Talk:Madventures (Finnish TV program)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Madventures from fi.wikipedia. |
Mad Cook
editIs the "vomiting and humorously distorted facial expressions" really a good summary about the show? I think that is only a minor side of the programme and not really necessary information because it kind of gives the wrong impression. In my opinion. :) (Zinfandel FIN (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
- I think you are right. I removed that part and replaced it with a note about the Anti Animalia award, which is what the Finnish Wikipedia mentions, too. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Running time
editRunning time for season three episodes is 30 minutes in Finland, without the commercials. For international version running time is 10 minutes less, so that makes it 20 minutes. So whoever changed times, don't count commercials! 82.181.119.20 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think run times for every season should be clearly marked under the "episodes" title. Now only 1st season is covered there, 3rd season's runtime is stated only in the info box and 2nd season's runtime isn't mentioned anywhere.80.222.14.228 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Season differences
editShould there be more information about the diffenrences between the seasons? Season 1 is about traveling and the traveller culture, season 2 a bit more political and season 3 seems to be focusing on the extremes of traveling and so forth. The ending of first chapter ("The two emphasize that they are on a journey, not on a holiday.") is definitely true for the first season, applies to the 2nd season but seems a bit misleading regarding the 3rd season. And a random viewer wouldn't mistake season 3 as a holiday anyways... :) (Zinfandel FIN (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Requested move 25 September 2018
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 14:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Madventures → Madventures (Finnish TV program)
- Madventures (ARY Digital show) → Madventures (Pakistani game show)
– This is pretty close to a WP:NOPRIMARY-WP:TWODABS situation in my estimation, based on page views: [1]. (A multiple of less than 2-to-1 doesn't qualify you as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in my book.) So these should both be disambiguated. The Pakistani TV show is currently incorrectly disambiguated under WP:NCTV in any case, and needs to be moved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and have a disambiguation page at a basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose/Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Close to 2-to-1 qualifies as "much more likely" in my book. Remember, the goal is to arrange the titles such that users searching with "Madventures" land on their desired destination in fewest number of clicks. In a two dabs situation the bar should be lower for what constitutes "much more likely" because even just "more likely" is > 50% by definition. Even at 51/49 by leaving the more likely one at the base name we're getting more than half the users searching with the term in question to their desired destination in one click, while the remainder is still only one click away (hatnote link), just as they would be if we sent them to a dab page instead, so they're no worse off. Sending everyone to a dab page means everyone has to click twice. That's no improvement no matter how you slice it. --В²C ☎ 18:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC) changed Oppose to Oppose/Support - see explanation below --В²C ☎ 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: No – true PRIMARYTOPICs have a much higher benchmark than you are implying – quoting:
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
This split it is a measely 63.5% to 36.5% which isn't even close to that. It's also frankly, shitty, to oppose the second part of the proposal regardless, as that one violates NCTV outright. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)- Sorry, I support the second (Pakistani) move. I stand by my reasoning for opposing the first one. Consider what "much more likely" can reasonably mean in a five dab situation... say 63/10/10/10/7. That would clearly give the 63%er the primary topic, right? Why should 63% be enough to qualify as primary topic in 5-dab situation, but not in a 2-dab situation? That makes no sense. Either way, 63% of those searching want that one topic. Why does it matter if the remaining 37% is distributed among one or ten other topics? That's why I say the "much more likely than any other topic" hurdle should vary based on how many other topics are being considered. I would even argue it should be a continuum where at 2-dabs "much more likely" is merely "more likely". In short, if more than half the users searching with a given term are looking for one particular topic, that topic should be at that term, period. --В²C ☎ 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks... FTR, my personal benchmark for PRIMARYTOPICs? – I like to see 95% or above of the page views be for that article before I'm certain it qualifies as the "primary topic" (under the first definition – I admit I'm a lot "fuzzier" on the second definition, and when that applies...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I support the second (Pakistani) move. I stand by my reasoning for opposing the first one. Consider what "much more likely" can reasonably mean in a five dab situation... say 63/10/10/10/7. That would clearly give the 63%er the primary topic, right? Why should 63% be enough to qualify as primary topic in 5-dab situation, but not in a 2-dab situation? That makes no sense. Either way, 63% of those searching want that one topic. Why does it matter if the remaining 37% is distributed among one or ten other topics? That's why I say the "much more likely than any other topic" hurdle should vary based on how many other topics are being considered. I would even argue it should be a continuum where at 2-dabs "much more likely" is merely "more likely". In short, if more than half the users searching with a given term are looking for one particular topic, that topic should be at that term, period. --В²C ☎ 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: No – true PRIMARYTOPICs have a much higher benchmark than you are implying – quoting:
- Support per nom and WP:NCTV. TBH, both are pretty close in page-view data and I can't even be sure that some of those that landed on this one really wanted this one and not the Fear Factor adaptation. --Gonnym (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom and WP:NCTV. Classic TWODABS situation, and as so often no primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, no PrimaryTopic as the audience of one knows nothing of the other. Precise titling means that no one should accidentally go to the wrong page. Recommend putting the dab page at Madventures (disambiguation) rejecting the illogical MALPLACED practice, so that no one inadvertently goes to the DAB page by mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.