Talk:Rookie Blue season 1

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Reception edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed some of the material from the "Reception" section but I have left the ratings there. The season is not finished and therefore would be misleading to have any critical reception featured in the article about the entirety of season 1 (this is what the article is about) because of said reason. To be clear a season review DOES NOT constitute a season finale review. See examples below:

Dollhouse - [1]
Simpsons/Family Guy/Cleveland Show - [2] Meowies (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

WHAT THE * ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT? Those are going back in. And I can use caps lock too :P

Considering i pretty much wrote half of the article and that episode lists & season articles is what i do, i am not sure how offended i should be that you feel the need to tell me what the article is about. I would have written episode summaries too if not beaten to it each week.

How about this, leave me a note thanking me for taking a jumbled mess and turning it into a somewhat respectable season article because it otherwise was in violation of most every relevant clause in the manuals of style to be split into a season article 3/4 of the way through the first season. It is not about 80 episodes long, it is not well beyond 32kb of readable prose, it is not multiple seasons, there was not proper {{episode list/sublist}} formatting, and there was no in depth coverage that compelled the split into individual seasons. The only reason i can think of that this is appropriate per the rules is: The overall list structure should be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual series or list of characters, but the following guidelines should be followed in most cases. And that is only the case because referencing ratings for two countries makes for one hell of a long reference list. Two seasons on one page would have closer to 100 references! If it were not for the fact that i personally like season articles this would have been reverted and still may be reverted should some people object to the split.

If you think every review has to be of the season as a whole then good luck! You also will have a scores of other shows which need content removal because they contain reviews of a specific episode. As to it being misleading, i think not. One is on the production quality of the show. The other is a review that in it contains admission that many reviews compare the show to Grey's Anatomy. It saves on adding in more reviews. If you really want things to be for the complete season then by your own logic then you should kill this page. I will have wasted my night trying to better it and be very unhappy.

Funny thing is i was popping over here to add cast and crew sections, and a poster, as posters or DVD cover art are the typical image for a season article and instead i found this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you're firing bullets at the wrong person. I didn't split the article and I agree it is still too early to split, but I am not going to recommend a deletion as by the time it goes through the process it maybe necessary to have one anyways. About this quote:

"Considering i pretty much wrote half of the article and that episode lists & season articles is what i do, i am not sure how offended i should be that you feel the need to tell me what the article is about."

Do you not see some irony in all that?

In any case here are a few examples of season reviews on wikipedia

Your written reception failed to address the entirety of the season (because the season is not finished). Your written reception by your OWN admission had only one viable review (you said one was on production). One review does not cast a wide net on how the critics feel about the show. Your written reception failed to address any specific episodes (per your suggestion); for example "critics had exceptional praise for the episode Honor Role for its great acting and storyline etc".

For the record most season splits on wikipedia DO NOT have a critical receptions section. Even shows like House (probably one of the most edited shows on wiki) does not have a receptions section for its season splits. Meowies (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the record i was not done with this. I was fed up with this. I stumble into this and the choices are undo or bring up to a quasi acceptable level of content. How appealing are either option? Especially when there is fundamental construction errors in writing the page that will have me edit it anyway. I wrote enough to have some content on the page. I hoped you would fill it in. I was close to turning the article into one on how i hate writing about this show on WP and that i am so fed up i invite a race to see who would block me for turning the article into such a declaration. So, yes, i saved it as i had it at the time i became that fed up. Read a few score pages of search results and see how happy you would be - and don't forget to read all of the pages that come up in the search results. I never split this because i knew it would be a pain and i didn't want to go through it. If your idea is to remove instead of fill out then just do it. Remove it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of all those who edit this show, Meowies, i thought you would expand on what i had put in. I was hoping you would. You went the other way with it and yeah even more not happy am i.

For the record, most season splits on WP are done purely on technical need and then essentially abandoned so of course most of them are devoid of content of any kind beyond the episode list. Just because 70% of everything else sucks doesn't mean what you do can't be wonderful. I am slowly working on the seasons of Without A Trace as i find time, patience, and information. At 168 episodes on 7 seasons it is not a little thing for me. Then there is a collection of season articles on my wiki that i have to work on that are either larger revisions or the individual seasons do not exist on WP as their own articles. I was not looking for any more season articles at this time. The seasons of LOST are themselves featured as well as their collective list of episodes. I like to use them as the model. I don't think i have ever edited any of them so it is not stealing my own ideas as proof of support for the model.

I am even less happy upon finding about 17 hours ago a similar split done on another show in my watchlist by the same person who split this. And that user just seems to ignore all messages from everyone so i am just right "thrilled". Rookie Blue and now somewhat The Good Guys on WP make me want either go back to reading, vandalise, or just completely leave after nearly a decade. This place is now ridiculous and not for the sane. Either way most ever bit of interactive editing ends up in tears. Yesterday morning i got $#it for having "~hugs~" in my signature. I couldn't believe what i was reading. People used to like me. Now i probably come across as that grumpy bitch everyone hates. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know how you expected me to expand on something that really couldn't be expanded upon at this time. I can't say "the first season of rookie blue was received well" for obvious reasons, nor can I list an episode by episode review. I would urge you to just drop it. Half of the above post is nothing more than a rant and has little to do with this article. If you have a problem with this article and want it deleted as you seem to have suggested several times, then go through the process. I'm moving on regardless of the choice you make. Meowies (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Write in the present, that it is, instead of that it was. Doing that you can open up a lot of potential content to be relevant. But hey, if you don't want to then fine. I no longer want to anymore either. Maintaining the episode ratings is about the extent of my interest in this show now. I see the summary was not written. I haven't even watched the episode and it is on my pvr and downloaded too. Out of habit. Most of everything on rookie blue talk pages is nothing more than rant, from me. This show, Wikipedia, and myself. Not a happy combination. Remove any of the three and it is ok. Do i believe it would be overrun with American content if i go away completely, most certainly. The article's history is the proof of that. have i not put together a nice balance of it? I think so and no one has said i haven't. I do not want this article deleted, i want it to have never been created. Slight difference. I don't do deletions unless it happens to be something i am personally interested in.

Nice work on dollhouse. That is one group of articles i read, over and over. Barely edit them but i prefer reading them delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rookie Blue (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic