Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Safe", weeks three and four?

By our table captions, shouldn't that be "RISK" rather than "SAFE"? They were all subject to being voted off. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We might need to have discussion about splitting or merge the article for the upcoming third season of the masked singer. The draft has been declined 3 times now and season 3 is only one month away. Rider0101 (talk) 1:08 January 2, 2020 (UTC)

User:Rider0101, User:Magitroopa, User:Heartfox - Do not resubmit the draft without first discussing it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m kind of confused right now. Can we not just copy and paste the draft to the actual article? I’m not sure about credit, but this shouldn’t even have been made into a draft when there’s already an article. Fox has now released info about the season, and numerous other sources have reported specifically on it... not sure why that was part of the decline of the draft. Can we just copy it and remove the redirect now, given it’s less than one month away? Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No visible improvement?? The references to the series’ self-published YouTube video have been removed and numerous other sources are present. There is absolutely independent coverage of season 3, and it has improved significantly since the last draft(s) were submitted. Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Survivor, Amazing Race, etc. already all have upcoming season articles and they premiere later than MS3. It is especially important to have an article as the premiere is the super bowl lead out and coverage will increase daily. It makes no sense to wait until the day of to create it. Heartfox (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that there definitely has been significant improvement to the page for the latest submission in comparison to all other previous submissions. The, "disruptive resubmission", is mostly by IPs/users who have no clue how Wikipedia works at all, that just want there to be a page that exists (as evident from one user on my talk page through both his IP and his account). As Heartfox has stated, other series already have upcoming seasons with pages, such as Survivor: Winners at War premiering on February 12, and The Amazing Race 32 which has no premiere date at all, and the page has been around since November 2018 (which maybe that page should be taken down?...) I'd also agree that it's especially prominent due to the Super Bowl lead-out program status.

I'd also like to point out that the disruptive editing/submissions have been going on for awhile on this article, starting off with Sentai01's persistence, despite not understanding what 'disruptive editing' even was in the first place. I'd say especially in comparison to then, the draft is in much better shape to be copy/pasted (or moved) to the season 3 page. Magitroopa (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft has now been rejected despite the fact there is significant independent reliable coverage of the third season. For some reason these sources have been completely ignored. A separate article is clearly warranted and is notable. There is no reason The Masked Singer should be singled out when the following shows all had mainspace articles before they aired (there are countless examples but these are only the reality shows on network TV that have premiered in the last few months!):

• Dancing with the Stars (season 28): Mainspace (redirect removed) on August 20, 2019. Premiered on September 19, 2019.
• The Voice (season 17): Mainspace on May 31, 2019. Premiered on September 23, 2019.
• The Bachelor (season 24): Mainspace (redirect removed) on November 19, 2019. Premiered on January 6, 2020.
• Survivor: Winners at War: Mainspace on December 18, 2019. Premiered date is February 12, 2020.
• American Idol (season 18): Mainspace on May 19, 2019. Premiere date is February 16, 2020.

The only reason we're at this point now is because some IP users who haven't made any edits since decided to make a draft... and now that it's been rejected we're stuck until the season airs and it magically becomes notable according to the draft reviewers??? The reasons for rejection have been vague and do not take into consideration the sources which make it notable and the unwritten consensus (given the examples which I have listed above). This has been an extremely disappointing and regrettable process. Heartfox (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Remember there is no WP:DEADLINE, and there are also no brownie points for having the most or the fastest-in-mainspace season articles. Three weeks of waiting is not lot. Anyway, I shared my opinion about the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) REJECTION + Upcoming TV show season article notability discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sgeurela, for replying. I read your comments and I appreciate hearing an outside perspective. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this situation is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Television seasons. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panelists vs. Judges

Given that the panelists actually do vote for their favourite performance like the audience, I am inclined to switch all references from "panelists" to "judges" in this article because they actually are judging something. Any thoughts? Heartfox (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Because they are but 4-5 votes along with the studio audience (of about 100+ guessimate), I don't think its appropriate to call them judges; at no point do they have a sole voice (as 4 or 5) to the fate of the contestants or have a weighted input into how they are kept. Contrast this to American Idol or Dancing w/ Stars where those judges - while not the sold decider of advancement, play a significant role at many stages (in AmIdol, determining which acts are going into the final rounds; in Dancing, their scores having a large %age factor relative to the audience vote). --Masem (t) 18:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, they are panelists, not judges. Refer to any of the episode listings over on Futon Critic, here, for example. They are referred to here as panelists and guest panelists. Most of the sources calling them judges are just other articles covering the show who call it whatever. Even the official FOX site refer to them as panelists, not judges. I don't really watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, but I have seen enough of DwtS to know that they are judges who are legitimately 'judging' the performance. Other show I would personally refer to would be America's Got Talent, where they are legitimately judging/critiquing the act. In TMS, I would say they are moreso commenting (rather than judging) and guessing. So yes, these should remain as panelists.

Interestingly enough though, from what I remember of watching the British version, some of the bottom masks are chosen to be safe/eliminated by the panel, I think (?) in episode 6 for example. Magitroopa (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Great points, Magitroopa. FYI Masem, I just recently added a source from TVLine in the Filming section where executive producer Izzie Pick Ibarra said the panelists' votes are weighted 50% and the audience 50%! The voting process appears to be more Dancing-esque than first believed. Heartfox (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That is true, but I would not still call that function a "judging" function since we're never told how they vote. I agree with what Magitroopa is saying - go by how the RSes are calling them which is "panelists" and a more apt description of their function. --Masem (t) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aftershow

This section definitely needs a fixing, with all the white space there due to the infobox followed by the viewership table. I really don't think we need the infobox anyways, despite how they may be stating that it's a new series... note how it's listed in the main Masked Singer series on Futon Critic and Zap2it, with the episodes added on to the main episodes, not an entirely new/separate series- the official site also lists the first episode as part of the series, not an entirely new The Masked Singer: After the Mask series. Only problem would be how FOX's PR site lists it separately, but there's only a few images + the premiere date. An infobox really shouldn't be necessary for this... Magitroopa (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox. Heartfox (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, if I had known you were seeing a giant white space I would've removed it earlier! :) Heartfox (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even 100% sure if the information we have regarding the after show is enough to warrant an entire infobox, even if it is a new series. Either way, here's what I had on my computer, and here's what I had on my laptop. Magitroopa (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Image Possibility

Does anyone think having this fair use image or a similar one in the set subsection (or elsewhere) would be beneficial to readers? Heartfox (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, no since it would be adding another non-free image to the article. It's more of a nice to have rather than actually needed. However, if you found a free image then I wouldn't mind adding it and removing the Television City Studios picture. - Brojam (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Critical response rewrite reversion and WP:OWN accusation

I am extremely disheartened to not only have what I have been working on for hours during the past week reverted within 5 minutes by Toddst1—but to be accused of WP:OWNERSHIP of this article for adding it in the first place.

As I wrote in the edit summary, I have been reading past good article nominations and noticed that the reviewers occasionally noted that the critical response section would be better formatted into sections of specific content and that it was OK for critics' names to be used more than once. After reading that and believing it would be beneficial to do the same thing for this article, I began doing so in a sandbox.

The critical response section (and pretty much the entire article, given 92% authorship per Wikiwho) has been greatly expanded and rewritten by me to its current form. No one accused me of WP:OWN. Style issues and other things were dealt with without major conflict. Now that I have wanted to rewrite what I had previously written into what I believe is a better form—everything is reverted.

I find the accusation of WP:OWN offensive. I absolutely refute this and I honestly wish MORE people would edit this article. You think I want to be the one who always wants to expand stuff? I mean yeah its satisfying but having a lot more others contribute using their expertise would be wonderful. I greatly value the contributions of all other editors on here and while we sometimes disagree, at no point have I ever just ignored what they say and reverted everything they do. As you can see in the edit history, sometimes my edits are undone and I agree with the undo!

As you can see on this very talk page, I have even requested other editors opinions before making changes.

I am hoping that others will agree with me that this rewrite (or at least some form of it) would enhance this article and that we can get a consensus on it.

Again, I did this because I thought it would help this article achieve GA status (as others have done so in response to GA reviews)... not because I think I own it. Heartfox (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

All I did was split the critics' reviews that were already there into different sections (as other articles do) based on their specifics (e.g., about the costumes, about the concept), and added a few new reviews. I'm really trying to understand what is so radical about this... the only thing I would say justifies the reversion is length (even though I disagree as other articles have review sections of similar length (e.g., Grey's Anatomy) and reality shows aren't reviewed on a season-by-season basis so things have to be compiled together)... but then specific stuff could have been trimmed instead of reverting the whole thing. It's incomprehensible to me how one could consider the current version better than the rewritten. Heartfox (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When the good article review comes in and theoretically if I nominated it for featured article, I'm pretty sure the review section as is would be considered unsatisfactory. But OK... lets just keep as is because I am apparently asserting too much ownership over this article -_- Really, that's the argument?

I'm actually glad about this because it has taught me a lesson to listen to the feedback of people outside of Wikipedia. Recently on a Masked Singer Reddit post, many fans of the show noticed that the article has been greatly expanded and were thankful for learning new information about the series that I had compiled. "I'm just curious who added all this information. Very interesting! I always like reading about behind-the-scenes stuff. Oh and now I understand the judge/audience vote percentage XD" ... "I'm very grateful for whoever did!" ... THIS is what Wikipedia is about and why I edit. Unfortunately, other people have different intentions... Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think calling the OWN part is inappropriate, but I do agree that the expansion of the reception as much as was given is probably too much. It was to a point of "reviewing the reviewers" if you get my drift. Identifying in-depth how each reviewer took each part of the show, as called out, is really unnecessary for WP's purpose. We want to stress what generally was praised, what wasn't, what areas had mixed comments from reviewers for sure, but its not necessary to spell out what each reviewer in turn said about each; it should be the quotes that best summarize the positions. --Masem (t) 22:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Masem. I perhaps agree with you that it should have been summarized into major points better and not include every statement about everything. Do you think if I think if I work towards that and propose a new version in the coming days that could get consensus that would be okay? With your last point I'm not sure if you mean summarizing their opinions in quote form; I was trying to avoid that as MOS:TVRECEPTION says "reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible". Heartfox (talk)

Anyway you could put some of that stuff in the season articles instead to reduce the amount of content in the parent article? - Brojam (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: I have cut some stuff out and added a revised version to the article; hopefully it's better than the previous. Heartfox (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MonkeyStolen234 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There was an accusation of Ownership a day before I reviewed this page, but this'll hopefully not be taken further

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Heartfox:, there are slight plagiarism issues on this page, according to the plagiarism search, but the problem is that the other site doesn't have any timestamps that show if it was created before or after the page. MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@MonkeyStolen234: Whoa, that must have just came up in the last week or so—I've never seen it before. I've run that plagiarism detector in the past month and that site did not come up. It is definitely is copying what is written in the article. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I see. There were no other problems, just that. Thank you. MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@MonkeyStolen234: Thank you so much for reviewing this. I really appreciate your time. All the best! Heartfox (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Further review

• Reopening per discussion with MonkeyStolen234, I'll add some more comments. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: The main issue I see here is stability. Not only does the article document a series with a season that just ended today, there are also several recent and in-progress discussions on the talk page that seem to be relatively controversial. This article is not stable, and shouldn't have passed. I don't follow it, but I recommend that this shouldn't be considered for promotion for at least a week, so that it can stabilize. Hopefully, the discussions will be cleared up by then, too. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: I would say there's only one discussion in progress, which is the critical response section, but in my opinion even that's been addressed... I re-added some stuff on May 17 and no one undid anything. Brojam did make some changes afterwards, which is perfectly fine. It's been over a week since then and there's been no edit wars, so... I mean I would personally consider it stable but I understand that it perhaps wasn't at the time of promotion. There hasn't been any further comments on the talk page since May 17 so there's not really anything to discuss further... It's already been promoted to GA status and the season concluded on May 20 (it was pushed up from May 27). I would warmly welcome a more comprehensive review with additional suggestions/changes to be made, but I'm kind of unsure how you're planning to proceed with this as it's already been promoted. Heartfox (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Heartfox: Per the discussion, the review is being reopened given it wasn't actually conducted. After a show has finished airing, there can be contentious edits from IPs happening all the time. If you're up to preventing that, we can say it's stable. I've added comments below, if you're happy to address/discuss them, we can treat this like a GA review - if it's all good after, it keeps GA status, and gets demoted if not. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Other comments:

• Do we need to be linking the various United States year television season articles? (During the 2018–19 television season,, at the start of the 2020–21 television season) Does it even need these mentions? They read strange and overly business-promotional-y. It would be more conventional to use the relative season of the show or simply the year of broadcast. Possible exception for the first example as the fact relates to the US network season - but this could easily be both rephrased and clarified by saying that "Its first season was the 2018-19 US network season's highest rated new show among adults 18–49". For the second example above, just say it's been recommissioned.

I've rephrased it somewhat; hopefully it's more satisfactory.

• The panelists images could be put on two lines to not take up so much room, especially with only a short paragraph. There's also no need for the skinny timeline table - the appearances are very straightforward and suitably described in prose.

Per belief appearances are clear enough in prose, removing hidden table (although no one else has objected to its presence). What do you mean by having the images on two lines? Like under the prose?

@Heartfox: 'two lines' meaning to change the multi image template to have two rows instead of one. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence Executive producer Craig Plestis discovered the format during a visit to a small Studio City, Los Angeles, Thai restaurant in October 2017 gets awkward at a small Studio City, Los Angeles, Thai restaurant - it could be rephrased to avoid this as "Executive producer Craig Plestis discovered the format while eating at a small Thai restaurant in Studio City, Los Angeles, in October 2017"

Rephrased.

• The quote box is interesting, but it needs to be made shorter. The quote makes up nearly 50% of the source you took it from, which even in quotation marks and attributed is a bit too much to be safe. Some of the detail is also extraneous, even to the interest of the story. The first three sentences can probably go.

I've removed the first two sentences and replaced some comments with an ellipsis.

• I feel like Intrigued, Plestis began researching the series and—in a deal brokered by his agent within one week—secured the rights to produce an American adaptation would read better as two sentences, if just so the fact about the deal only taking a week can be written in a main clause.

I've tried to split the points into existing sentences.

• I'm confused about this part: MBC said the series "received a promising response" from the more than 500,000 people who watched it within five days of its release. The company, however, lacked the ability to produce the program in the United States. As a result, Endemol Shine North America produced the first season due to Plestis' relationship with the studio. There was no suggestion that the Korean producers - who it's already established sold US rights - would even try to produce it in the US. It also seems strange that they made a comment about the success of Fox's trailer for it? Why is Endemol and not Fox producing it for the first season anyway? It leaves me with a lot of questions. Then the next part says Fox decided to produce it themselves to have more rights when... that's not how it works? And in-house production is beneficial in itself. There are too many questions coming from the confusing statements in this part that it needs to be better explained.

I can remove the "promising response" comment if it's confusing, if you like. It's the first version of the show outside of Asia so I'm guessing they had high hopes for it as they'd make money from selling future version rights.

After buying the production rights from MBC, Plestis sold the show's broadcast rights to Fox. As his company Smart Dog Media "has an overall deal with" Endemol, they produced the first season. For whatever reason (Variety doesn't specify, I guess I should look for more sources?), Endemol decided to exit the US production after one season (I assume to focus on producing the very large amount of international versions that followed). Fox then launched a new in-house studio, Fox Alternative Entertainment, and began producing the show themselves. I've refrained from making any changes to this section yet as you might have further questions/comments. Should I explain the process like I did here?

@Heartfox: Yes, whatever you can to clarify! Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• There has got to be a simpler way of saying After the audience and panelists vote for their favorite using an electronic device, the votes are weighted 50 percent each - I'd take a look at an article on Eurovision for some ideas.

I'm not familiar with Eurovision as I live in Canada lol but it doesn't seem as complicated (I've just glanced at the Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest article and I'm kind of confused TBH). I've tried to make some adjustments; hopefully it's clearer.

Great - I just meant to look in terms of phrasing the voting system, I thought since Eurovision is very complicated but clear, the phrasing must be good Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• What on earth are formula-adjusted votes

Simplified to "final score".

• There is no cash prize for winning, rather, the celebrity wins the "golden mask trophy" - there's been no suggestion the celebrity contestants would win money, and my assumption is that they wouldn't, so why bring it up at all (and especially with phrasing that sounds like it's already been discussed?)

Attempted to rephrase.

• The monster voice over clip doesn't really sound like there's been much if any voice modulation? It's also quite long for a clip that's only to serve for what a voice sounds like - I don't think it serves its purpose and is too long for appropriate fair use anyway (it seems to be the entirety of one of the voice overs. that voice over counts as the single work, and only about 10% of it can be used, the same reason that clips are used instead of full songs) A clearer, shorter, example of voice modulation may be useful - but most people are aware of 'robot voice' already so it may not be necessary at all

This is from the series premiere; I believed the modulation has changed for the stronger in subsequent episodes/seasons. I thought I just had to follow the 30 second guideline... whoops! Removing for now. I still think a (much shorter) version might be useful, though.

Perhaps one from later in the series then? Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Repetition of "feature" in They feature taped interviews which feature

Missed that one; fixed.

• You should probably talk about how Cannon came to host the show, or even state it, before mentioning Ibarra's ecstatic reaction to it.

Not sure about this one. I think it pretty clearly says he was contacted and then agreed. Do you mind writing what you think would flow better?

@Heartfox: Just moving the first sentence about her reaction to a bit later would probably work. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also confused by this: The winner of the third season, Kandi Burruss, was also approached to appear in the first but was unable to participate due to other commitments. After watching T-Pain perform and having producers approach her again, however, she reconsidered. Saying she reconsidered is for when someone deliberately turned it down before, not just because they didn't have the time. So which is wrong?

I guess it doesn't really serve a purpose; removed.

• Do we need an image of the text "Don't talk to me"? Is this really something that can't be adequately explained with text alone?

This is literally the style of the text and colour from the hoodies that the celebrities wear while disguised backstage, not just random text with a black background. It's like an artifact. I think it's okay. Perhaps the caption should better explain that it actually is what they wear?

That might work. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• What does "stealth cloth" mean?

I don't really know either, lol. Removed "stealth".

• Eight costumes, for a non-free image, is a bit excessive. About three is suitable for illustrative purposes.

It is only one image and was created by the show, not by me or anyone like photoshopping them together or something. I don't see how it's any different than a cast image for a medical drama or something. The original image was this one, but I replaced it with the eight costume one to show as much examples as possible. Should I re-add the 5 costume one?

The 5 costume one might be better - remember the show can make graphics of as many as they like because they have the copyright. The article also says some costumes are on display? A photo of those would probably be able to be commons licensed if the photographer released it, and then you could show as many as you like. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• one of her friends - is this friend a graphic artist or something that would be important to mention? If there's no other info, "a friend" would read more professional.

She only says it's "a really good friend of mine who's an incredible illustrator." Rephrased.

• Saying Toybina then buys all of the necessary fabrics herself suggests that she uses her own money, when it seems like she just goes out shopping herself instead of using a studio buyer

Is "handpicking" better?

@Heartfox: That's much clearer! Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• The costume fitting location isn't very private or hidden if it's known to be one of two locations. Were the locations revealed later, and could more details be included about this situation?

Removed quote.

• I'm not sure if this - the production crew helps take them on and off contestants before and after their performances - is saying the crew help take the costume off, or if they help take the contestant off the stage (and vice versa - it should say 'put on', too)

Yeah that's confusing; removing for now.

• An image of the set would be useful, the prose description is alright after saying the front of the show's stage is X-shaped, which I just can't picture

There are images but it would be non-free. I've suggested it on the talk page but another editor was reluctant to add it as it would mean another non-free image in the article (the show is shot indoors and phones are banned on the set so there's really no way to get a free image).

I think a non-free image would be justifiable here, if that's a helpful suggestion? Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• The quotation in Toybina said she had to "reach for the wire and glue" after the horn of the Unicorn costume detached during a performance in the first season is just flowery. All that needs to be said is that the costume was repaired after a performance (not a rehearsal?) - though since that's already stated in the costume section, the whole sentence could easily be removed.

Removed.

• accompanying them on the side - an accompaniment is 'on the side', no? If this means the literal side of the stage, it should be "from the wings" or "at the side of the stage" or "off stage", the typical phrasings for such.

Changed to "off stage".

• Standard sources for a TV show, seems fine

Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address them and left some of my own seeking further explanation. I do intend on submitting this for FA at some point, so please don't hesitate to make any more suggestions! Thanks again. Heartfox (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Responded to a few things, looks good. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I believe I've made all the changes you suggested now. Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Great, looks good. I've updated the GA template to reflect the changes (not something that's always done with GANR, but if there's been significant prose work it can be useful). Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Yeah, I thought that might be a good idea too. Thanks again! Heartfox (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that to prevent spoilers, the name of the American reality singing competition television series The Masked Singer is not listed on its contracts with celebrities competing on the show? Source: "The initial talent contract will have the celebrity's real name, but does not include the show name, The Masked Singer, just in case something leaks." [1]

Improved to Good Article status by Heartfox (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

• Improved to GA within 7 days of nomination (actually, it was nominated before it was promoted, but it's promoted now). Only potential policy issue I see is that there's no source given for the "Panelists and host" section. Earwig returns a high percentage, but that's addressed in the GA review (page copied from the article rather than the other way around). Nominator appears to be QPQ exempt. Hook is sourced and in the article. Regarding the hook, I can't help but feel it's a little wordy. Worth trying to trim a bit? e.g.
• ALT1: that to prevent spoilers, the name of the American reality singing competition The Masked Singer is not listed on contracts with celebrities competing on the show?
• Intention is mainly to add a link in order to get rid of a couple words. Minor, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Yeah it was promoted on May 17 but then another editor decided to re-review it and was kept as GA, and the date of the review was changed. I’m pretty sure the panelists and host section is covered by WP:PRIMARY (citing the show itself), but I could be wrong. What about Heartfox (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2: that to prevent spoilers, the name of the American reality singing competition TV series The Masked Singer is unlisted on contracts with celebrities competing?
• Don't think I've seen [every season of a tv series] being an implied primary source before, but it's not an area I typically edit, so fine assuming good faith there. I have a weak preference for my ALT1 over ALT2, but will defer to the promoting admin. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

heads up on Nick Cannon

CBS has let Nick Cannon go after problems came up with his podcast this weekend [2]. I have not yet seen FOX say anything, but I would be thinking a bit ahead in case Fox is considering this. (and just after the article was GA'd). --Masem (t) 03:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Supposedly, Cannon has apologized for his comments on social. But we'll have to wait and see. - Jasonbres (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine executives who also control Fox News would tolerate what he said. Heartfox (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox announced they stand by Cannon and are keeping him on as host. https://www.givememyremote.com/remote/2020/07/15/nick-cannon-apologizes-for-anti-semitic-comments-will-remain-host-of-the-masked-singer/ - Jasonbres (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If they're keeping him, any discussion of this issue belongs in his article, not here. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a couple sentences. Heartfox (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, what? Not even one sentence allowed? There are several news articles related to Cannon and his status on the show. He is an executive producer. The network commented. His leaving or not leaving the show is certainly noteworthy. This is a significant occurence in the history of the show. How is this not relevant to the article? I even tried to make it neutral and everything... Heartfox (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't see us not having anything. Any intelligent reader, knowing Cannon was fired from CBS, will come looking here about this show (as well his own page). WE can briefly address this, from Fox's standpoint as the broadcaster, but from this page, we need just enough context as to why this matters- in that explaining the speech led to his firing and thus why his hosting duties were in doubt. I've updated a bit from Heartfox' addition but I do not think we need any further detail on this on this page, any more detail goes to Cannon's BLP page. --Masem (t) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I 100% agree that most of the info goes in his page lol... it just seemed weird to exclude a major update to a section (not even the lead or something) regarding the "cast" of the show. My reverted revision did include more info :/ guess I should've just added the whole thing back. Anyways, I've done some minor tweaks and wikilinking. It could even be trimmed further when the fourth season premieres and just put stuff there... Thank you for using the word "affirm"—better than what I came up with. I believe he was fired from the entire company, not just Wild 'n Out, so I've adjusted that as well. Heartfox (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Creative Commons question

Hi all, this video was posted by Chaka Khan's official YouTube account in February 2020 under a Creative Commons license.

Also, this video on Vimeo was uploaded under a CC BY as well, and uses brief clips from the show. It's from a reporter with a Vimeo Plus account and used in a Fox affiliate's newscast.

I'm not sure how blurred the lines are regarding using screenshots from these... I don't think we can, but is anyone more of an expert on this? Just want to get this out of the way and consider all options. Heartfox (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not appropriate here. CC-BY in general allows a bit of fair use to be included, but for our purposes, we know the show is copyrighted, Chaka Khan isn't the copyright owner, so we can't use that as a "free" image here. --Masem (t) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Content addition input

Nick Cannon apparently pledged to donate his first paycheck from the upcoming season to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Do you think this could be included as a sentence following Fox's quote about continuing this conversation? via People and the center itself. Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)