Talk:Screen Junkies

Contesting Deletion of Screen Junkies

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of this page. The reason behind the deletion was "no indication of significance". I checked Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and this article is "notable" by definition of that guideline. Below I will go through the primary criteria of the notability guideline:

• Depth of coverage: This article has citations from non-primary sources. The topic even has its own IMDb page. Two, in fact. This should show significant coverage.
• Audience: Screen Junkies has over 1 million subscribers. (Edit: Nearly 5 million as of November 29, 2015, and over 1 billion views)
• Independence of sources: Four out of the five sources listed are independent of the subject.
• Illegal conduct: No known illegal conduct.

I hope for someone to reply soon. Thanks, Tal Brenev (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev

Movie Fights section

User Andrewjshick has added a large detailed section about the Movie Fights show. Though excellently detailed, this section fell afoul of WP:IINFO so I reverted it. I am, however, in the process of expanding the article majorly since it needs it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me (andrewjshick) what I should do. I don't see how this is particularly different from what I see in summaries of sporting events. Further, I am not associated with Screen Junkies, so there is no conflict of interest issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewjshick: It's up to you what you'd like to do! If you want suggestions, I'm running out of the easily findable sources that contain any real information about Honest Trailers. It's easy to find "Look a video, watch it" coverage, but anything in-depth is pretty hard to find since it's buried under all the video reposting sources. If you can find any news coverage of Honest Trailers that I haven't used and isn't just "here's a video", that would be very helpful :) Sam Walton (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, specifically, he's also looking for the "starring" at the end plus the saying that commenters ask the narrator to say in his deep voice.

Further, the bigger issue here is the removal of the Movie Fights section. Can it be put back in? Can a separate page be made? The only way anyone can see the info is if they go to @andysignore 's twitter and click a link to the old page, which in turn is static (cannot be modified). Andrewjshick (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewjshick: I think we can do something with the 'Starring', I'm just not sure what would work best right now. They're in the movie titles but not linked, which would be preferable. As for the Movie Fights section, it really wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia unfortunately. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources of information written by people independent of the subject. We should only write what these reliable sources have published; you'll notice that the Honest Trailers section now only reports what news articles have written. We do this so that readers can verify the information came from a reputable source. We also do it to filter out extraneous details; if we wrote about everything that could be deemed 'true' on Wikipedia it would be ridiculously big, so we filter by what independent reliable sources have written about. For that reason (WP:IINFO) I removed the content you had written. It's a shame, and I didn't want to remove it, because it was obvious you'd spent a long time on it, but unfortunately Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. The content is still in the history and can be accessed by clicking the date link next to the edit before I removed it (like so). You can click edit there to retrieve the source code of the page; you could move it to a dedicated Movie Fights Wiki or something, just not a Wikipedia article unfortunately. Sam Walton (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So does this mean that pages for films and TV episode descriptions should not have descriptions of anything that cannot be found in a reliable published article? Andrewjshick (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ideally. There is some scope for using primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), but the bulk of what is written should be sourced to secondary sources. Sam Walton (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I also assume that it'd be out of the question to post a link in the Screen Junkies wikipedia page to a wikia? That would be helpful, plus it'd look kinda weird if there is a detailed write-up for Honest Trailers yet no access (without guess work or accidental stumbling) to the same for Movie Fights. Especially as this took 19 hours so far to write up and will take another 4-5 hours to convert to wikia syntax. Andrewjshick (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Halting production following 2017/10 scandal?

I feel like this is more relevant to the topic "Screen Junkies" than the controversy itself (which is centered around "Defy Media"'s failure to act until it became a public scandal), and normally something like an ongoing and indefinite hiatus would belong in the lead, but I can't seem to find a reliable source to verify it.

It's obvious to anyone looking at their YouTube channels that no new videos have been uploaded since the incident, but to extrapolate from that would violate NOR. There was a tweet from Dan Murrell at 11:36 on 2017/10/17 that said No, [the channels]'re not [dead]. [...] It's been 10 days. We need time, please., but that's not even a reliable self-published/primary source for the claim that Murrell said they had temporarily ceased production (since he didn't exactly say that).

Has anyone seen anything more usable?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Honest Trailers Commentary

"Honest Trailers Commentary" should be added to the coverage of Honest Trailers as its aftershow. It should also be added to the episode list for Honest Trailers -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)