Talk:Wank Week

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Wank Week was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 2, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 30, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Check the references, etc

I know the urge to tag this article for deletion is strong the moment you see the title, but check the references, etc. --Fabio 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled for August

Since it's now September, this should already have been shown. I think somebody who saw the programmes should perhaps update the page. --Storkk 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's been shown yet. I think they're still trying to find compulsive masturbators for another programme. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not shown yet and it's over a year later?

Crazy. If nothing comes up, we could consider this for deletion again.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that was in the article but I took out

Michael Grade blurb - irrelevant. Hadn't been at Channel 4 for years. (For contextual purposes it might not be a bad idea to point out that Channel 4 has a reputation for controversy)
Date it was originally intended to be broadcast - actually the earliest articles e.g. from July 19, 2006 suggest that a date in 2006 was originally planned. There is a ref for March 2007, but it's clear from the July 2006 story that this probably wasn't the original intended date of broadcast.
Time that the films may be broadcast in the future
Description of what exactly Masturbation for Women/Girls was alleged to contain other than interviews with Betty Dodson (the DS reference states "in which three women "experience the revolutionary masturbation tutorials of Dr. Betty Dodson" but doesn't say what is shown on camera).

I removed that stuff; I think with the additional references, everything that appears in the text is now well-sourced. TheGrappler 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear language. Passes here.

2. Factually accurate?: Good use of citations, good sources. Passes here.

3. Broad in coverage?: I note that the most recent source used is from February 2007. Any mention in other sources since then? Also, do we really need the three redlinks? Are these notable articles that will likely be created in the future? Are they linked to from other articles as well? Any mention in sources other than news sources? Books or journal articles?

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in neutral wording. Passes here.

5. Article stability? Article is stable going back over one month, though there was a withdrawn AfD a while back, and some minor anon-ip editing before that, no major issues. Civil comments on talk page and in edit summaries.

6. Images?: No images are used in the article. Not required, but would it be possible to obtain any free-use or detailed rationale fair-use images?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above points have been addressed, message my talk page and I will take another look. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Images - since the season was cancelled before being extensively trailed, it's no surprise there are no applicable logos/screenshots available. Any of the following three individuals might be worth including images of: Andrew MacKenzie (no wiki article yet, but one is plausible in the future), Charles Allen (businessman) or Jeremy Isaacs, since they were all involved in the dispute. However, no free images of them are on Wikipedia and I couldn't find any elsewhere, including searching flickr.

Recentness of references - it's not possible to find a reference to prove that it's current canned status persists, but the talk comments on this page are persuasive evidence that it all is still dead in the water. The most recent reference indicates that the season as such is pretty much a dead duck, but the content created for it is likely to reappear at some point. The article can be updated then.

Redlinks - are to articles which do not yet exist but which would pass notability requirements if they were created (e.g. TV shows broadcast on a major national network). James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture will definitely get an article at some point, it is a major event in the UK broadcasting year, always gathers a lot of media attention (i.e. navel-gazing?), and is the keynote event of a major international media festival.

Does this address your concerns? TheGrappler (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

Meets the criteria. Thanks for addressing my concerns, from above. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

vandalism--Maybe this article should be semi-protected

I removed some vandalism from this page: one of the headings had been deleted and replaced with the "F-Word". But I was surprised when I looked at the history to see that the article had been that way for five days! and I see vandalism is a common problem on this article. Perhaps this article should be semi-protected to prevent such vandalism from happening in the future. I've taken the liberty of adding it to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Phuthaditjhaba (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wank Week. 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/20061117064719/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1981701.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1981701.ece

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) 01:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Wank Week

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are two Needs Update tag in the article and several sentences that lack citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No improvements, and indeed nary an edit for over a year. This is essentially a time capsule from 2007 and no longer GA-level with no updates about if the films were later broadcast. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I'm not even sure this meets WP:GNG, but current sourcing is awful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.