Talk:Television Without Pity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 26, 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Contents 1 Anti-TWoP 2 Retooled page (previous post from Talk:Permanent hiatus, which was merged here 3 Staff Information 4 Criticism section 5 What the? 6 Conventional Wisdom 7 Huge Glarkware List? 8 Merge PH article? 9 Reference to TWoP Criticism 10 Revision 11 Corporate ties 12 Criticism 13 Acronym pronunciation 14 Insistence on userIDs 15 Is their merchandise legal? 16 Time for a review or up-date? 17 Fair use rationale for Image:TWoP HomePage.jpg 18 TWoP versus Survivor Sucks 19 NBC and Impartiality? 20 Relevance of Now or Never / Glarkware to TWoP

[edit] Anti-TWoP

• Someone should comment on weird cult like feel about this site. They all agree on everything, they all hate the same people, and don't have any doubt that they're view of the world is right.

The webmistress and mods there are really confrontational with new users. They tend to berate you (or ban you outright) if you don't follow their set of rules. There's also a huge slant in their writing; to say that it's editorial bias would be giving them a free pass. --Madchester 21:42, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

• TWoP is what it is. I personally like that it's a bit tougher to run with the pack there. IT keeps the clever level up. The writing isn't meant to be NPOV, nor is it stated to be - hence the name Television Without Pity. googuse 00:50, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

What planet are you from? They're not really clever there, unless you enjoy seeing their mods attacking newbies who don't conform to their little in-crowd. There's a lot of large messageboards out there that let you spout any of your opinions, uncensored. But at TWoP, the mods just clamp down on you if you don't share THEIR particular views.

If you're looking for a no-holds-barred reality TV board, Survivor Sucks is much better. People are actually allowed to disagree with another; they're not one mindless entity following the Mod bandwagon. TWoP site has gone way downhill since Yahoo bought them out. --Madchester 19:29, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Really, although not completely facists I think at times they do go overboard with fourm management, but the strict enforement does bring out one of the more intresting boards out there. Their is also a tendency for "group think" but any dissenting opionons are more likely to be ignored than attacked. Also, most of the recappers and recaps come of to me as pretentious and too quick to judge certain shows. I would like to se a section in this wiki on certain show's reactions to the site, notably The West Wing's critique of the show and the shout-outs on Once and Again, Ed, and another show I forget. ymallet

My �0.02: Those who like TWoP's strict enforcement of rules enjoy it and have lively debates based on facts and people that don't go to one of the myriad "no-holds-barred" sites and call each other Nazis. It just amazes me that people are so utterly offended by having to use capital letters (*GASP*) and punctuation (perish the thought!). All the mods I have interacted with love the shows they recap (or hate the shows they recap) as much as the average user. --cuiusquemodi 03:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep going back and forth about this, but: I see no reason to include the "TWoP Sucks" arguments on this page. The basic information on the page is POV-neutral; there is no "hurray for TWoP" viewpoint that I can see, so it is unbalanced to include the anti-TWoP arguments. I did keep the three anti-TWoP links, even though I think that's overkill. If you look through the past history of this page, you can see how childish most of the anti-TWoP inclusions have been; people who resort to the sorts of name-calling they do don't deserve to have their complaints taken seriously. --Qaqaq 13:57, 2005 June 18

• • It seems like if we're going to leave in the line about the site being known for strict moderation, which frankly I'm not sure belongs, then the last revision is better as that to me is more NPOV then what we have here. Frankly I think either way makes sense. Barkeep49 18:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel those anti-TWOP links are perfectly fine. The site's far from perfect and people should have access to alternatives. --Madchester 23:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• The strict moderating of the TWoP boards is probably bore from the fact that they rely heavily on sponsors and few sponsors would put up money for a site whose purpose is to make fun of TV and sell T-shirts. If they can market TWoP as a site of witty and intelligent loyalists, sponsors may see a cogent investment opportunity. Cueball 21:18, 07 October 2005

No, TWoP was like this before the Yahoo! bit came in, and in fact has been just as snarky and hard from the MBTV days. It's just that kind of board. TWoPs a sort of love-it-or-leave-it place that engenders strong emotions. Ipstenu 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but TWoP has always had to depend on sponsors to pay their writers. I wasn't referring to just their partnership with Yahoo. Cueball 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Point :) Though at this time I can't remember when they got sponsors (that is was it always sponsor/ad-click or did it start as many sites do with a couple people posting and then balooning). I think it was originally all out of pocket, though my memory is a bit fuzzy about the MBTV 3-page recap advert situation, and I don't remember much from the Dawson's Wrap pages. Ipstenu 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retooled page (previous post from Talk:Permanent hiatus, which was merged here

Hi I recently retooled this page with the far more comon ussage of the word, however I can't find any sources if anyone has any feel free to post them, thanks. Deathawk 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that it took me time to write out all of those shows, right? And what you just said made absolutely zero sense. You need to repost those shows.

Cueball 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staff Information

Thought I'd put the inclusion/exclusion of the staff information up for discussion. I reinstated it but removed the internal links. I don't think the moderators necessarily need their own page, but I see no harm in including the info on the main page (and perhaps fleshing it out a little). --newsjunkie 07:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this edit. I see the point about "begging" for non-notable links, but it seems like information about the staff of the site belongs in an encyclopedia entry.Barkeep49

I'd like to propose removing the Recappers section and replacing it with a link from the Staff paragraph to the Staff page on TWoP. Otherwise, the recapper table is a mess to keep up to date. The re-cappers and shows change pretty often.--TsuKata 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Orpheus 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the section. It's not something that changes daily, though it does change often. I don't think it's 'too' often though. Mild disagree? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not sure it adds value. I compare it to an encyclopedia entry about the Evening News. Would you mention the current staff of the Evening News and update it with each release of the encyclopedia? Probably not. They'd just mention notable or longtime staffers. So, maybe rather than having a table, the goal becomes to keep it up to date with staffers that have been with the site for a long time or who might be known outside of the site. But, I still prefer removing the table altogether...I'm just offering up a compromise. --TsuKata 04:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

While I have no problem with criticism of TWOP (the anti-TWOP external links are fine by me), I am beginning to get tired of the constant attempts by the TWoP Sucks partisans to add POV to TWOP-related articles. The new Criticism section in particular rankles, as I have never heard these complaints about TWoP anywhere, and I expect it's only the TWoP Sucks people who hold this belief. If there is evidence that this is in fact a popular criticism of the site outside of that group, that would be different; as is, it's not worthy of inclusion. Qaqaq 20:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I never saw the old crticism section to which you refer, but there certainly is criticism toward TWoP. You say that it's just the "TWoP Sucks" people. Well, this and other TWoP criticism sites are very active and draw thousands of former TWoP users. I think it's possible to add a TWoP Criticism section to this article that is NPOV dwelling just on the facts. It can, for example, state that some people have criticized TWoP for its board posting rules that requires posters to adhere to strict rules of usage, grammar and style. For example, people are not allowed to post in all lower case letters or to start a post with the word "um." People have also criticized TWoP's moderators, accusing them of heavy handidly sanctioning (limiting user) users from the site for infractions of the rules. Others have defended the moderators, claiming that the strict rules and enforcement keeps the content of the site on track, entertaining and easy to read. There has also been criticism that the TWoP recappers, who also serve as moderators for the discussion forums, present a certain point of view on controversial shows, particularly with regard to reality television contestants and that posters who disagree with the moderator/recappers positions are more likely to be sanctioned or banned from the site. Again, TWoP and other users respond that those who are sanctioned or banned are simply violating the rules or manners and respect that are spelled out for everyone. I don't think a good article on TWoP can NOT include something like this and I think what I suggest is very NPOV. 71.195.181.150 13:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"I'm not going to keep going back and forth about this, but: I see no reason to include the "TWoP Sucks" arguments on this page." I call bullshit on this. A good reason to include criticism? How about complete coverage of the subject? Just as an article on, say, black holes or cold fusion should include all viewpoints, so should articles on subjects like TWoP. I am not a TWoP Sucks partisan, but I have noticed that the restrictions that apply at TWoP--especially the lack of criticism of recappers--can be perceived as chilling to any debate of said recappers' POV.

• Once again: I have no problem with criticism of TWoP. If presented in a proper Wikipedia manner -- that is to say, NPOV, and mentioning who the critics are, for starters -- it would belong on this page, and I would have no issue with it. To simply say "many people think that...", particularly when it's only one unmentioned group that holds the belief, is not enough. The former criticism paragraph, as you can see if you look through the page history, did not remotely fit. (While you're looking at the history, you can see some of the more immature anti-TWoP vandalism they've attempted to add; the attacks on the former Wikipedia page for recapper Miss Alli were even more pathetic.) Qaqaq 18:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have POV popping up again in the new criticism section. "It is not surprising" -- that's POV. Saying that TWoP Sucks is noted for its fairness -- noted by whom? And then a list of things that are supposedly said as criticism -- and in one case, as a response to criticism -- without mentioning who is saying them? That's not encyclopedic. This section needs to be made NPOV and needs to do more than just repeat general unsourced anti-TWoP opinions, or it will have to be deleted entirely. Qaqaq 04:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've given it a whirl, trying to clean it up some. Did a pretty much wholesale rewrite. I left out the parts about repitious and self indulgant/agrandizing recaps, since I couldn't fathom how to NPOV that. -- Ipstenu 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a very good start, and I've removed the neutrality dispute warning. I did some cleanup for spelling and grammar, and to remove some unnecessary phrasing (the recaps "produced by TWoP", for example). In doing so, I did some rewording for balance; I hope the meaning is still approximately the same, but please change it again if you disagree. Another question: should we move the whole section about the forums' strictness to the criticism section? It feels like it might fit better there now. Qaqaq 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent edits, Qaqaq! I think that's a lot clearer. I like the idea of combining sections. If we renamed the section 'Strictness' and put Criticism as a subheader, that may join things up better? -- Ipstenu 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved it; see what you think. I had to reword a bit because there was some resultant redundancy after the move (and also because some POV had been added). Qaqaq 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking good. I took out the links, since I think people are smart enough to go TWoP -> Forums, and TWoPSucks was listed in the link section below. If folks can't figure that out, they don't need to go to the sites. I trimmed a little more redundancy. I think we're getting there :) -- Ipstenu 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the?

"However excessive references to the particular recapper's personal life et al, said to be at the expense of humor and significant parts of the tv show, are known to repel readers and long-time members alike, as well as pet-names given to characters by the recappers. It is also said to be the cause of unnecessary length of the recaps."

Does this section seem strange to anyone else? Certainly, I'm sure some people feel this way but I would argue that many, such as myself, enjoy this... otherwise we'd just get summaries of episodes off of the official site!

And the "unnecessary length" part is stupid, and I will change it and less someone has a good reason not to, because that implies that there is a necessary length that a television recap should be, which is the most ridiculous statement anyone has ever made. Daydream believer2 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not that ridiculous. There are some people who wouldn't mind reading a 15-page recap but not a 30-page recap. Stop with all the ad hominem attacks. Mike H. That's hot 17:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Daydream believer2 has a pretty valid point. TWoP is a site for people who want what it serves. It's not the only recap site, and it's not government subsidized or anything, so it has no responsibility to be all things to all people. It is stupid to complain about the products that TWoP offers for free because of personal tastes. Dave 20:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited some of this. It's called Television without pity, not television with short, concise recaps. Daydream believer2 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's called Wikipedia, so learn some civility. Mike H. That's hot 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been two months since the preceding comment was made, and it wasn't at all rude. I don't think there's a Wikipedia policy against taking inane offense, but maybe there should be. Dave 20:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conventional Wisdom

What is up with the weird listening of the conventions of TWoP on this page? TWoP runs on conventions, every show has them, based on whatever the recapper uses to describe the show. Right now, the ones listed on the wikipedia article seem random and disorganized. This arbitrary list should possibly be pared down to those coventions that have been seen across the internet, (such as Spawn), or to those that have been commented on by people involved in the show themselves. I propose changing this section to one listing "External influences of TWoP" or the like. leontes 12:23, 26 November 2005 (EST)

I agree that this section is overlong and arbitrary. I don't see the point of it to begin with, honestly -- how is going to help people looking up TWoP to read a list of the running name gags? I think it's been trimmed once or twice but it always balloons back as people insert their favorite references from the site. I'd be in favor of getting rid of the section entirely, or at least trimming it to the introductory paragraph with one or two examples included there. Qaqaq 15:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this is unnecessary -- it just reads like "look at how funny we are" instead of giving the information. I totally agree a site as influential as TWoP should be up, but really, does it need to include the phrase "Spawn of Keifer?"

Actually, some of the info is downright incorrect. The use of the term anvil for heavy-handed writing, is an old fandom term -- from the whole 'Zine era, before the internet so for TWoP, or whoever wrote this article to claim it as their own is just rewriting fandom history.

[edit] Huge Glarkware List?

The long detailed list of Glarkware merchandise seems to be bordering on both minutiae and commercialism. Can it possibly be cut down signiciantly to include a description of what Glarkware is with just a few examples? Crunch 15:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done so. No one responded after nearly two months. It's superfluous and borders on advertising. Crunch 09:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ballooned again, and I agree that it feels like advertising. As I said about the "conventions" section, I don't really see the point of it (who would come to the TWoP article to read a list of past Glarkware merchandise?). I would trim it down to the introductory sentences, perhaps including an example or two there. Thoughts? Qaqaq 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not move the list of shirts to the Glarkware page (there's a link, if not an actual page) and just keep "Every month, in conjunction with clothing vendor Glarkware, Television Without Pity prints a set of limited edition t-shirts with an obscure reference to one of the shows covered by their reviewers. To date, one of the most referenced series has been Alias, with four different related shirts produced." and then the end pg there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

'Tis done! — ArkansasTraveler 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge PH article?

Besides the entry for TWoP shows on Permanent Hiatus being misspelled, it seems superfluous to have a separate page just to list shows that aren't featured on the site anymore. I'd also go for deleting the PH entry altogether. It's just as easy to find the list of shows on the TWoP website itself. lesmana 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also just as easy to find out what Television Without Pity is on the TWOP site itself. That was an asshole remark Cueball 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. Mike H. That's hot 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to TWoP Criticism

I don't understand why people or one person keep removing legitimate Neutral POV and referenced statements of TWoP criticism and the accompanying External Links and/or Refrences. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Nor, for that matter, is it TWoP itself, where a dictitorial single point of view rules. Crunch 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I don't at all agree with your last statement, I do agree with your first. I see no reason for the TWoP Sucks link to be removed, and I think your sentence about the detractors' criticism is pretty good at this point. I noticed that you have TWoP Sucks in "References" rather than "Links" -- is that intentional? Qaqaq 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I had initially placed it in the "Links" section and someone, I assume not you, removed it. I thought it had a better chance of sticking if I put it in "References." I agree that it belongs more in "Links" but if it's going to continue to be removed, let's put it in References. And that type of removal from "LInks" also led to that last sentence in my previous comment with which you disagree (that this article is being edited in a dictatorial fashion to preserve TWoP's integrity, not that TWoP is not dictatorial; it is and I think its owners would probably even agree with that). Crunch 12:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

This obviously needs a lot of work; right now there isn't even an explanation of what a recap is! It seems that the article should include the types of shows generally written about (genre, etc.,), how the recaps are written, what people talk about in the forums, the rules of the boards that are pretty unique, etc., beyond just nicknames. Also needed: shout-outs, TWoP cliches, snark, the PCs.--141.225.34.88 04:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do that.--58.105.44.63 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a recapping stub somewhere on Wiki.

I removed this list of former recappers and recappers who don't do anything currently, included here in case someone should need it. Leontes 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC) -

- Recappers currently without shows: - *Demian - *Lauren S - *LTG - - ===Former recappers=== - The following are recappers that have served in the past. However, several remain on as guest recappers: - {| border=0 - | valign=top | - *Aaron - *Ace - *Alex Richmond - *Camper - *Cate - *Chuck - *Dan Kwa - *Deborah - | valign=top | - *Della Femina - *Djb - *Gustave - *Gwen - *Heathen - *Jessica - *Joanna - *Key Grip - *Lulu Bates - | valign=top | - *Manimal - *Miss Parker - *Owen - *Pamie - *Ragdoll - *Sep - *Shack - *Strega - *Uncle Bob - *Wendola

[edit] Corporate ties

Someone should also describe the exact nature of TWoP's corporate relationship with Y! 12.46.6.69 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I think the new criticism section is very, very careful and neutral. I tried my best to be fair when adding it, and the people who edited it after me made it clearer and even more non-confrontational. I see that the section's neutrality is in dispute, but I don't think it should be-- the criticism section walks on eggshells to just point out an alternative view of TWoP that a share of people hold. Hopefully it can stay.

I've removed the non-neutrality warning for now; please see the above criticism section on this page for discussion. I think it pretty fairly discusses the critical opinion now without seeming to espouse it. Qaqaq 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym pronunciation

Adding the pronunciation of the acronym to the first line of the article seems quite silly to me. Yes, I know it's in the site FAQ - does that really matter? It's an acronym, people will pronounce it the way they want to anyway. Some will spell it out, some will pronounce it with their local accent, some will twist themselves into verbal contortions to try and follow the "official" pronunciation. Most, however, won't care at all, and I think that's the one Wikipedia should follow. I reverted an earlier "alternative" pronunciation back to the "official" one not so long ago, but now I'm of the opinion that it should be deleted altogether. Comments? Orpheus 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that addressing the naming convention on this page to be unnecessary. Additionally, just because there exists an official way of pronouncing this acronym, does not necessairly present how it is generally pronounced. Unless there is some research suggesting what the trend is, we shaln't know, and I'm not convinced it's worth mentioning here even if we did. leontes 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, since I'm the one who reverted the deletion. If no one cared about what the official pronunciation was, it wouldn't be such a frequently asked question at the site. And it does seem like one of the most obvious first questions a new reader might have. Given that it's a common concern, and it has an official answer, and it eats up almost no space in the article, I really don't see the problem here. (Verbal contortions? How is it harder than "twig" or "tweet"?) Qaqaq 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a New Zealand accent, and I pronounce it very differently to what's given in the FAQ. Trying to pronounce it that way sounds and feels odd to me. It's like pronouncing "dance" to rhyme with "ants" - I have great difficulty doing so. All of this is, of course, completely irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article that isn't about comparative linguistics. I would suggest that a better wording for the TWoP FAQ is "How do the site founders pronounce the acronym", which is, in my opinion, definitely non-encyclopaedia material (except perhaps as trivia). Incidentally, your example shows this in action - an Australian would pronounce those words as though they rhymed, whereas a New Zealander would have difficulty doing so. Therefore, putting pronunciation information in the Twig article is not overly helpful. Putting pronunciation information about an acronym is even less useful.

My summarised point is that I don't think Wikipedia should take a stance on pronunciation of acronyms, because it varies too much from person to person anyway, and isn't relevant to the subject at hand. Orpheus 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I offer this forum link posted by an anonymous editor as evidence that this issue is guaranteed to end up on WP:LAME. Orpheus 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That link clearly shows that it's the definitive pronunciation; scroll down a bit in that thread and you'll actually see the words "definitive pronunciation", posted by one of the administrators of the site. That said, I honestly don't care much; I wasn't the person who originally added the pronunciation, and have mainly been correcting people who have added unofficial pronunciations to this page. I readded it after the deletion because I didn't, and still don't, see any good reason why it should be deleted -- many Wiki articles include official pronunciations where it might be unclear, and I don't understand the argument that any pronunciation is as valid as the stated official one. If it is removed again, however, I won't readd it; it just doesn't seem that important. Qaqaq 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the pronunciation, but in the External Links section I've added a link to the forum discussion posted above. Orpheus 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this approach, seemed odd having it prominetly feautured in the intro paragraph. leontes 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insistence on userIDs

It is not clear why this article insists on referring to the owners and editors of the site by their userIDs rather than their actual names (e.g., Wing Chun is Tara Ariano and Glark is her husband, David T. Cole, as is publicly known). – joeclark 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be useful information to add - go for it. Orpheus 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have since added those names next to their userIDs. --Beeracuda 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is their merchandise legal?

The article makes it sound like everyone can open up a site and just sell merchandise of TV shows. Selling cups and t-shirts with the name of the site is one thing, but how can they sell merchandise that mentions names or themes of TV shows? Only the TV networks can sell such things.

Then again, the article says they were bought by NBC. So could it be they only sell NBC merchandise and also only started doing so after they were bought by NBC? If this is the case, the article should state so clearly. -Lwc4life 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TWoP doesn't sell merchandise. Glark Ware sells merchandise. Glark Ware wasn't bought out. It's legal. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My question is applied to him then. How can a private person sell

Though various series have been referenced in the Now or Never line, among the most frequently noted are Alias, with four related shirts and two thingee items; and Veronica Mars and The Simpsons, with three related shirts each. Multiple selections have also been produced relating to Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, House, and Lost.

-Lwc4life 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You never saw the shirts, I take it. The Veronica Mars ones were 'NHS' with a pirate on the front, which implied, but did not explicitly state, Neptune High. The other one is a brown shirt with a dog that says 'Always take backup.' While, to any astute fan, these are direct shout outs, they are not claiming to be Veronica Mars shirts. The key words here are 'related' and 'referenced'. It's legal to sell things related to a show, so long as you're not violating the copywrite, which does not include everything related to a show. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a review or up-date?

Hi. I think it may be time to examine TWoP to see how it has changed since the Bravo take-over. Despite assurances that nothing would change at the site, this has not been my experience there. I considered myself a long-time time member and was in good standing (two complaints about my posting on the forums in five years isn't such a terrible record, is it?) but have been banned from the site since the new management installed its own moderators a couple weeks ago. (So you might want to take my comments as sour grapes!) It might be wiser to give it more time to see exactly how things settle down with Bravo running the show but it is the opinion of this former long-time user that any definition of what TWoP was before Bravo is no longer accurate. Thanks!

I agree, the new moderators (some old recappers and some not, with names like TWoP ________) need to be mentioned somehow. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TWoP HomePage.jpg

Image:TWoP HomePage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TWoP versus Survivor Sucks

So how exactly is this site more notable then Survivor Sucks? CaravaggioFan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, Survivor Sucks was never bought over by a megacorporation. But what does it matter? Both sites have articles.--122.109.133.116 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NBC and Impartiality?

When I read that TWP is owned by NBC and that the web site criticizes the networks, I wonder if the site goes easy on NBC and its shows. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's an argument that Bravo's editorial policies have made the site easier on shows across the board, but I'm not aware of anything verifiable to the level of mentioning it in the article. Townlake (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Now or Never / Glarkware to TWoP

I know there's been previous discussion about the list of Glarkware appearing in this article, but I don't understand why Glarkware is a part of this article at all. Their domain registration info is different; I get the relationship, but the sites are two separate and distinct entities. Glarkware is just an advertiser. Is there a citation anywhere that makes Glarkware a part of TWoP? (By all appearances, TWoP itself doesn't print the merch, so at minimum there appears a factual error in that section - unless I'm wrong?) Townlake (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)