Talk:How the Earth Was Made

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove Deletion Tag[edit]

There are plenty of other articles on lesser-than-notable History channel programs. This article is not an orphan. --173.117.243.180 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issues[edit]

I don't see why you remove some info like (without commercials) and the genre, which is rather important. My re-edited caption wasn't too long. The channel it premiered is officially called History. --Twinsday (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The channel's official name is The History Channel per the channel itself. Not just History. Without commercials is unnecessary and excessive, its a given. The genre is documentary. Science is not a genre. Yes, the caption was too long and unnecessarily repeated the series name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The channel's name changed in 2008. Watch the show's credits and the channel itself. Please do your edits in fewer saves. Look at the runtimes in other TV infoboxes. The definition of genre is not strict. Science can be a genre, like sci-fi.--Twinsday (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring and please remember, this is not your article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The website itself says THE HISTORY CHANNEL all over it (caps theirs). We use what the sources use, not other Wikipedia articles. Bad formatting in other infoboxes in low class articles is not a valid excuse for doing it here. In looking at the infobox documentation again, I've removed the caption all together as the image has the series name in it. No, science is not a genre and the infobox does have a fairly set list of appropriate genres. And I'll edit in as many saves as I desire, thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't want to argue with you. We need more editors other than you and me. This isn't your article either. This was someone else's idea I agree with that minor edits should be combined in one sitting so the history doesn't flood. Thanks for your contributions anyway.--Twinsday (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modifying contents are not minor edits. Your posts to two user talk pages asking for help without context are not really helpful here. I've posted a note to the project so we can hear from folks actually involved with television articles, rather than presumably editors you happen to know from previous contact. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the credits from the infobox as they were for the special and not the series. I've replaced some of those credits that apply to the whole series, but the rest, like director and editor, change from one episode to the next. The runtime is suppose to be without commercials, so stating such in the infobox would be redundant. If other infoboxes state "(without commercials)" I would remove it. I'm not aware of a preset list of genres that must be followed, but I'm ignorant of most things and this may be one of them. Although, I can't say I really care whether or not the genre says science documentary. The caption isn't necessary; the image is self explanatory, and the infobox documentation suggests this approach. The special aired on The History Channel, but the series aired on the History channel and the series credits say as much. I've change the article to reflect this, but if anyone wants to change it again, you won't get an edit war from me. The rest of my edits to the article are for cleanup and clarification, such as making it clear that the editor won the Emmy for the special, not the series. Sarilox (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and the fixes to the credits. What are your thoughts on the channel's website still using The History Channel throughout? I also moved the award down to be with the rest of the reception info, since it should cover both the special and the series eventually, but kept the rewording that makes it clearer about it being for the special. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forever disappointed by History.com. It always feels like a big flashy advert for selling their home videos and related paraphernalia, while the rest of the content is rarely updated or elaborated. How the Earth Was Made starts its new season in a week and there's no information about the first episode on the main show page or under the upcoming episodes section [1]. The copyright at the bottom of most pages still says 1996-2008. Is everything from this year free game? The presidents page [2] still says "President Elect: Barack Obama"!? My point is that they're terrible about updating the site, so I'm not surprised that the home page still says The History Channel in the title bar, although I can't see it anywhere else on that page. However, most of the new content added since the name change does appear to just use History, even if a lot of the old content still uses The History Channel. The shop page for the first season DVD [3] of How the Earth Was Made also uses History, and that's appropriate since the end credits for those episodes say the same thing. I realise there's a certain ambiguity to History, as Peregrine Fisher points out on the project page, but if it's any consolation I edited the article to use both instances of the channels name where appropriate since the special and the series bridged the name change. Although, that might appears confusing and/or accidentally inconsistent. Either way, more editing is needed and I'm out of ideas. Sarilox (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the release date for the first season of How The Earth Was Made because the original release date was April 15, 2008. Which is impossible because the series started in February 2009. I changed the release date to August 25, 2009 which I want and looked up on Amazon. --Charminggirl80 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summaries[edit]

Please help me add info in the episode summaries. --Twinsday (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will help with this as I can rewatch eps. For now, focusing on all the other content missing :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

May you please give the link(s) to Wikipedia’s list of TV genres? Thanks.

Now let’s chill and take it easy. I would love to continue expanding this article with other peaceful users, but I’m getting lazy and tired. Assuming good faith, I didn’t care about the article for over a month until you came along. I’ve settled a dispute and made peace with another defiant and upset user before.

If it makes you feel better, the article is all yours to edit for now. It almost feels like giving my baby away (sob).

Since we kept changing each others edits, did that mean an edit war was between us and make BOTH of us edit-war?

As Cyberia23 said and I learned, History doesn’t update some info in its website very often. I watch History A LOT and personally witnessed the name change. If you haven’t, I suggest you:

  • look at the current logo,
  • watch and listen to the commercials (“…on History”), and
  • read the end credits of all the shows that premiered after the mentioned date (“For History”).

Thanx again.--Twinsday (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between format and genre?--66.74.131.74 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Format is an unused parameter, really...no one can seem to figure out what its supposed to be for. For Twinsday, ignoring the rather sarcastic remarks, I'd encourage you to actually read the infobox documentation, available at Template:Infobox Television. Among other things, it includes a link to a list of genres. Further, I'd point you to some FA level television articles that are documentaries. Science is not a documentary. If you want to discuss actual existing genres that would be good to add to genre (as you would see at Meerkat Manor), that would be fine, but Science alone is just not useful and tells the reader absolutely nothing. Kind of like a "yeah, and? what kind". The more specific Nature, for example, might be a good addition, or getting even more specific, Geology, though as some of the episodes are on weather phenomenon, I think Nature is more encompassing. Further, The History Channel seems to update it often enough to have the second season of this series start date listed. The entire website, not just bits of it, are all branded The History Channel. I watch the channel myself, thanks, and I've never noticed them dropping The and Channel (a Logo is not a name, just an FYI). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify matters with the name of the channel: In the United States, the two relevant channels are History and History HD (which almost always mirrors the content of History). In the context of this article, since the program follows the name change which took place in 2008 (see news source), the channel should be referred to simply as History. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a nature documentary? The genre's article talks about animals and plants, not geology. --Twinsday (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode table width dispute[edit]

We need third party opinion on this. AnmaFinotera wants to keep the episode table width at 70% which shifts the episode list over to the left and keeps it from being pushed down by the infobox. She also claims in her edit summary that this is some sort of standard that is supposed to be follow (helpful to users of "1024 x ?" monitors) and that this is a "known issue" on Wikipedia - I have found zero evidence of these claims, nor has AnmaFinotera offered to provide any source to back it up. At 100% width, the episode list spans the page and moves under the infobox, which not only looks better, but it's how it's done on most episode list pages. AnmaFinotera claims that 100% width creates too much white space below the "Episode list" and "Season 1" headers and doesn't look right on her monitor. I claim table width makes no difference, because I see no difference when I view the page except white space now appears below the infobox – here is an example of what I see – and the matter can be fixed simply by adjusting the width of the browser window. Anyone else have an issue with this? Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Cyberia23 is stating falsehoods. I posted screenshots on my talk page, which she ignored, instead complaining at ANI and throwing around a lot of bad faith and personal attacks. The images I posted showed multiple revisions, which reflect multiple resolutions, not just Cyberia23's personal preferences. Anyway, here are those shots, again, showing how bad the whitespace looks with a 100% width.[4][5] As I stated in my attempts to discuss it, it is much more preferable to have whitespace on the right side rather than sitting in the middle of the article itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a HE not a she. And you never showed me any screen shots. I looked at them now, and I see no difference in the two as they look exactly the same. I can clearly see that your problem can be easily resolved by maybe NARROWING YOUR BROWSER WINDOW like I suggested 10 million times already. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a previously uninvolved user, I offer my opinion in good faith. I think the table should not be restricted in width, and this would be a view consistent with Wikipedia norms. There should not be a need to specify any specific width (100%, 70% or otherwise). With a few rare exceptions (such as some images), Wikipedia content should be allowed to flow freely and not be tied to any particular content width. It is an issue of accessibility, where windows of varying widths must be taken into account. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a solution to the whitespace problem, perhaps the float-clearing template, {{-}}, can be applied to the page just prior to the heading for the episode list? That would leave some whitespace above the heading, but this would seem more aesthetically pleasing (and more accessible) than controlling the width of the table. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if a someone didn't have the page locked out I'd try it. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can request the changes with an "edit protected" template, but I would personally prefer to see you and AnmaFinotera put away your long knives and pledge peace so that we can request that the page be unprotected. I am happy to hang around here for a while and mediate disputes, if you think that would be helpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While your offer is appreciated, as long as someone is leaving remarks like these[6], it seems highly unlikely there will be any peace here. It should also be noted that Cyberia did file an "official" WP:3O request...don't know if you'd need to remove it since you offered a 3O already, or if we should wait for another 3O. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we can agree between the three of us on a solution, the request for a third party opinion can be safely withdrawn (although there is nothing wrong with leaving it in place). If the dispute can be resolved, I suspect rash comments will cease. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the float-clear template would have the same effect as a 100% width, adding excessive white space above the table and in the middle of the article. Trying it with no width is worth a shot, but I suspect it will default to 100% and still have the same problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, removing explicit widths will reduce the table width to meet the size required by the data. For more, seem my comment in the next section. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where on Wikipedia it says the table width has to be 70% wide AnmaFinotera. Why can't you answer my question? Cyberia23 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a productive question, and it will only extend the existing conflict. MoS guidelines on the use of tables are vague, but in general terms it is best to avoid specifying limits such as widths. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no specified limits - so how do we resolve this? Which of us has the right to set things their way? Cyberia23 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the page is protected, the answer to that question would be neither of you. It is not about who has the "right" to do things. You each have as much right to edit the article as the other. As it happens, the solution is simple: the table should be as wide as it needs to be, which means not setting an explicit width and dealing with the aesthetic consequences. If the two of you can put aside your differences, we can request that the page be unprotected and then move forward by making incremental changes after reaching a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then go consens... Cyberia23 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:3O request: Examination of the discussion here and other sources seem to say that all the parties to this dispute have resolved or abandoned the dispute. I am removing the request from WP:3O; if a third party opinion is still requested, please revert my removal. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments[edit]

Since the article is locked, I have experimented in my sandbox. I propose the following solutions:

I can think of no useful reason for forcing a 100% width (or a 70% width, for that matter). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, your tests changed nothing, in fact it looks worse. The episode list should span the width of the entire page, not be bunched up to the left and looking all retarded. You don'y seem to understand what I've been asking, but at this point, as far the BS has gone today, I no longer give a crap what happens to this article anymore. So do whatever you want. To be honest, my issue really wasn't how this article looked, it was trying to call out certain people around here like AnmaFinotera who claim they are enforcing Wikipedia policy and following standards that I know are complete lies and fabrications, but those of you in charge just let it go on. So be it. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. My purpose for coming here was to try to mediate the dispute and help find a path to resolution, not to establish who was "right" and who was "wrong". I completely understood what you were trying to achieve; however, I disagreed with your assertion that the episode list should span the width of the entire page. I also disagreed with the notion of setting it to span 70% of the page. The solution I proffered is the one that makes sense when you factor in issues of accessibility, different user agents and the various different "skins" that people can use to view Wikipedia. I was quite happy to enter into a discussion about the various options available with a view to establishing a consensus for one of them. If you say that your goal was simply to "call out certain people" then I'm afraid all you have done is draw attention to what can be viewed as POINTy behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy or guideline that says that a width should be left off? The help files do not discourage against it[7]. Indeed, as Cyberia23 herself notes, all episode lists generally use a width of 100%, per the template instructions[8], and do not just leave it to just do whatever it wants. Other projects use widths on some of their standard tables[9] and infoboxes themselves are tables with set widths. It is not an accessibility issue at all to not put a width on a table, and the guideline itself reflects the use of widths while giving examples on how to work with tables[10]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that indicates how widths should (or shouldn't) be applied to tables. Widths for tables are generally only necessary when a table needs to be floated. Despite your comment, I think you will find that specifying widths most definitely is an accessibility issue because of the need to accommodate different user agents. Other considerations (such as reducing unwanted or unneeded markup) are also relevant. Most browsers-based user agents offer the ability for users to create their own CSS that can change how tables are presented, but putting explicit widths into the markup will override those rules. Furthermore, some of the available Wikipedia skins render tables in different ways. Remember that not specifying a width means that the table is exactly as wide as it needs to be. If, for example, an episode description is long enough that it will cause the line to wrap, it will give the table a width of 100% of the containing block automatically. In the case of the template, please remember that it is primarily for the purpose of a separate "List of xxxxx episodes" article. Implementations that incorporate the template into main articles vary considerably. I looked at a random sample of 10 such articles before responding, and I got 7 different implementations. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no, it is not. Table widths generally have nothing to do accommodating user agents, nor does it stop anyone from overriding it. Again, episode lists are manually specified at 99-100% per overwhelming consensus in FLs and in practice. The template is used for both standalones and within articles, with no bias between them itself. The table is not as wide as it needs to be due to the actual code of the templates. Normally, there would be no disagreement. If there were enough content above the table, it would be properly set at 100% and that would be that, same as with series lists, chapter lists, etc. However, because of the issue of the white space that appears above it for most users, having it reduced in width to fit beside the infobox was necessary. Removing the width does not, IMHO, fix the problem as it makes the table look even worse and only increases the issue of too much white space. Yes, most tables are allowed to be whatever width they come out to, but episode lists, like the others I've noted, are special cases. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree with your assessment and reasoning in this matter, but it is of no consequence. My purpose for being here was to try to mediate the dispute, and I am certainly not interested in starting another. You have made the same kind of sweeping statements ("Table widths generally have nothing to do accommodating user agents" and "per overwhelming consensus") that aggravated Cyberia23, as if you are some sort of authority on the matter. I should point out that the claimed "overwhelming consensus" on other articles does not necessarily apply to this article. It is factually correct to state that widths set in the markup will always override widths defined in CSS, so your statement above is incorrect. I am an expert in CSS and I have been a web developer since the mid '90s, so I know this from personal experience. Where Wikipedia is concerned, the information (in this case, the table data) is more important than the way it is presented, because Wikipedia articles are consumed in many different ways. But as long as you can find a consensus on this talk page for what you desire, you can set widths as you please. Right now, you don't have that consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you find my tone "sweeping" and "authoritative", but I am also an expert in CSS and HTML/XHTML and have been a web designer and developer just as long, including for the government so I am particularly sensitive to accessibility issues. We can sit here and willy wag over our careers, but its not relevant to the discussion, and MediaWiki software is not the same as standard HTML/XHTML/CSS code. Right now, there is no consensus to change the status quo, which is to have it at 70%. We can open it up to further input, as of now, there is no consensus, nor any clear evidence that shows that having a width is wrong, or that having a width at 70% instead of 100% is somehow better. While you are trying to help mediate the dispute, in the end you've just added a third option and made it clear that you "side" with Cyberia23 and are just trying to be politer about it (yes, I did see your note to her making it clear). And yes, consensus across projects and articles can and should apply to this article, unless there is actual consensus and valid reasons given to ignore it, which again have not been done here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See there you go again with the "I'm better than you are" tone. It is precisely that tone that created the dispute in the first place. Right now, you are compounding the problem with a large slice of ownership pie. I'm not "siding" with anyone. I'm just giving my own opinion (as requested) and trying to make sure that the dispute between you and Cyberia23 ended. Now, it seems, I have become your new target of choice. You don't get to dictate what some kind of "de-facto" consensus is in the absence of a local consensus, involving some sort of perceived "status quo" that you have apparently pulled out of thin air. Perhaps people would be more willing to see your point of view if you expressed it with a little more respect for other editors. We are all equal here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, screw it. Obviously no matter what I saw I'm somehow using an inappropriate tone because I won't just say "oh, okay, whatever you like." Neither one of you are "targets" you're just editors I was attempting to have a discussion with, but one had to go crazy and start ranting and foaming at the mouth, and you have made it clear that you are neither neutral nor willing to actually discuss (nor even interested in ending the dispute, are your remarks on her page clearly are egging her on). I'm not dictating shit, I'm just telling you what I know from my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Respect is earned, not given, and no, we are not all "equal" here. In either case, do what you like. The article should be unlocked soon and y'all are free to argue over 100% or no width all you like. I don't give a damn one way or the other, but I bet 3 months from now, the article will still be the same pitiful little stub it is now because y'all would rather argue over width than actually add content and expanded it so that the width wouldn't be an issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way AnmaFinotera - I'm a HE not a SHE. If it makes any difference at this point. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also to repeat what I indicated on Toddst1's page, I don't think "ownership" is not the problem. I didn't start How the Earth Was Made so I'm not sentimentally attached to it. I don't think AnmaFinotera is either since she had put up for deletion. My insistence of this issue rests in my concern of other articles like it. It doesn't make any sense to be restricted by the preferences of a single user and not the consensus of the community at large. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey's preferred solution is also mine. I generally don't define the width for episode lists, but instead allow the table to expand as content is added. I see no point in having a forced width here for a table that has very little content. Sarilox (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit of information that can be added to the "media" section that will probably push the table below the infobox. Filling out some of the detail in the episode descriptions will expand the table, and render the width dispute largely moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2-Part Episode: "The Continents"[edit]

I remember watching "The Continents: Part 1" and "The Continents: Part 2." They are some of the beginning episodes. Where does it go on the list? --Twinsday 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the name retroactively given to the original documentary special. Sarilox (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Comparing the title sequence, content, format, etc., I think it is different from the 2007 special, which I had also seen. "The Continents" resembles the regular episodes of the series. DirecTV says the episode's airdate is 9/2007, but the special's is 12/2007. I'm confused. Was it re-edited? --Twinsday 10:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I got the September 16 date from TVRage.com. IMDb says it aired December 16 like your Direct TV. I figure we should go with the December date since the later two are probably more reliable. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original documentary different from "The Continents" will re-air on 3/9. --Twinsday 02:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Color Issues[edit]

Why can't I just use the colors I am editing?I prefer my colors.Your colors are faded.My colours are bright and that makes me feel that this documentary is resourceful,knowledgable and interesting.Your colors make me feel that this is a broken-down,uninteresting and boring when it is not.I want to hear your reason to keep those awful colors of yours. --201.58.25.46 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImranIskandar (talk • contribs) [reply]

The important part of this article is the text, not the colours. The garish colours that you've used are too bright and distracting to readers. The more muted tones are sufficiently bright enough to separate the individual seasons from each other but not so bright as to distract readers from the text. So far, the red/blue colour scheme has been reverted ten times by three different editors; there is clearly opposition to use of these colours so continued edit-warring, by persistently reverting to your colour scheme is inappropriate. The colours should not be changed until there is consensus to change from the established colour scheme. ----AussieLegend (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was supposed to be my alternative to NCIS :P Well i started off with just adding the season 2 dvd release date but the pink was really bothering me as it has no relation to the season 1 release. I replaced it with a soft orange since that is the predominant non-black colour on the dvd cover art. I also changed the pilot to a soft brown-grey for the same reason. Saved that. Then i thought i would read through here to see if there is anything that i could use to expand the article. I found this discussion instead. In my defence it is pretty standard to colour things based on the dvd cover art. The bright red and blue and black i found when prompted to look through the article history is a bit much, even for this colour lover.
As a reader i did find something lacking. Ratings. After watching a few episodes today I was really curious about how the show did ratings-wise. When i found they were not listed here i went looking. I couldn't find them. Any chance someone knows where the ratings for the episodes might be found? delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your ratings request should be discussed in a new section. The viewer rating for the documentary special is already listed. But ratings for individual episodes are rarely recorded for documentary series like this, rather than miniseries like America: The Story of Us. You can check out TV by the Numbers, a website that documents ratings, including of Syfy shows. serioushat 09:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tv by the Numbers is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. Sadly, it seems to be something they did not include. I was more wondering where to find the primary source rather than secondary. As to reliability, you might want to check that again. tvbythenumbers.com is the source that by far is used for its reliability. It is all over NCIS and scores of featured lists. And with that i am done with this show. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources" and "a primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." As regards, TV by the Numbers, I had already checked it before I posted, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can read the relevant discussion here. It's a blog and is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title explanation[edit]

I copyedited the inconsistent table headings (e.g. from airdate and air date to Airdate). I decided to italicize (per correct grammar) the pilot special's title because it is a separate documentary telefilm work, rather than an episode. Shouldn't you lowercase all the second words in the table headings, since you did it to some of them? serioushat 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made here were all correct. Subsequent words in headings are supposed to be in lower case, which is why "air date" and "airdate" are preferred to "Airdate". I can't find any consensus that would support italicising the original documentary's title in the episode list. The convention is just to use "|title=" as per the instructions at {{Episode list}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made that recent edit you mentioned to conform with your most recent edit. To clear things up, we should use either airdate or air date, not both, throughout the article to be consistent. I chose the former: airdate. Thanks. serioushat 06:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on How the Earth Was Made. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on How the Earth Was Made. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_the_Earth_Was_Made&oldid=1207480781"