Talk:The Futon Critic

Contested deletion

Bullshit: I create the article from scratch, so any claim that this article is "substantially identical" to the deleted version (per G4 itself) is irrelevant. UnitedStatesian, please remove the template. 23W 05:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

TFC does not provide links to original sources

TFC is used by many Wikipedia editors as a source of information; however, although it may include a name for the source of content (e.g. "via press release from Showtime"), TFC does not publish links to the original sources. For the most part, TFC is basically a hog that regurgitates what was published by television and entertainment media, networks, and Nielsen. Shouldn't the omission of links to original sources be noted in the article? Pyxis Solitary 00:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No – why would it? The fact that it's getting its info on things like episode titles, directors, writers and airdates from press releases from content providers makes them more "reliable" not, less! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, please explain how this is any different than this episode guide or this one? – IOW, Futon Critic, Zap2It and TV Guide all do the same thing in the same way, so any of the three should be usable to verify content such as airdates and episode titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, The Futon Critic has production codes. There's absolutely no reason it can't be used as a source. A lot of times, when there's a scheduling change, Zap2it will usually not update; however, The Futon Critic will 99% of the time strike out the outdated information and provide the new information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of TFC as a reliable source is not the issue, it is pretty firmly established that it is a RS and that is not in question here. The issue is whether or not this article about the website should mention that TFC does not directly cite its specific sources in whatever it publishes. On that issue I think the current article is fairly clear about where TFC gets its information and pointing out in the article that TFC doesn't specifically identify which specific source it used for a specific piece of information it publishes is unnecessary, much as we don't note the same point for other similar publications such as TV guide. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that while TFC doesn't "cite" their sources in every case, they do it a lot more than either TV Guide or Zap2It. Taking the Wynonna Earp example again – any episode in this listing that is "linked" actually leads to the press release from Syfy on that specific episode, which sometimes include additional details like director and writer(s). TV Guide or Zap2It certainly don't do anything like this. So TFC is actually better than the alternatives in being "transparent" as to where their info is coming from. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Taking the Wynonna Earp example again – any episode in this listing that is "linked" actually leads to the press release from Syfy on that specific episode": no, TFC does not link to the source of information. It may include the name of the network, it may state "The following article is a press release issued by the aforementioned network and/or company ", and it may include a snippet from a press release ... but it does not provide a direct "link" to the source of the information. Semantics have implications.

When did TFC become a reliable source? I've noticed that it has increasingly become the go-to source in many TV articles (for example: instead of using and linking to an original press release for a reference, some editors use TFC's republication of the press release). Using TFC creates an information preservation problem in the long run because what is published on TFC cannot be archived on Internet Archive, the digital library most often used by Wikipedia editors; the http://www.thefutoncritic.com URL is excluded from IA's web crawler (which is why I refer to TFC as a "hog" -- it regurgitates content from third parties, but it doesn't allow what it distributes to be archived). Pyxis Solitary 03:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither do ratings sites like Showbuzz Daily and TV by the Numbers. Where's their criticism? They state the source is Nielsen, but don't link to it and can't because Nielsen doesn't make their data publicly visible. You can't just go to Nielsen's website and look for a table with ratings for July 17 so you can see how reruns did, for example, as only premieres are posted on the ratings websites. You have to go to these ratings websites. The Futon Critic is no different and a perfectly reliable source. See WP:TVFAQ. It also not going anywhere anytime soon. The episode listings and press releases they post are straight from the networks themselves. The Futon Critic posting press releases is no different than Deadline Hollywood or Variety posting those same press releases, and none of them link to a source. I don't see Deadline Hollywood et al. being criticized. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You completely ignored that nothing published by TFC can be archived with IA. Showbuzz Daily can be archived. TV by the Numbers can be archived. Deadline Hollywood can be archived. Variety can be archived. The Hollywood Reporter can be archived. Nielsen can be archived. And when it comes to press releases, the source used in articles should be the original network's and should be archived. In a nutshell ... for me ... TFC is the poorest choice for an editor to cite and should be used as a source of last resort. Pyxis Solitary 08:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page, there is a notice. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Futon Critic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This discussion does not relate to the The Futon Critic article itself, and is only a discussion of the article's subject (i.e. the use of The Futon Critic as a source). Thus, this discussion needs to be held elsewhere to gain a consensus on its use as a source. -- Alex^TW 03:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed – feel free to move this discussion (i.e. {{Moved discussion to}}) to WT:TV if you think it appropriate. That is actually where I first suggested Pyxis hold this discussion but they refused. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not a "they". I am a she. All you have to do is look at my profile page. Pyxis Solitary 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, User:Geraldo Perez pretty much settled the question about "reliable source". Beating a dead horse does not surprise me.
But as for TFC not allowing itself to be crawled and archived: if you or User:IJBall want to create a discussion on WT:WPTV about the appropriateness of editors using a source with information that cannot be preserved for when it's no longer accessible ... go ahead. You don't need to wait for me to do it. Pyxis Solitary 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is still not the right place for this discussion, as this discussion does not relate to the The Futon Critic article itself, and is only a discussion of the article's subject. I won't take it elsewhere; not my discussion, not an issue I'm concerned with. It can be seen that Pyxis Solitary would rather their issues be raised by other editors instead of themselves. Just remember, "consensus" formed at WT:TV can only be considered a "local consensus", your words. Now - take it elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)