards to its TV listings (and noting how it shares the former name of Screener). But I guess in the end, this article should stay at "Screener (website)" because it was the most recent name it had while still being a new organization (in addition to the listings and ratings info). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is exactly the sort of to-and-fro renaming that we do not wish to waste time following. For this reason and others, the official name counts very little according to our article naming policy. So leave as is unless and until there is very strong evidence that the common name has also changed. Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I'm convinced: I basically agree with this – when Screenertv.com actually starts automatically redirecting back to Zap2It.com, then I think we can say that Screener is "dead" and can move the article back to Zap2It at that point. So, oppose for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This has become rather complicated but in the original nomination [1] Tvtonightokc stated Traditionally, when the name of a product, network, website or company, etc. has changed, the article title is redirected to the new name. I won't mince my words, AFAIK this is pure and absolute rubbish. There is no such tradition, policy, anything. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 24 June 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.

Requested move 19 October 2017

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: not moved. Number 5 7 12:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screener (website) → Zap2It – The reason for this is because six months ago, Tribune Digital Ventures dropped the Screener name from the website, and reverted it back to the previous Zap2It brand. Zap2It is the original name of the website. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by default, because you have provided no reason. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. No change since the previous RM. ONR (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I nearly closed this as not moved, but as I opposed the previous RM I could be said to be involved. No case to answer. If someone wants to make a case in terms of wp:AT that might be different. Andrewa (talk) 09:49, 27 October 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.

change in management

As of Jan 2018, the zap2it website TV listings are suddenly quite changed/limited: "new and improved" in frustrating ways etc. This seems to be connected with a change in ownership. Please add info to the article about this apparently consummated change in management.-73.61.15.58 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zap2it vs Screener

My two cents on an old can of worms:

Screener (website) is not even named in its own article intro.

Screener's url, as given by this article and verifiable by reproducible original research (that is, by visiting the website), is zap2it.com.

My understanding from the article and this talk page is that Zap2it was the original name and Screener has decided to return to that primary branding. This suggests to me that Zap2it is both an official name (see also its url and the header of that website) as well as the most likely common name.

Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title recommends Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency (as goals, not as rules). For Conciseness and Precision, does anyone dispute Zap2it is better than Screener (website)? For Recognizability, i've only ever known Zap2it, and was surprised Wikipedia redirected to a website name i'd never heard, but i wouldn't know how to guess how many people recognize the website by the name Screener. Naturally (for Naturalness) i would only search for, link to, or mention anything using the name i know, but i recognize (see what i did there?) others might naturally use other names that they know.

(i don't know that article title Consistency is relevant to this conversation. If a website has a Wikipedia page, the site name is probably typically the best article title, unless a disambiguation is needed. Screener's disambiguation is fine, but Zap2it doesn't need disambiguation. For comparison, the websites that come to mind that need disambiguation include Amazon, Bing, Googol, Hotwire, Outlook, Yahoo; websites that don't need disambiguation include eBay, GeoCities, Hotmail, Lycos, YouTube.)

...Yeah, my two cents. Got change for a five?

--71.121.143.194 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialist has moved this talk page to Talk:Zap2it without moving the corresponding article to Zap2it. I have moved the talk page back, and any future moves should require consensus with a new RM on this talk page. Neither of the 2 previous discussions has a consensus to move the article away from Screener (website). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was weird, I thought I had moved the article. Anyway, why is it still at Screener (website), anyway, when they're clearly using the Zap2it name? Trivialist (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]