Talk:The Biggest Loser Australia (Season 2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 The Biggest Loser Australia (Season 2) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments
To-do list for The Biggest Loser Australia (Season 2): edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    [edit] Racist Slurs

    "Racist slurs: A few weeks into screening the show, a user posted on the Official The Biggest Loser website that "Pati is a fat black ***", causing outrage, particularly when the comment remained on the site for over 2 hours before being removed. Many users quickly disagreed, arguing: "Does this make you feel proud? You need to get a life, this is sad, and racist, and honestly not Australian!"[34][35]"

    I have removed this from the controvery section because it has no relevence to the TV show whatsoever.

    [edit] Too Long

    Is this article too long? I've looked at all the other Biggest Loser articles, and this one, by far is the longest. Yes, it *does* have more info than the others, but isn't this overkill? Is the "Television viewing and ratings" section really needed? And what about Trivia? I don't know, I didn't want to touch anything until a concenus is reached here, but it doesn't seem there's been discussion here at all.... — hippi ippi++++ 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm probably not the one to comment as I've added all the content (and spend a long time collating the information) but will comment anyway. Yes it is longer then the other articles, but the other ones are US versions which were only screened one episode a week, and 4 times shorter. The article matches other series (such as Big Brother) in length and information. The information provided I feel is encyclopedic and are all sourced. It collates all the relevant information about the show. Some of the descriptions are a little wordy and can be condensed, but it's a TV show, it receives ratings, there are news reports and public reception, interviews, controversies, twists, show differences, filming locations cast crew. The other articles can have all of this information too. Peter 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    One way of shortening he article might be to move the table data (details and results for minor challenges, major challenges, temptations, the walk) to the list of episodes article as these are more related to what happened in the episodes. Also the ratings are a little repeated in the list of episodes, the weekly/daily rankings can be moved to the list of episodes, and the important shows (premiere, finale, highest viewed weigh-in and eliminations) can stay in the ratings and compared with previous seasons. Peter 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ohhh. The Big Brother 2006 article is way longer. Ok. Moving the table data to list of eps could work. I *would* do it, but I'm not sure what is the best way. Copy and paste the tables as they are, or rewrite in paragraph form? — « hippi ippi » 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    I guess my thought is that the content lends itself to a table which makes it easier to see, otherwise paragraph is a little harder to see at a glance because you've got to read it. I was thinking putting individual results with each week or episode on the episode listing, but that defeats the purpose of the content - It's a summary of each element (elimination, weigh-in, minor challenges, major challenges), if they are all separated into individual episodes, you can't read them together. I personally think the article is just about right, it's fairly even for each main section, it says what it has to, I've cut back all the ratings as they are in the episode listings, I've condensed the lead texts and most of the other text sections. It could do with a little more pruning, But I think it's OK as it is once the text has been made more concise. Peter 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it is too long. Articles should be informative. (123.3.29.9 10:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
    p.s. I don't know how to do this but I followed the link for The Commando 'Steve' and I don't think that is the same Steve who was on this program. Someone should check and verify this. (123.3.29.9 10:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC))


    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ausbloserlogo.jpg

    Image:Ausbloserlogo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)