Talk:The Masked Dancer (American TV series)

re: The Masked Dancer

Moving discussion here so we have a more suitable place for discussion rather than my talk page...

Anyways, in response to Gleeanon409's latest reply: First off, "The premier year is 2020."- No, it is not. The premiere date, and even year, is currently unannounced. The official press release says nothing about it premiere this year. Second, "What Heartfox is glossing over is that they redirected this well sourced stub, then when that didn’t work, created their own stub at a new target, and replaced it with a redirect.". Actually, no. The Masked Dancer (American TV series) was created first (20:42, 7 January 2020) and The Masked Dancer (TV series) was created second (00:13, 8 January 2020). Finally, "As the Masked Dancer is one of Fox’s most successful shows launched in the last five years, and Ellen a powerhouse herself, this is likely an IAR case to thwart the TOOSOON essay.". Ellen/TMS's success (I assume you mean TMS's success as TMD has not aired yet) does not matter. I'd say SpongeBob SquarePants is a pretty successful cartoon, but as I stated to Heartfox, Kamp Koral currently does not have enough information to justify it being a standalone article. Another one that's worth looking into regarding this matter for The Masked Dancer is WP:E≠N, especially the WP:WITHIN part. Even if the information is properly sourced, it is barely enough info to warrant it being its own separate article and just have it redirect to the spin-off section.

Also as another note to add onto the "The premier year is 2020." part, the source you use for that seems to be WP:NOTRS (I could be wrong on that though), however states, "While at this time no premiere date has been announced for the upcoming series" and takes info from the press release wrong, believing that Mandel, Hayes, Hough, and Jeong will be panelists on the show, even though the official press release is just referring to them being in the segment on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Magitroopa (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for clarifying those points. However, edit-warring to enforce your POV and again accusing me of disruptive editing isn’t helping.

Why can’t the perfectly valid and reliably sourced content be even seen and worked on before the premiere date is announced? Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not myself edit warring, it is you continuing to disruptively editing after ignoring multiple warnings. When a redirect is present, you don't just continue to post the same article content below the redirect info; this is what drafts are for. Magitroopa (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I find your editing disruptive but at least you’re discussing now instead. You also didn’t answer the question. Since the article will be here sooner than not, why can’t work be done on it until the merge order is lifted? Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question, all of the information is already present at the Spin-off section of The Masked Singer (American TV series). The amount of info available does not warrant a full article at this point—that’s why I redirected it, proposed for deletion (and left a message on your talk page), and then merged it. However, you reverted all of the edits. Work can be done on it at a draft location. It’s not nearly necessary for a full article at this point. You can continue to work on it at the Spin-off subsection of The Masked Singer (American TV series) also. Heartfox (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

All that we know right now is that the series has been ordered. Yes, that’s part of the criteria for notability, but I agree that WP:WITHIN applies here. Also, it could be cancelled or not make it to air any time. There is not even a proposed air YEAR yet. In my opinion, there should at least be some scheduling information (tv season, month, etc.) available before creating an article on a TV show. Heartfox (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter about the name of the article, we can delete one of redirects (I honestly don’t care which one). I just chose (American TV series) to be more specific/so it wouldn’t have to be moved in the event another adaption of it would show up (one probably will). Heartfox (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that input. You also didn’t answer why the content can’t be visible and worked on here; since the redirect is still in place, what’s the problem?

Also the subsection of another article wouldn’t be appropriate for the summary of the content.

And the summary there already does not have all the information here, nor would it be appropriate to wedge it all in there.

And stub articles can be quite short, this is already long enough and well-sourced to be a stand alone stub.

Also, much of both your actions should be directed at *problem* content and articles. That’s the reason to blank content, not that you prefer similar content as a subsection elsewhere. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Any policy-based answer? If not I have work to do. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As I've already stated, you can feel free to create a draft and work on it there. The content is currently not enough to warrant a separate article, it is perfectly fine currently redirecting to the spin-off section on The Masked Singer (American TV series). Once again bringing WP:WITHIN into this too.

You also seem to not know or not understand how redirects work- when like in this case, the information is not enough to warrant it being a separate article, you don't continue posting the same article content below the redirect target on the page itself. Again, this is what drafts and user sandboxes are for. That information (from a draft and/or sandbox) can then replace the redirect and make it a separate article, when there is enough information on it to warrant a separate article. Magitroopa (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your lecturing is equally unhelpful as disruptive editing. You still have yet to provide any evidence that perfectly acceptable content can’t be under the redirect. Is there something somewhere that supports that idea? Preferably not another essay? Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where you're getting at... this 'lecturing' is what is explaining to you why it is just a redirect. The current content is simply not enough to justify it being a separate article, which is why it is redirected to the spin-off section. With most/all the information there, there is no need for it to be in the separate article under the redirection. It is simply not ready for mainspace. Until there is more information available/the content is ready for mainspace, it can be worked on in a draft and/or sandbox. I'm not stopping you from working on it, it's just that the article with the redirect is not the proper place to work on/edit the content. This is literally what drafts and sandbox are made/used for. Magitroopa (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We seem to not be making much progress here, but I have done a lot more reading, especially Wikipedia essays.

I’m quite aware of redirects, merging, drafts, sandboxes, and lots of other wiki ways, so repeating those speeches, or worse, improperly templating another editor, don’t really work to thwart my article building.

This article was, and is a perfectly acceptable stub, too big to be summed up somewhere else, and perfectly meeting both TOOSOON and TVSHOW.

So how long do you expect to block the article from existing? What arbitrary goalpost must be met for you to lift the gate and let it be free? It’s already met Wikipedia’s verifiable and notability guidelines, so what’s yours? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But it's not too big to be summed up somewhere else, Gleeanon409. The relevant information in the article is present in the Spin-off section of The Masked Singer (American TV series). There's no point in creating an article for a few sentences when they can be stated somewhere else. WP:WITHIN says "don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article." Until such time as the information stated would be "grossly irrelevant" to The Masked Singer (American TV series) (e.g., a cast list, criticism, etc.), it's best to keep it in the Spin-off subsection. Heartfox (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, another essay, but here goes, WITHIN states “But only a brief amount of information can be written about them, and they directly relate to a topic covered in another article.” This is not true, more than a brief amount can be written; and more than would be appropriate in The Masked Singer, or even in Ellen’s show article.

So we’ve covered verifiable, and notable, and found another essay, this one covering size, which has also been met, any actual policy reasons this article can’t exist? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's already been explained to your multiple times about why this is incorrect. The information already given in the spin-off section is really all there is to say about it at this time. There is not yet a substantial amount of info to warrant a separate article. Once more information is given out (Premiere date/year, cast/host/panelists, format, etc.), then it can be expanded into a full article. You also seem to believe all of this is to 'stop you from working on it', yet you've already been told that you can still work on it in a draft or sandbox, yet you believe you can ignore everything we say to simply bypass it all. With other examples such as Kamp Koral and The Bachelor: Listen to Your Heart (which redirects to a spin-off section properly), this is really a discussion that shouldn't be necessary in the first place and you can easily go ahead and continue working on it in either a draft or sandbox. Magitroopa (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

”The information already given in the spin-off section is really all there is to say about it at this time.” I think this is patently untrue, there is plenty more to be said and was deleted by both of you. So we have a perfectly suitable stub that was deleted despite it being verifiable and notable.

You cite IAR about adding content under the redirect, yet have not cited any actual rule that says you can’t do that. Is there any rule(s)?

And again, what exactly will it take for you to allow the article to exist, where it should be, on this article page? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I highly suggest you reread Heartfox and I's replies, because the questions you continue to ask have already been answered multiple times. There's really not more to say, it seems like you refuse to understand anything we are saying. There is not enough information available to warrant it being a separate article. As I stated, once more info such as premiere date/year, cast/host/panelists, format, etc, it can be expanded into a full article. However, the press release is simply that the show exists, DeGeneres is executive producing, and that the format was developed after segments on her show. That information is enough that it can be covered in the spin-off section on The Masked Singer page. Anything else to say is most likely WP:OR with the information not yet given out. Magitroopa (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I accept that both of you feel those are the facts, and the only facts. But I want you to realize that you both are intentionally or not, mistaken.

I hope when evidence is presented that contradicts your assertions that you’ll accept them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Please stop making this into a full article. You've been warned multiple times and continue to edit war. It is not suitable for a separate article at this current time. The series has only been announced with some information on it. No cast (panelists/host), no premiere date (or year) set, no official format given, no production timeline, production hasn't even begun, etc. Additionally, the 'Pre-production' section was filled with plenty WP:OR (Additionally the lead with the, "could premiere" info, and S4 of TMS isn't even announced). As you've been told many times already, you can feel free to continue working on it in either a sandbox or a draft article (presumably at Draft:The Masked Dancer (TV series)). Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Labelling my efforts as edit-warring or disruptive is blatantly untrue, none of them has been anything but well-intentioned. I followed TVSHOW which you sighted but that’s still not good enough. Now your accusing me of OR in the pre-production section, please explain more more detail what needs to be fixed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to go in-detail into everything that should be fixed, but to list some examples... "The Masked Dancer could premiere in Summer 2020, or mid-season in 2020-2021.", "Production will film in Los Angeles, and could begin in March or April 2020." (I do see the source used does say that, but it is not known by them when it will begin filming, should not be included).

I've asked other users about this redirect for TMD, to which I've been given example of other series: "Little Big Shots: Forever Young which only aired 6 episodes before cancellation and remains a redirect. Another example, 9-1-1: Lone Star was announced in May and remained a redirect to 9-1-1 until November."

This is all common practice and is perfectly fine. Just because it was announced, does not mean that it must immediately get a full article created for it. Please also note that Wikipedia has no deadline- there is no set time/date an article must be fully made for this, and even if there was, it certainly isn't coming up soon. Magitroopa (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, let me try explaining it this way. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and countless more that were created-and-deleted. We've dealt with countless topics of every type. One category of topic we have dealt with is things that don't exist yet. TV shows, movies, music albums, buildings, aircraft, computer games, political campaigns, products, anything and everything that can be planned or put into production before formal release. Unsurprisingly, some of those planned-things never actually reach the release stage. Unsurprisingly, we decided that articles on planned-things that never-actually-exist are pretty stupid. Unsurprisingly, we take a general approach of expecting that any generic planned-thing might turn out to be one of those things-that-never-actually-exists. But beyond that, we're an encyclopedia..... we're extremely averse to predictions and rumors and pre-release info which often changes or turns out to be wrong. See our policy page Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have a systematic aversion to anything that doesn't exist yet, and an aversion to systematically-unreliable information information about the future-thing. Sometimes we make an exception for big movies that are in active filming with heavy news coverage, but we set a rather high bar to do that. There may be some guideline somewhere explaining some threshhold for a pre-release TV show to get an article, but it would probably require a show to be in active filming as well as an abnormally high level of reporting on that production.

It is normal and correct for this topic to be a redirect at this stage. It is normal and correct for us to currently have a deliberately-brief subsection in some related article. The normal and correct thing to do is to start building a full-fledged article in our Draft space. The draft version can be page-moved out to replace the redirect if&when the show approaches actual broadcast. No one is targeting or opposing this show in particular... Wikipedia just systematically conservative about covering anything that is in the planning or pre-release stage. Alsee (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Contestants section

Currently there is an IP and now user (seemingly new account of that IP) edit warring over a contestant table. However, we should be waiting for the premiere to get closer before adding this in. We also do not currently know how many contestants there will be in this, so the user continuing to add in the table with 12 contestant rows is purely WP:OR/unsourced. Please wait for the number of contestants to be (officially) be announced before adding this table in. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An edit war is unfortunate, but I agree there's no need to have an empty table for more than one month. There's also no 12 contestant source. Heartfox (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nationality move

Not sure when, but just as a general FYI- page will need to be moved, likely to the already existing redirect The Masked Dancer (American TV series)- a UK version was announced today for late spring this year. Magitroopa (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: partially moved. No consensus to make the current article primary topic for now.

• The Masked Dancer (TV series) → The Masked Dancer (American TV series)

(closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• The Masked Dancer (TV series) → The Masked Dancer
• The Masked Dancer → The Masked Dancer (disambiguation)

– WP:TWODABS. Unreal7 (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 16:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: The Masked Dancer titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then The Masked Dancer may be deleted or will be moved to The Masked Dancer (disambiguation). and tagged with {{One other topic}} in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note 2: the recently created article, The Masked Dancer (British TV series), has been added to the dab page, so this request and my first note above have been altered to reflect the addition. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If moved deletion of the dab page makes the most sense since with only two entries a hatnote can deal with anyone looking for the film.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I think that The Masked Dancer (TV series) should be moved to The Masked Dancer (American TV series) to make way for the upcoming The Masked Dancer (British TV series). HiwilmsTalk 17:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite whatever is listed at WP:TWODABS, I'd say no- a British version was recently announced, and will be premiering later this year (spring). With that in mind, this article will likely still need to be moved so it matches up like The Masked Singer articles currently do (The Masked Singer (American TV series) / The Masked Singer (British TV series) and The Masked Dancer (American TV series) / The Masked Dancer (British TV series)). With that move needing to be done at some point, I'd say there's really no point in the proposed move if it'll just be getting moved soon yet again. (Note: this was written just before Hiwilms's comment- so yes, I would have to agree with Hiwilms...) Magitroopa (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me I hadn't heard of the British version and I think we can add that to the dab page since while there is currently not an article it will almost certainly be added relatively soon.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the nomination in its present form that would depict the American series as the primary topic moved to The Masked Dancer and the dab page moved to The Masked Dancer (disambiguation). See also... page views. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The American series is the primary topic under both criteria, highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term and with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. So this request should be granted as proposed. If over time the new British series competes well with the American series, then the subject of primary topic or lack thereof can be revisited. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The Masked Dancer (American TV series) would be more appropriate, per the upcoming British series. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Could The Masked Dancer and The Masked Dancer (TV series) both redirect to Masked Singer#Spin-off: The Masked Dancer, with a hatnote at the top directing to The Masked Dancer (film)? Idk I'm not really familiar with disambiguations. Heartfox (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to The Masked Dancer (American TV series) instead With a British series coming, the original proposed move to primary seems premature. Disambiguation between the two series is necessary though. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TWODABS are allowed and in any case this is THREEDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. I also agree with others that The Masked Dancer (American TV series) would be a better title. Narky Blert (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support alt move to The Masked Dancer (American TV series). The main article, if any, would be the franchise article and not any single version. --Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support move to The Masked Dancer (American TV series) per WP:NCTV. - Brojam (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.