Corrected a part of the Format section . The synopsis provided by the ABC Blog was not from a neutral point of view and is an advertising pitch aimed at providing publicity to the show. Also, I removed something that the executive producer was rumoured to have said about the show because quite frankly, 'rumours' do not belong on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.121.169 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I've restored the editorial instruction "tell us something we don't know", because it is more than just a rumour, and the reference is more than just a blog. Given that it is the single editorial instruction, I suggest that it is quite important to the show, and thus the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I engaged the initiative of removing the section on the Marketing section of the article. I believe that it is self-serving, irrelevant, non-important non-note worthy by Wikipedia eligibility criteria and should be removed post-haste. --Topclaw (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I've put it back, although in a much reduced form. I see it as valuable, on the grounds that it did get a fair bit of media coverage, and because, in my eyes, the initial hoax prior to the start of the series seemed to set a tone for the series. In addition, it was a fairly successful hoax, and while not incredibly rare, deliberate media hoaxes for marketing that meet with some success are unusual enough to be worth a brief mention. That said, it certainly went into too much detail, and there was no criticism, so I've cut back the former and added some of the latter. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
