Talk:Hart of Dixie

Wording of cast

I would like to question how the cast should be worded. I always follow a good article, to ensure I'm not being opinionated in my edits. Smallville is a good article and listed as "Tom Welling portrays Clark Kent", I don't see what's wrong with this—most likely nothing or it wouldn't be a GA. Any help? Jayy008 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the previous prose to encyclopedic prose is not opinionated, it's improving the article. Which is why I can't understand why you would feel the need to discuss those changes here, nor can I understand why you would want to edit war over article improvement and risk violating 3RR. As far as use of the word "portrays", I changed it because portrayals occur when an actual person (as opposed to a fiction person) is dramatized on stage, screen, TV, or in a book or article. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I sense WP:OWN here. Regarding the whole of Wikipedia. I reverted to the original page edit before there was a disagreement, but you seem to only want to follow guidelines when it suits you. I have asked for an explanation and you're refusing. SMALLVILLE is a good article and I made an edit based on that good article. The wording you have chosen doesn't make any sense when it's not bullet-pointed. Jayy008 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for commentary: Formatting and content of "Critical Reception"

Please comment about the current Critical Reception section. I believe it is overly positive, in part because a questionable source (TV Line) is quoted prominently and at length, and also because the Metacritic rating of 43 is presented in an overly positive manner.

User Lhb1239 disagrees with me. What do you think?

Josephkugelmass (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

Ummmmm...putting in an RfC after putting in a notification here is - I believe - considered WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If that is the case, it's not allowed. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Still playing the censor, eh? I was asked by the moderator to see if other people agreed with me. That's all I'm doing. Josephkugelmass (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

"Still playing the censor"? One more uncivil accusation, Joe, and it will be me who makes a report at an administrator's noticeboard. Only I will be doing it reluctantly -- you are obviously intelligent and can be a helpful, productive editor. All of this fuss you are creating so soon after making your first substantial edits is not only a waste of everyone's time, it's a waste of yours. Is this really how you want to start your editing career in Wikipedia? So....I'm basically advising you to knock it off. What's more, if you think Ed's observation of all the Wiki-drama you're creating stopped at the Edit-Warring Noticeboard, you're likely quite mistaken. Now...to the issue above: forum shopping is hugely frowned upon in Wikipedia and is likely to get you an answer from those in the forums you're shopping in that you won't like. You already have a forum notification running. If you want to play the Wikipedia way, you need to do one -- you can't do both. Your choice. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll let the administrators handle this; fortunately, it's not up to you. Your compliments mean nothing to me, your advice does not interest me, and your threats do not scare me. My request for comments stands. Josephkugelmass (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

Have it your way, then. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Biased description of the show

Hi everyone! Just so you guys know, there is an ongoing dispute between me (josephkugelmass) and user Lhb1239 about the "Critical Reception" part of this article. In my opinion, Lhb1239 is giving suspect pride-of-place to positive evaluations of the show, as well as editing out a full description of how the show has actually been scored on Metacritic. The result is a biased and frankly misleading section that presents the show as more critically well-received than it actually is. Part of the problem is that the positive quotations come from TV Line, a publication of dubious credibility, and have been put above quotations from The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Josephkugelmass (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: Have you checked to see if "TV Line" meets Wikipedia standards for a reliable reference, yet? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability over truth when it comes to references. If TV Line meets the reliable reference criteria, then the NYT and the LAT aren't necessarily considered to be better references. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! The answer to your question, you'll be glad to know, is yes. I think it would be helpful for you, as well as for other users of Wikipedia, to consider the following statement, which comes from the actual Wikipedia page on reliability: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature..." And in case anyone reading has any doubt that TVLine is promotional in nature, this is from the TVLine.com "About" page:

That is precisely why we created TVLine.com — to help TV enthusiasts cut through all the clutter and find a happy place where, more often than not, you will want to read most every post. Because mark my words, every story you find here is about TV. What’s coming up on your favorite shows? Who’s hired? Who’s fired? Why, oh why, did the writers kill off so-and-so?! When, oh when, will Castle and Bones hook up?! Wait, what?

So, on the one hand, you have a site that seeks to provide viewers with a "happy place" where they can gossip about their "favorite shows," and on the other hand, we have The New York Times, which Wikipedia actually references in the article on reliable sources, right next to Cambridge University Press.

Thanks for your great question! I look forward to answering more of your questions, as I'm happy to help people who are in a process of discovering what reliability and objectivity actually mean on this site. Josephkugelmass (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

References

Ah, well.....now I see that TV Line has been quoted and not used as a reference. In that case, yes, quoting a reviewer at TV Line is perfectly fine. In fact, having both positive and negative quotations in this article re: critical reception is keeping the article in balance and doesn't allow undue weight to take hold. Based on that particular Wikipedia standard, it's perfectly acceptible to have the TV Line quotation in the article and doesn't violate any standards or policies. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotes work in the article, they do a good job keeping it in balance. It is easy in wikipedia to have weighted reviews in articles like this, and they do a good job of not having that happen here. MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are so desperate to win this that you are now shifting from trying to defend TV Line to arguing that your quotations are important to "keeping the article in balance," when in fact my additions, which you initially deleted, are the only reason this article is balanced at all. If you were concerned about undue weight in the least, you would have included some negative assessments to begin with. Stop messing with my edits and stop edit warring.

This isn't about winning, it's about staying within the set and accepted guidelines that have kept Wikipedia running reasonably well for 10 years. I'm sorry you find policy unacceptable, but it is what it is. Of course, if you can find another positive review quote from a resource you think is more worthy of being highlighted here, you're welcome to add it to the article next to the quote from TV Line, of course). And -- as I've already told you on my talk page when you threatened me there -- please keep things civil. Editors who don't play nice frequently are forced to stop playing altogether (even if just temporarily). Lhb1239 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you believe that somehow your edit warring is special and exempt from all your concern for Wikipedia policy, but it isn't. I've already reported this page and your behavior. I have never threatened you; I simply stated a fact, which is that I would report this page if you continued to do edit warring -- which you did. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly threatened me, by implication, with my being prevented from editing on Wikipedia, as though you had any power to actually impose such a ban. Josephkugelmass (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

Since when is TVLine not reliable? It's the most reliable source around for casting, spoilers and general TV news. Jayy008 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Josephkugelmass: I don't know where you went to school, but where I received my education, making statements such as, "...you better leave them as is, or I will happily escalate this issue with Wikipedia's oversight team" are most certainly considered a threat.

Moving on: It seems you have left this discussion (even though you wanted it - badly). But - in the spirit of editing Wikipedia cooperatively and collegially, I will give it another day or two to see if you show up again to rejoin the conversation. As Jayy008 pointed out above, TVLine is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia; as a secondary source, I imagine it's considered equal to the LAT and the NYT. Don't forget that this is Wikipedia, and the rules for inclusion of content and references are pretty much the same across the board. No class warfare or snobbery here ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm confused by this argument. I'm going to simply reply to the first users problem. The reason TVLine was listed first is because the information was release first. I add information to Wikipedia in order. I don't see this as "pride-of-place." It was also me that made the section in the first place, not LHB. Also, I have never MetaCritic used in any other way on here apart from saying, positive, average, negative and a score, that's it. TVLine is not dubious, it's used by all TV editors: one, it's never been proven to give us unreliable information and it reveals exclusive information, which I prefer. NYT and LAT reveal information after. Either way, I don't see an ordering issue, putting information first that was released first then putting information that was released after next is the way I usually do things. Isn't that correct? Jayy008 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A few days ago, a new editor (User:Josephkugelmass) expressed a concern that the Critical Reception section of this article does not fairly represent the negative criticism Hart of Dixie has received and that the positive criticism outweighs the negative. Any and all comments here regarding this issue would be appreciated. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TVline is a minor source, and is by no means given the same weight as criticism by major reputable outlets such as the New York Times. This is pretty much self-evident, under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I never watched the show, never wanted to, and don't know whose judgement was best: I am purely and simply commenting on the effort to make the show look good by giving pride of place to quotes from an obscure source. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that you commented, your statement, "the effort to make the show look good by giving pride of place to quotes from an obscure source", assumes a lot and is quite non-WP:AGF as well as unnecessarily accusatory (in my opinion). No one here was putting in any "effort" to attach "pride" to this program via the positive comments. The RfC is about whether or not the positive criticism outweighs the negative criticism, not what your added commentary states. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the obscurity and dubious reliability of the source given pride of place, I was unable to formulate any other viable hypothesis to explain why it should be given such prominence. Please inform me, if there is one. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

With the continued usage of statements such as "pride of place", you seem to be missing (at least part of) the point. There was no "pride" over the show (at least not from me - and no one else has said anything on the talk page that would indicate such). From your first edit summary when you reverted to your two comments here on the article's talk page, you seem to think one or all of us see this as a war about whether or not the show is any good. That isn't what the RfC is about. If you want to comment on the actual RfC, please do. Why continue to make assumptions/comments about something that isn't even an issue? Lhb1239 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm confused by this argument. I'm going to simply reply to the first users problem. The reason TVLine was listed first is because the information was release first. I add information to Wikipedia in order. I don't see this as "pride-of-place." It was also me that made the section in the first place, not LHB. Also, I have never MetaCritic used in any other way on here apart from saying, positive, average, negative and a score, that's it. TVLine is not dubious, it's used by all TV editors: one, it's never been proven to give us unreliable information and it reveals exclusive information, which I prefer. NYT and LAT reveal information after. Either way, I don't see an ordering issue, putting information first that was released first then putting information that was released after next is the way I usually do things. Isn't that correct? Jayy008 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current critical reception section gives undue weight to TVLine. WP:UNDUE states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." For creative works like televions shows, NPOV also states that an article can describe how the "work has been received by prominent experts". Note that the prominence of the source matters. Putting these ideas together, applying WP:UNDUE here mean that the proportion of positive and negative reception in the article should match the proportion found in reviews by prominent TV critics. For television shows, MOS:TV provides a list of prominent critical sources: "Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)."

The current Hart of Dixie critical reception section gives TVLine priority by giving it much more space than TV Guide and the LA Times (whose review for Hart of Dixie was published by The Toronto Star). I've looked for other reviews from sources listed in MOS:TV, and so far, they're almost all negative. For example, USA Today wrote, "There's nothing deep in 'Hart of Dixie'". The one exception is the Entertainment Weekly review quote on MetaCritic, a review I was not able to find on EW.com.

I also agree with Orangemike that TVLine should not be listed first. I don't see a need to put reviews in chronological order. Also, since there is no hint of the order used, many readers will tend to think that the reviews are listed in priority order, especially since the TVLine review is described in so much more detail than the others.

I am not against having anything about TVLine in the article, but it should be very brief and come after the prominent critics. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• • staying out of the more/less disagreement, as I don't how much information is used from each source***. I always though, since my time here, that we put information down as it becomes available? Shouldn't it be source one be the first date/first source and final date/source in the article? Ordering information based on importance I haven't seen. I'm possibly wrong, though, so if anybody wants to show me something disagreeing. Please do. Jayy008 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT states that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... prominence of placement". I think that this could be used here to argue for having the most important (or, more accurately, the most prevalant) view first. I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline which could be used to argue that views should be listed in chronological order. Is this documented somewhere? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

All I meant was that when new information is available putting it first because it's deemed better seems odd for dates etc. Either way, I don't think the issue is ordering. It's the fact TVLine had more information. To me, that begs the question why doesn't the user just add more from the other sources if their that bothered? Jayy008 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be odd to put a list of dates (such as Timeline of Australian history) in non-chronological order, but the critical reception section is not a list of dates. There are no dates at all in the text of the critical reception section.

As far as adding more content from other sources, I intend to do that, but that won't solve the problem by itself. MOS:TV says that the critical reception section "preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer." That 2-3 sentence limit appplies to the most prominent sources. Less prominent sources, such as TVLine, need to have less content to avoid giving them undue weight.

I would also point out that the current TVLine content is quote-heavy, while MOS:TV says that, "Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible". That's another reason why the TVLine content needs to change. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the dates thing I meant in order for the references section. Adding more content was the only issue, I don't know why there was an RFC needed. The user who had a problem should have just added the extra info. As for TV Line being less prominent, I think it's simply not added yet because it's new compared to the others. The editors for TV Line have years of experience with those sources, EW, E! and TV Guide. I will bring it up for discussion and get it added to MOS:TV. Jayy008 (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems very strange that the text needs to be ordered to force the references to be in a certain order. Is this documented in some policy or guideline? Adding more content was not the only issue. It wasn't even the original issue. Josephkugelmass' original talk page posting was about ordering, not the amount of text. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I could gather, the editor was upset that the TV Line content seemed to take precedence over the content from critics at large, mainstream newspapers. With what I read, however, it seemed to me that the TV Line stuff was dwarfed by the negative criticism - partly because if the reader reads the content in full, the last thing they see before moving on is the negative criticism. To me, what they read last is what stays in someone's mind. But that's just me. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree about which ordering gives content "prominence of placement", but since there is no consensus here, the order will remain chronological. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There's been plenty of time for others to comment about the proposed MOS:TV change or to comment here, so it's time to discuss the issue of undue weight again. I have begun adding critical responses from prominent sources listed in MOS:TV. That's not enough to reolve the issue, because of the 2-3 sentence limit on the most prominent sources. Also, the article currently gives TV Line's reviews undue weight by using two references, while other, more prominent sources get only a single reference. I think that the May 17, 2011reference and it's content should be removed. Finally, there's still the need to paraphrase the TV Line content per MOS:TV. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using two sources. If the site has given two review-like speeches, then why can't they be used? It's now our problem, or TV Line's problem that a more prominent source has only spoken about the show once. If the others have to go before TV Line then I won't object, but removing information just because the other sources are "better" and should have more information seems ridiculous. Jayy008 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! To be more precise, actually I was the one to write more about TV Line ("beautifully filmed with warm, cozy tones, the Southern setting utterly envelops the glowing Bilson" adding Porter's appearance "wins us over and make forget that clunky intro" and despite the "rom-coms clichés, the pilot is super-efficient at introducing us to those who will be the key players in Zoe’s story, laying the framework for storytelling places to go.") My intention was to find reviews about the show but at the time (August) the only kind of review I found was the TV Line one so I wrote it down. To me, TV Line is a reliable source so I did not even question their opinion but since you all debate about it, I'll say that even though it's not mentioned as a reliable source on MOS: TV, in reality like @Jay008 said, TV Line often gives reliable and exclusive information so it should be regarded as such on MOS: TV. As for the place the quotation should be put, I don't really care as long as it's not erased from the article. However, following the reasoning TV Line is on the same level of reliability as NYT I'd say don't move it but if you do, I won't make a fuss about it. And finally, as @MilkStraw532 said it is good the article has positive and negative reviews. It's more objective that way. The readers who don't know the show need to hear different point of views so don't erase anything ^^ -- Sofffie7 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I'll respond to offers to re-order the text. While I appreciate your willingness to compromise there, Lhb1239 has questioned my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, saying that the end of the "Critical response" section might be more prominent than the beginning. NPOV is vague on this. Since we don't have a consensus of how to interpret it, it's not viable to go ahead with ordering by prominence at this time.

Second, Sofffie7 has mentioned source reliability a lot. I'm not challenging whether TV Line is reliable, but whether it's prominent. Those are two separate issues in WP:WEIGHT. The effort to put TV Line into the list of prominent sources in MOS:TV was not sucessful, so I don't think TV Line can be considered to be as prominent as those already listed in MOS:TV. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayy008, the WP:WEIGHT criteria for how much can be included is the prominence of the source, not how much the source has written. The amount written and the number of reviews by one source do not determine how much can be included in the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the info from TVLine isn't even that long, it's average in length. Wanting to cut it down only because the other more prominent sources decided to not write much about it, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Jayy008 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As a less prominent source, TV Line should have a less-than-average length for its info. Also, WP:WEIGHT takes priority over personal opinions about what seems encyclopedic. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So if a prominent source describes a TV show in one word then TVLine wouldn't be able to be used as it would have to be using zero words? I know that's clutching at straws, but that's the point. Jayy008 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are that critical of the emphasis on prominence in WP:WEIGHT, then I suggest that you post your concerns at WT:NPOV. Otherwise, we should be discussing how to apply WP:WEIGHT to the critical reception section of this article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my question and you haven't answered it. I have no objections to what comes first in this article. It doesn't seem to matter. Jayy008 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't answer the question because I don't think this talk page is an appropriate place to have that kind of discussion. It belongs on WT:NPOV. As far as changing the order, I was going to mention Lhb1239's alternative way to interpret "prominence of placement" in WP:WEIGHT. However, after looking at Lhb1239's user page, I see that this account is blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, so I think we can ignore Lhb1239's opinion. If we are working on compromise based on a re-order, I will want more than that, such as a strict limit on adding more positive reviews and some paraphrasing of the TV Line quotations per MOS:TV. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I ignored that users' opinion anyway, as I always will. Anyway, I have no objection to putting TV Line last. I only object to removing information simply because the other sources don't have more written. Jayy008 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like we're working towards a compromise which includes re-ordering, limits on additional positive reviews and paraphrasing of the TV Line quotations.

• The new ordering would put all negative reviews first, since negative reviews are much more common among MOS:TV sources.
• I propose limiting the reviews by improsing a maximum of two sentences of positive reviews per MOS:TV source which give Hart of Dixie a positive review. Currently, there's only one: EW. The compromise is that TV Line will be allowed to take the full two sentences in place of EW. Negative reviews would also be limited to two sentences per MOS:TV source which give Hart of Dixie a negative review. Currently, there are four such sources: USA Today, TV Guide, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, with The Toronto Star no longer providing a summary of the LA Times review on its website. That would allow a maximum of eight sentences of negative reviews. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to this compromise, I will begin implementing it. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New articles for each season

A new editor would like to create a new article for each season like The Vampire Diaries (season 1). Please advise.

Please see also User talk:Akim56#Main.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fancie's spelling

There have been different spellings for "Fancie's" in this article and the list of episodes. In a recent episode there is an excellent shot of the sign confirming that the spelling is "Fancie's". I just thought I'd note that here for future reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hart of Dixie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140107032401/http://mb.com.ph/node/336242/rachel-bil to http://mb.com.ph/node/336242/rachel-bil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hart of Dixie. 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/20150317002710/http://www.starpulse.com/news/Noelle_Talmon/2015/03/14/cw-cancels-hart-of-dixie-creator-promi to http://www.starpulse.com/news/Noelle_Talmon/2015/03/14/cw-cancels-hart-of-dixie-creator-promi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622165543/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/05/the-cw-picks-up-ringer-the-secret-circle-and-hart-of-dixie.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/05/the-cw-picks-up-ringer-the-secret-circle-and-hart-of-dixie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529093919/http://blog.cwtv.com/2011/05/19/the-cw-announces-2011-2012-schedule/ to http://blog.cwtv.com/2011/05/19/the-cw-announces-2011-2012-schedule/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astra.org.au/ArticleDocuments/116/Embargoed%20subscriber%20finalists%20ASTRA%20Awards%202013.pdf.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701143335/http://www.teenchoiceawards.com/tcnews.aspx to http://teenchoiceawards.com/tcnews.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005191718/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/03/tuesday-final-ratings-ncis-the-voice-go-on-vegas-parenthood-adjusted-down/151335/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/03/tuesday-final-ratings-ncis-the-voice-go-on-vegas-parenthood-adjusted-down/151335
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131144830/http://www.chch.com/index.php/newshows/shows-hartofdixie/episode-guide to http://www.chch.com/index.php/newshows/shows-hartofdixie/episode-guide
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521185139/http://www.cwtv.com/shows/hart-of-dixie to http://www.cwtv.com/shows/hart-of-dixie

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) 21:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

before i edit the article

memo to self: compare (and merge?)

• Hart_of_Dixie#Season_1 and Hart_of_Dixie_(season_1)
  • started
• Hart_of_Dixie#Season_2 and Hart_of_Dixie_(Season_2)
• Hart_of_Dixie#Season_3 and Hart_of_Dixie_(Season_3)
• Hart_of_Dixie#Season_4 and Hart_of_Dixie_(Season_4)
• List_of_Hart_of_Dixie_episodes

71.121.143.42 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

McKaley Miller

Was she ever "main cast" credited on this show? I don't think she was. If not, she should be moved to a new 'Recurring' section – Miller would be far from the only one who would belong in a 'Recurring' cast section anyway... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)