Talk:The Alaskans

Television Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Westerns: Television Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television task force.

Is it a stub or does it need cleanup? edit

It's hard to understand why this entry was tagged as a "Cleanup," since the grammar and clarity are fine. Granted, very little is known today about this TV series and I've never talked with anyone who saw it after its initial 1959 run, but I believe the entry would be more properly labeled a "Stub" than a candidate for "Cleanup." When I wrote this article, I included cast information and a brief description of the basic premise. I believe an article on the show should be included in Wikipedia because it was an early Roger Moore TV series produced by Warner Brothers for ABC and people will be mildly curious about it (I know I am). It's intriguing that the series is supposed to have been filmed almost entirely from scripts recycled from other series, especially Maverick. If I knew more about the show, I'd write it, but I've repeatedly discovered that if we start an article on Wikipedia, others gradually jump in and expand it over time. It's the Roger Moore connection that makes this article worthwhile and worth keeping, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skymasterson (talk • contribs) 11:43, 13 July 2006

When is a stub no longer a stub? edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At what point does an article about an old, unavailable show like this make the transition from stub to full article? I've been working on it for days and simply can't find any more information about it—save, perhaps, for constructing a very rudimentary episode list. Putting "stub" on an article seems to me to be a flag that says to people, "Hey, there's almost certainly a lot more that can be done with this article." I think this article has holes in it—it says virtually nothing about what the series was about and what the themes and character relationships were, for instance. But I'm really not sure that there's a lot more out there which can be properly referenced. CzechOut 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've made it a C-Class, but it just barely qualifies as such. — ^Wylie_Coyote 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic