Talk:PBS Digital Studios
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBS Game/Show
editPBS Game/Show is still current? I thought it ended. Also, PBS Idea Channel is getting ready to end.
2600:8804:6400:63D0:5A8:7FC0:9FF:2FA5 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Conner Jared Fields
Raw data for past series edit
editPBS Idea Channel|786935 Blank on Blank|316484 Gross Science|272685 BBQwithFranklin|260041 PBS Infinite Series|226501 The Good Stuff|194876 PBS Game/Show|141804 PBSoffbook|81794 FullTimeKid|77581 Shanks FX|45041 Mike Likes Science|17973 ModernComedian|12059 You're Doing it Wrong|9394 InventorSeries|9218 Beat Making Lab|7107 Everything But the News|4912 I Contain Multitudes|4794 AMomentofSciencePBS|4074 Bon Appétempt|2512 Are You MN Enough?|2478 The Intergalactic Nemesis|2458 Only in El Paso|1972 24 Frames|798 Makin' Friends with Ryan Miller|682 Central Standard|492 opbmusicStagepass|304 Pancake Mountain|0 PBS Diorama|0
Second column is the subscription count listed for each show on the same page. Normally I like plain alpha, but this tail is particularly steep. — MaxEnt 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Past series table format
editIdeally, this section would have a table format, with date of first show, date of last show, and number of shows produced. Peak subscription count would be great, but I don't think we can get that data. YouTube view counts are a bit suspect, but maybe a total view count column would work, if we had that data from some reliable source. — MaxEnt 18:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment
editSupport of an alien contactee by the network PBS should be included? I believe that the information is well-referenced and supported by various sources. I have proposed and included the following text, based upon the documented recorded sources by PBS broadcasts. Theoretical1A9 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC) In 2019, PBS Space Time stated their support for the alien contactee[1][2][3] Jean-Pierre Petit's model of the universe, which they stated is "sophisticated".[4]
- ^ "Les Ummites". La Cinq (in French). La Cinq. 1991. 53 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- ^ "Affaire UMMO / Conférence de presse à Montréal". OrandiaTV (in French). OrandiaTV. 1991. 58 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- ^ "Contacts Cosmiques avec Jean-Pierre Petit". NURÉA TV (in French). NURÉA TV. 25 October 2018. 134 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
- ^ O'Dowd, Matt (7 February 2019). "Sound Waves from the Beginning of Time". PBS Space Time. PBS. 16 minutes in. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
An alternate model that how negative mass might behave: in so-called 'bimetric gravity' you can have positive and negative masses, but each is described by its own set of Einstein field equations. That's kinda like having 'parallel spacetimes', one with positive and one with negative masses, which can still interact gravitationally. In these models, like masses attract and opposite masses repel… and you don't get the crazy 'runaway motion' that occurs if you put both positive and negative masses in the same spacetime. So no perpetual motion machines… It can also be used to explain dark energy and dark matter. An example is the Janus model of Jean-Pierre Petit. This is a much more sophisticated model than the one by Jamie Farnes. It is however just as speculative.
- @Theoretical1A9: I see no indication that the avenues suggested at WP:RFCBEFORE have been used, let alone exhausted; so why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies if I somehow misinterpreted the correct use of the procedure. The edits were previously added, but this ended up bordering on an edit war, and so I have been seeking to include external views and resolve the issue correctly through formal procedure. Given the contentiousness of the issue (see the Jean-Pierre Petit page), it felt best to seek formal resolution from more experienced editors. Third opinion or dispute resolution are good to know about for the future, so thank you for highlighting that. Theoretical1A9 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Theoretical1A9: Please indent your replies; see WP:THREAD for more info. Also, I've again removed the RFC tag since as noted, there's been no prior discussion attempted. I shouldn't have removed the rest of the section last time; that was my bad. Anyway, I'm going to have almost the same comments here as I do over at the other one, so I'll just make my main points here and then point back over here for the other discussion. Now, there's no way this can go in. You've labeled it as some sort of "controversy", but there's no apparent controversy. One of their shows made mention of Petit's theory. That's all. Even if they had expressed support, that wouldn't warrant inclusion, because there's no independent coverage of it generating controversy. It was also one brief mention in one episode of one show. Unless it was something that's very well documented by multiple, reliable, independent sources, it shouldn't go in; see WP:UNDUE. Whatever axe you have to grind with Petit, whether it's legitimate or not, shouldn't be spilling over into articles like this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies if I somehow misinterpreted the correct use of the procedure. The edits were previously added, but this ended up bordering on an edit war, and so I have been seeking to include external views and resolve the issue correctly through formal procedure. Given the contentiousness of the issue (see the Jean-Pierre Petit page), it felt best to seek formal resolution from more experienced editors. Third opinion or dispute resolution are good to know about for the future, so thank you for highlighting that. Theoretical1A9 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)