Talk:Centennial (miniseries)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Westerns: Television Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television task force.

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.

TV Series and novel

TV series didn't always follow the novel-in the novel a cruel Mexican Officer is tortured to death by peasants during Mexico's 1910 revolution. In the novel he merely captures peasants for slave labor in the Mexican mines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALTERNATIVE VIEW of Scream of Eagles episode: the presentation of Garrett and Wendell was informed by mid-1970s politics, specifically the rising environmental movement. However, today's approach to these issues is more nuanced, and Paul Garrett as portrayed often comes off as pedantic, cranky, and intolerant...and his continued defense of the cattle industry doesn't mesh with modern-day ecological sensibilities. Morgan Wendell, while made to be callous and calculating, nonetheless demonstrated a better understanding of how to work with business interests and keep an eye on the future. It should be noted that on the election night, Garrett got bitterly drunk, not a good sign for someone who is asking for the public trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.137 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the book and the Miniseries had a cliffhanger of who was going to be elected...would have been more interesting if the novel and miniseries had included the unwritten part of Garrett's son being a descendant of both Garret and Wendell...{See article} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.84.175 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centennial (miniseries). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centennial (miniseries). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920083648/http://www.colorado.com/city.php?id=47 to http://www.colorado.com/city.php?id=47

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

under chapter "the longhorns"

in the "hidden category" the applied conversion acre/square kilometers is 1/3 or 0.3/1 which is wrong. it should be 1/2.5 or 0.4/1 to be correct. therefore 6million acres is 24thousans square km. i myself am too drunk/dumb/old/stupid to handle WiKi-sourcery myself, as i am used to pen&ink&typex - please helpSintermerte (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 11 2024 - Regarding recent deletions of content and sources

Attempting to start a civil discussion about recent removals of content and sources, specifically these edits: [1] [2]. I see the inclusion of the content as pertinent to the mention of the actor's death during production. Would anyone else like to add their thoughts? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need overcite the article. It is unnecessary to include multiple sources that all say essentially the same thing. In this case, the sources removed do not add anything. They merely repeat what is already contained in the other sources. As far as the removed content - that unintentional on my part. I overlooked it, and I don't have an objection to its inclusion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merely added a source that was needed to support a fact (the $50k). You removed it/them as well as the content I added. I don't see the productive value in that action and here's why: As far as I could tell, none of the other sources had that factoid included until I added the one from the Santa Cruz newspaper. Overciting is policy, yes. But removing sources needed to support content that could easily be challenged is worse than overciting. If you'd like to go through each of the sources against the content to see which one has what's necessary to support all the content in that paragraph, so you can be satisfied regarding what you think is overciting, go for it. But until someone does that, so many reference numbers can look like overciting but that doesn't necessarily mean there IS overciting if each one is doing what it's supposed to do: support all the facts in the paragraph. In such a situation as this, sufficient and less clutter is worse than comprehensive, numerous, and complete. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to go through each of the sources against the content to see which one has what's necessary to support all the content in that paragraph... did that,[3] and you still reverted.[4] So it's unclear to me what your intention is/was - did you look at the change in that edit? Or did you revert assuming that it was just reapplying the original edit?[5] ButlerBlog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-applied the edit noted above[6], which accomplishes two things. First, it moves the citations to the sentences that they are supporting for text-source integrity rather than all at the end. That makes it clear what each source is supporting and makes it less likely for additional information that is unsupported to be inserted without notice. Second, it removes sources that do not add anything that isn't already covered by the other sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]