Talk:Donkey Hodie (TV series)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Animation

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Article protection

Looks like this article is now fully protected. The last edit made before protection was this – IMO, this edit should be reverted after protection ends unless there is more explanation provided. FWTW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IJBall. The main reason I full-protected the article (despite one user being blocked) is that there has been no attempt to discuss any of the disputed edits here on the article talk page. If you think a particular edit should be reverted, start a section here and explain your position. Repeated reversion should never be done without explanation, or with nothing but edit summaries to explain why you are doing it. Talk pages are here to be used - to engage with other users, support your position, gain consensus, or work out a compromise. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't disagree with any of that, and I'm not a regular editor of this article. But that IP slipped in that edit before protection, and I'm making a WP:BURDEN call on it – if it's not sourced, it should be reverted. In fact, that should generally be the approach to articles on TV series and movies before they are released – either it's sourced, or it goes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the IP to come here and defend their edit. Meanwhile, you should explain exactly what specific material needs to be removed or rephrased, and why. Maybe you'll convince me. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, examining that edit...

Changing a "company" to a "distributor" in the infobox without justification is often suspicious – the 'distributor' parameter in {{Infobox television}} is a frequent vandalism target with IP's often adding unsourced info to that. When it comes to the 'distributor' parameter especially, if it's not sourced it should be removed – however, ref #5 actually supports this change, so that part is fine, and should stay (though it should be referenced in the IB).
The IP removed two cast from the infobox without explanation. However, those two are not mentioned in any of the sources. So that part of the edit looks to be OK.
In fact, none of the article's current sources mention any cast, at all!. The only thing I can find on that is this, and maybe a Facebook post I can't access without logging in. I don't seem to find anything solid on the other two being confirmed in the cast. Based on that, the 'Cast' section should be removed, and the 'starring' parameter in the infobox should be blanked out, until all of this is sourced or the show has premiered.
Finally, changing one of a production 'company' to WTTW is completely unsupported by the article's sources – in fact, "Flying Bark Productions" isn't mentioned in any sourcing either. So that should just be removed. The only things listed under 'company' should be "Fred Rogers Productions and Spiffy Pictures" (probably in that order, as 4 out of 5 sources list it this way), and nothing else (until the show premieres).

So most of the edit turned out to be correct, but part of it was definitely unjustified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the TRIBlive ref has the wrong URL – it should be: https://triblive.com/aande/movies-tv/tv-talk-new-mister-rogers-neighborhood-spin-off-debuts-in-may/ --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the point-by-point analysis. I don't see anything there so urgent that it needs to be handled immediately, and in any case some of your suggestions require new editing rather than simply a revert. Maybe the IP can come up with sourcing in the meantime. If not, how about if I ping you in 48 hours so you can come here and do what needs to be done? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really think just because an IP editor made bad edits, the article has to be fully protected. Maybe if it was semi-protected it would be fine, but going full protection on a page that will be updated regularly in the next few days isn't really fair for anyone else who are trying to make good-faith edits. kpgamingz (rant me) 23:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the problem was not IP edits; it was an edit war between auto-confirmed editors. But one of those editors has now been blocked, and if they don't come back the problem may be solved. OK, since this full protection seems to be a problem to three different people, I will lift it. I will also watch the article, and if it still has major enough problems to need protection I will deal with it as seems necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empty refs

@Kp2016rockin: you've added refs named "The Futon Critic" and "Zap2it", but gave them no definition. Could you please fill those in? Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]