Talk:Years of Living Dangerously

Fair Use picture

The intro section should probably have a Fair Use logo of some sort. Perhaps this picture from the Media page. -- GreenC 23:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, but I don't like the way that's cropped. Can someone crop this version of the image a little better? I'm not very tech savvy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. It probably needs an infobox. Not a too long or detailed one just something to fill the whitespace and anchor the image. -- GreenC 05:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend against an infobox. I don't think that would add anything useful to this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't care. Though someone will inevitably add one they are pretty standard. -- GreenC 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I may be incorrect calling it a "logo", it's probably actually technically called "cover art" in this case. -- GreenC 05:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you find this image on the website? I clicked around but only found the wide one. Maybe we can find out what they call it. Also, I was wondering if you want to crop out a little more of the sky above the house and just a little bit of the black at the bottom -- not as much as the wide version of the image that the series uses, but just a little. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I found the image from your link above :) I did a minimal crop because I didn't want to alter the source image too much since we are representing their image not an interpretation. When I uploaded to Wikipedia it asks for a Fair Use rationale and provides a boiler-plate of options and one of them was called "Cover art" and it included as an example TV series, so that's what I chose. There was also a "Logo" option but logos are different, maybe the text in the image is a logo. -- GreenC 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Of course a DVD cover is "cover art", but I wonder if there is a technical name for the photograph that people use as the main image on a website or to represent a TV series? Maybe "promotional image"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying "promotion" might encourage editors to believe the article is promotional. In Wikipedia culture, people's radar is fine tuned to root out promotion (see previous conversation below). Not that there's anything wrong with cover art image used at the top of a page to identify a TV series, just don't want to court trouble from those with an axe to grind for whatever reason. Cover art doesn't have to mean literal package cover. I don't have another idea at the moment what to call it. Other than maybe leaving the caption blank, or just give the name of the show. -- GreenC 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedians are that silly, and I have been a very active editor here since 2006, so I don't think that's a problem. The fact that an image is "promotional" is a positive factor in its qualifying under the fair use provisions of the copyright laws. Nevertheless, I'll simply take out the description under the image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ratings

If we're going to give another show's ratings by way of comparison, shouldn't we choose another cable documentary series, preferably on an environmental topic? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed information comparing the show to a highly successful cable drama, which gives a biased view of the ratings. Contrary to what the editor wrote in the edit summary, the ratings were not related to the show's move to the Monday timeslot, which had been scheduled from the biginning of the series. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is based on the linked reference: to the most-viewed show of the same date. Why are you claiming that it is biased?

YoLD had "microscopic" ratings (quoting the reference). The article should tell about this. The article is not supposed to champion the show.

AlfBit (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TV ratings like most things has a long tail power law distribution. A few shows have the majority of viewers, while the majority of shows have few viewers by comparison. There are a few "bestsellers" and the rest. I guess the idea is this is not one of those few top-rated shows (eg. Game of Thrones), but where in the curve is it? Not sure how to convey that using statistics without sounding biased one way or another, we might want to wait for a reliable source that addresses the overall success of the show. -- GreenC 20:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the commentary, but restored the ratings numbers. The numbers cannot be accused of bias; they are as they are--and they are clearly appropriate for comparison. I have also clarified that GoT is the most-watched.

Note that TV ratings are conventionally given to one decimal digit (and without the percent sign). Thus the ratings of YoLD should really be given as 0.1, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0. The "overall success" of the show is obvious from that.

AlfBit (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like someone is out to give this show a black eye by comparing it to other shows with more viewers. The evidence supplied is synthesis and original research, so it ought to be reverted each time it appears in that form. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like someone is out to champion the show, despite the show being a ratings failure. The "synthesis" is taking information from a single web page (one for each Sunday, e.g. [1] Archived 2016-03-09 at the Wayback Machine). And where is the "original research"?

AlfBit (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes you choose one show over another to demonstrate that other shows have higher ratings? Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the ratings of YoLD should obviously be given. Second, the natural comparison is with the most-watched show in the same time slot. I agree that the second reason was not explained well; I have reworded the text to clarify--see what you think.

AlfBit (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, you have again reverted my text without a valid explanation. WP:SYNTH says "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources", yet the text was clearly advanced by the sourcing web pages (e.g. [2] Archived 2016-03-09 at the Wayback Machine). I ask you to either revert your change or explain why you believe the comparison is a SYNTH. AlfBit (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your "natural comparison" is not a comparison made in the source. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Executive producers/Co-producers

An IP keeps trying to add the name of Rena Shulsky David to the list of producers in the article. Years of Living Dangerously had 7 "executive producers", and the article lists the ones that the press found most important in making and promoting the show. It also had 11 "co-producers", of whom Ms. David is one. Her involvement seems to be that she was one of the earliest donors in the show's fundraising. I do not believe that it would be appropriate or helpful to list the co-producers, and I think that the IP's repeated attempts to add her is obviously promotional. See: WP:NOTPROMOTION. Here is the list of the producers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

With such a long list of executive producers, I see no reason to add another long list of co-producers. Let's continue to trim away any attempt to insert one or more of the co-producers. That is, unless there are published sources talking specifically about one or more of the co-producers, at which point we can relay the information to the reader, using prose in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Mainstream, independent sources would need to explain why each co-producer named is so important that we want to delay our readers in getting down to the content of the TV series. It appears to me that listing the names of these people would not improve the article. We also do not list the writers, the directors of the episodes, or a host of other individuals who were far more involved with content than these "co-producers"; we do not linger, near the top of the article, to discuss how Bach and Gelber quit their jobs at CBS and worked for four years to create the show and get it on the air. Our readers want to know what the show was about – what information it conveyed about climate change science and solutions, and how it conveyed that information (through the celebrity and journalist investigators). IMO, this encyclopedia is not the place for this list; you can find that sort of info on IBDB and other websites that have comprehensive lists of things about TV shows, or on the DVD's notes. For more information about what not to include in Wikipedia articles, see, for example, WP:RAWDATA and more generally WP:NOT. See also WP:BALASPS. Also, if the editor who wishes to add this information has a personal interest in, or connection to, Rena Shulsky David, please also read WP:COI. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Co-Producers recognized on the YOLD Wikipedia article

Dear S. Silvers, We are David Gelber and Joel Bach the Executive Producers of Years of Living Dangerously. The inclusion of the co-producers is not promotional in and of itself and it is not in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Per Wikipedia’s own guidelines “Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.” All of the text that was added in the “Production” section by Wikiuser Statute on 8/30/2014 adheres strictly to these policies and we would like to have it re-posted into the article. Such “Production” section does not contain self-promotion, but lists all of the co-producers who were critically important in the development of Years of Living Dangerously. In addition, the subject of Years of Living Dangerously is timely and material to the future of humanity and thus encyclopedic in nature. It speaks volumes about the current crisis of global warming documented by Years of Living Dangerously that people comprising the co-producers are of such substantial accomplishment and esteem and were willing to collectively back this series, without their involvement as co-producers, the series would not have been created. The listing of the co-producers is not self-promotion but integral and germane to the creation and success of the series. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.122.236 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No infobox

I oppose adding an infobox to this article. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Does make a refreshing change to see a TV series article without an infobox I must say. What was the proposed box to be added?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. B, see this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with not having an infobox, but one of the benefits of an infobox is metadata in a structured format that can be captured by bots that is otherwise difficult to harvest from plain text. That is why we have Wikidata. Is there any way we can make sure the article has decent Wikidata coverage in lieu of an infobox? It would benefit the show and anyone doing data analysis for whatever reason (research papers etc..). -- GreenC 20:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikidata no longer needs an infobox to assemble the information that it uses. Can someone who is up on the current technology please comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, I added an infobox before I saw this conversation. I am neither in favor nor opposed to using an infobox - however, I have never seen an article that exists without one. I checked the style guide at Help:Infobox which states that: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Since there is not a restriction against using it, I am not certain it has to be removed as I find user boxes very useful. However, I will not object if consensus calls tor remove it - I would just need to understand why we would not have it in this article and yet info boxes exist in virtually all articles in media. What would make this article different? Cheers - -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My reasons are given at the top of this discussion; basically, I don't think it would be helpful, it would be a waste of valuable space at the top of the article and, on balance, I think it would discourage readers from actually reading the text of the article, focusing instead on the factoids in the box. I think the metadata arguments *for* infoboxes are no longer applicable due to technical developments in Wikipedia. So, as Help:Infobox says, it has been determined not to have one through discussion and consensus here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the argument in general and I am not disagreeing with it - you raise some valuable points. And as I wrote above, I won't contest it. I was really wondering why the argument was being made for this particular article as opposed to others - as I haven't seen this kind of debate before. Be that as it may, whether or not the article has an infobox is not important to me. However, I might suggest that someone put a note in the main article about this thread, alerting other editors to this point about infoboxes, so that they don't waste their time making one. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hard to know why you haven't seen it. There have been lots of discussions about it on numerous articles, and even an Arbcom case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the note. Given that there are millions of editors on the Wikipedia, and as many articles, it is impossible to be aware of all of the debates and controversies that exist on the WP - so yes, up until now, I was not aware of this one. However, I did read through WP:DISINFOBOX and the arbcom case to try and understand the parameters of this debate. While I do not edit classical music articles (and thus had not come across what seems to be the majority of these discussions), I did read the Talk:Ezra Pound infobox discussion with interest. Given the complexity of Pound's life, I agree that his biography is stronger without an infobox. While I'm still not entirely certain where the controversy lies with having an infobox in this article, I am not invested either way in the debate. I do think that as a courtesy to editors who are not involved in existing infobox threads, all articles that have a thread against using an infobox should have a note in the main article similar to the one that you placed. At this point I will end my involvement in the discussion here. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, Wikidata was populated with data from Infoboxes (among other places). If this article never had an Infobox, then Wikidata wasn't populated. It's important that aesthetics (style) doesn't come at the expense of substance (missing data). Even then, Wikidata is not kept up to date due to lack of attention, so it's a poor substitute IMO but one that is still evolving. The WikiData record for Years of Living Dangerously if anyone wants to add anything. The record for Game of Thrones which is more developed to compare what is possible. -- GreenC 02:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)