Talk:Channel J
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by OiYoiYoink in topic In popular culture
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Family Guy
[edit]@Waxworker I undid your reversion because you removed the entire pop culture section rather than flagging areas where stronger citations can be added. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Waxworker I added an additional citation to IMDb. I also viewed a clip on YouTube to verify accuracy. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @OiYoiYoink: - Fandom wikis and IMDB are both unreliable sources per WP:FANDOM and WP:IMDB as they are WP:USERGENERATED. If reliable sources don't discuss it, it shouldn't be on the article. Waxworker (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- The pop culture reference is self-explanatory... there are not many legitimate nude TV talk shows with midnight in their titles. Given this, I believe those sources are sufficient. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @OiYoiYoink: - Per MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance". Reliable sources need to discuss the reference in depth, and IMDB and Fandom are unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I will amend the text to make more supportable. Important to note that there is no reference provided in PTV to support the similarity to Playboy After Dark. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @OiYoiYoink: - Per MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance". Reliable sources need to discuss the reference in depth, and IMDB and Fandom are unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- The pop culture reference is self-explanatory... there are not many legitimate nude TV talk shows with midnight in their titles. Given this, I believe those sources are sufficient. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
In popular culture
[edit]@Nikkimaria what level of evidence are you expecting to cite for the plot of the television show? I had included a hyperlink to the wikipedia episode page that gave a synopsis (PTV), in addition to citing several sources. Also, are you also taking issue with citing the New York Post? Because I see you deleted the entire section. Please provide additional details. Thank you. OiYoiYoink (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi OiYoiYoink, per MOS:POPCULT these sorts of sections need reliable secondary sourcing that supports not only that the reference exists, but that it is significant to the subject. A simple synopsis of the episode covers the former but not the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the context OiYoiYoink (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)