Jump to content

Talk:The Chaser APEC pranks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe Chaser APEC pranks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2009.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 10, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 10, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that despite $170m spent on security, Australian comedy group The Chaser managed to enter the restricted zone of the 2007 APEC Summit in a fake motorcade?
Current status: Featured article

Reminder

[edit]

Reminder: This article is based solely on the APEC pranks in September 2007. Also, on some of my edits i accidently click minor edit when they are quite major...sorry! Jasewase (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

I have created this new article as I believe this is an important event in the history of The Chaser, and its successful program, The Chaser's War on Everything. To prove this, I have already got 17kb of content, more than enough for an established article. Please feel free to offer thoughts here. And for thoughts about the general article and the suggestion for it to be split/changed/whatever, this is not the place...cheers Jasewase 12:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual stunt

[edit]

Under the heading "Breach of APEC securite" or whatever. There is actually only one paragraph on the actual stunt. Where's the detail? Isn't this article all about the prank?  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article is on the series of APEC pranks, as noted in the introduction. i know the article title is vague, so i might change it later. as for the actual breach: im still working on putting in more detail..ive being working on the other sections recently...please bear with me. Jasewase 09:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these issues are now fixed. the title has been changed, and the introduction reflects that. the actual event is now more detailed, but im not sure if enough sourcing is given. Jasewase 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has more detail, but the problem is, especially with the main prank, is that it isn't in order. May I suggest the following headings

  • Overview of APEC
  • Early stunts
(mention stunts done before major breach)
  • APEC breach
    • Planning
    • Breach of APEC security
    • Aftermath
    • Media response
    • Public response
    • Legal action
  • Post APEC breach
(mention stunts after major breach)
  • References, External links ...

You need to put things in order because it will repeat itself. You start with (in the "APEC stunts" section, with them being arrested, that would be the last thing. While the above headings are only a suggestion, I am considering helping this article myself, to get up to GA status, though I might not.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This radio source has some behind the scenes stuff on the main APEC stunt. [1]. It has Morrow and Reucassel talking with some radio hosts about various things to do with Chaser and APEC.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  09:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ive reordered the sections and prioritised the actual major prank. thanks for suggestion with the radio source too. Jasewase 10:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SFA?

[edit]

Sorry, is that supposed to mean something in the article? -- Kendrick7talk 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the team mentioned it in the episode - its a bit vague i'll remove it Jasewase 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that joke, what is SFA supposed to mean in this case? –Kloth (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ga nomination

[edit]

I'm sorry Jasewase, but I withdrew the GA nomination. You need to have patience. The following reasons is why I with drew it.

  1. The article dosen't meet good article criteria.
  2. The article is still undergoing a peer review. (It should not have both happening at same time)
  3. The article was only created less than a week ago, and hasn't been able to expand.

Jasewase, you need patience. Let the peer review finish, then if it meets the criteria then nominate.

Criteria it dosen't currently meet:

  • Prose (There is a list under "Other pranks" section, plus few errors)
  • Verifibilty
    • For example the "The Chaser's response" section is unreferenced. (You have an external link withing prose, which shouldn't happen. Just reference the radio website.)
    • (Same with the Today Tonight paragraph in above section)
  • The see also link is a redirect and dosen't go to where it implies.

Im sorry to cause this, but nominating it for early GA, is pointless. If you still want to nominate, please discuss. By the end of November, it should be ready.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe i knew this would happen, but it just seems theres not much more to add (just court verdict) Jasewase 12:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
btw fixed all verifibility issues listed above, and see also like. the list has also been modified slightly, but not completely removed. Jasewase 12:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may comprehensive, but may not be up to scratch. Ask a "FA" reviewer to peer review the article for you. As for the "Other pranks" section. It needs to be converted from list to prose. Meaning no bullet points.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how did the chasers war on everything get away with four lists then? Jasewase 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are a little different, due that you can't really put segments into prose. You should only use lists when necassary. There is nothing bad about a list and it would probably pass GA status with it but per WP:EMBED then "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose".  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  08:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images

[edit]

i need at least one more image for the article - preferably free use, to accompany this. It can be the major stunt or related to one of the minor ones. i cant find any that are suitable and im not familiar with licensing, sourcing etc... Jasewase 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of the subject, any image showing the Chaser at the scene would be fair use. Because the arn't replaceable. We can't exactly ask the Chaser to rebreak into APEC, so we won't find a free image. Though we can find a fair use one. If you need help Jasewase, don't hesitate to ask me (on my talk page preferably).  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

issues

[edit]

almost GA, but some issues need fixed. would like opinions...

  • remove links for dates?
  • a lot of repetitive news references
  • i need help on creating an infobox, if appropriate
  • lengthening of intro?
  • IMAGES, free use is great but i have no idea what the process is...basically anything that is mentioned in the article will do (you can see i was desperate with the APEC logo...)
  • some rewording issues identified by auto peer review

maybe others ive missed as well. cheers Jasewase (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full dates like 20 November 2007 should be linked, dates like 2007 or November 2007 shouldn't be linked unless they are relevant to the context of the article. There might be duplicates of news references (none that I have spotted), so we should use <ref name="name" />. I don't think an infobox is applicable for this article, not all articles require infoboxes anyway. Yep, the longer the introduction the better. I reckon that a screenshot of the episode aired featuring the stunts should be uploaded, but only if it is used here, so it meets the non-free content criteria, but I don't think that an APEC logo would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" much at all... and I'll see what I can do in regards to prose and the wording of the article. I'm sure that with more work towards keeping the article fully reliable and well written, the article will be promoted. Good work so far, though :) Spebi 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the reply i'll do what i can Jasewase (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and also when i said repetitive news references - i meant that i do use the same reference for different points in the article. it's just that when you look through the references list and look at the articles themselves, a lot of them have information that is repeated in many of the other sources. becomes a bit of a mess really... Jasewase (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ga nomination

[edit]

I think it is time for this article to be nominated again. It should meet all the criteria, and at the minimum, be put on hold. I'll let Jasewese make the decision as she is the main contributor to this article.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to nominate it. i am currently away on extended holiday. Jasewase (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quotebox

[edit]

Julian Morrow is referred to as "executive producer" in the quotebox. Is this the best way to describe him. While it is true, he is not best known for that.  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  11:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

[edit]

Just as a note, this was passed as a GA by Whiteandnerdy111 (talk · contribs). I'm not opposed to the passing and won't go to GAR, but yeah, it's odd there was no review or anything... — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current copyediting project

[edit]

I'm going through each section to clean up the article a bit more, improving clarity, grammar etc. The main change I've made to the information content is to remove a lot of the detail about The Chaser team themselves, since surely that is covered in - and belongs in - The Chaser? Anyway, this is the first time I've been asked to look at an article (thanks SpecialWindler), so feedback on my edits is appreciated. -- Guybrush (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. There should be only one paragraph about the Chaser team in the first paragraph of the "The Chaser" subsection. This is to provide a little context for the reader if they don't want to go to The Chaser article, and to get an understanding of what this team does, and to provide an introduction as to why they were warned not to do stunts in APEC. It may be slightly over the top mentioning all their names, but...
In terms of some of your edits, you may have shaved a bit too much off the lead, but I like it, I was just referring to WP:LEAD. I liked what you did to the breach and background section.  The Windler talk  05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sites

[edit]

These are some sites for self-reference in relation to this article:

 The Windler talk  11:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in opening sentence

[edit]

I've initiated a conversation at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summary_of_Today.27s_featured_article_on_the_Main_Page about the use of the word "were". Please read my comments and contribute there asap. Sections there are blanked when discussion is done, so I'll try and remember to post it here once completed. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I propose to restore the change reverted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chaser_APEC_pranks&diff=277964421&oldid=277950693

The "Related information" heading was added to separate the navboxes from the "External links" section and to provide the readers with a quick way to reach the navboxes from the table of contents. Perhaps the reverting editor, who describes this change as "useless," did not consider these benefits. Does anyone have a better reason the "Related information" heading should not be restored? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that hardly any other articles use such a system, and that "Related information" implies more than just the navbox. As far as I'm aware, most articles have any navboxes in the external links section. Eg. Most featured articles. As a general statement, external links should be small section and most people including readers know that the infoboxs are in that section. Rather than just going through todays featured articles and changing them as such, if you can state that EVERY single article with navboxes should have "related info" at the top of a section then you can prove me wrong.  The Windler talk  05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your first point is that adding a heading for navboxes is new. This argument seems antithetical to wp:CCC. You also seem to think that "Navigation boxes" would be a better title. I think that may well be an improvement. If you will agree that some heading is beneficial then perhaps it should be restored but modified to be labelled "Navigation box." Your second point repeats the first ("most articles") and then says that navboxes - which do not contain external links - are "in" the External links section. In fact, navboxes appear after the external links section per wp:Layout#Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc.. Your third point is that "most" articles have short external links sections and "most" readers know where to find navboxes. Assuming that is true, what is the downside to adding the heading to assist those readers who are new to Wikipedia and save all readers a bit of scrolling? Your fourth point repeats the third ("for many articles and many readers the heading will not be helpful"), which I am assuming is true to move our discussion forward. Actually, now that I think of it, the heading is helps all users by letting them know in the table of contents that the article has a navbox - this saves them the time and trouble of going to the External links section to find that out.
I respectfully suggest that the crucial question is "what is the downside?" If there isn't one, why not leave the heading in for the benefit of those that it can help? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a way to make an "invisiible" heading, ie. that it appears in the table of contents, but not the actual article. I would really have no problem. What is the downside. If I came to Wikipedia and went to a "Related information" section, then I would expect more than just a navigational box. The problem with the title "Navigation boxes" is that it dosen't really go in with the feel of the article and seems like a technical name. Perhaps "Internal links" which what they are, may be better.  The Windler talk  21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of the availability of an "invisible" heading. So we're not going to be able to solve the problem that way. Do I understand correctly that you would accept a heading (albeit reluctantly) if it was "Internal links"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image alignment

[edit]

With regards to this edit, I take no offense; I don't see any large whitespaces, so it may be a browser-related issue. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President Bush's Hotel

[edit]

Need another source, that is not a valid source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.132.44 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Chaser APEC pranks. 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) 20:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Chaser APEC pranks. 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) 09:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Chaser APEC pranks. 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) 07:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling in the map showing motorcade route

[edit]

The map has a location marked "Intercontential Hotel"; the correct spelling is "InterContinental". Can the person who made this please correct it? Robert (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Chaser_APEC_pranks&oldid=1258725110"