Talk:This is Jinsy

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Television: British 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. This article is supported by the British television task force.

this is 90% unnecessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.187.10 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{

When was it deleted? That user hasn't edited for quite a few months, anyway. —fetch·comms 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember when, but it has been, multiple times (look at the creator's talk page). This is a programme that has aired once-only as a pilot. The content is pure puffery, is full of irrelevant crew information and is zealously recreated as soon as it is changed.

talk) 00:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• It looks to me as if
  Wentomowameadow is in a bit of a spat with User:Mickers Blanket who may or may not be editing from an anon address. I would agree that that much of what has been added looks promotional - however some of the contents is well sourced and at least gives a hint of notability, so just to revert edits, rather than edit out the blatantly promotional material looks overzealous to me. I am not sure if this is really a notable subject - A single pilot show that has not been given a full series - However, I did see the pilot and was sufficiently intrigued to come to Wikipedia to find more about its creators and their background. I imagine that there is a compromise in here somewhere, and perhaps both parties need to step back for a while. WhaleyTim (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I know it's terribly exciting to play the mediator, but Mickers Blanket and I haven't said a single word to each other. In fact, he hasn't been around since I registered an account.

talk) 05:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please rewrite this RFC using neutral language and resubmit it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because that would make it mean something else. I could change it to "the article is pure LOVELINESS, full of FLUFFY AND NICE crew information and is PLEASINGLY recreated as soon as it is changed" but that would be a bit stupid (whoops, I mean JOYFUL). The article has been heavily pruned anyway, I wouldn't need to submit the RFC now. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has been heavily pruned, do you consider to discussion now to be ended? If so, the RFC tag could be removed.WhaleyTim (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disgree. I think it was wrong to cut out all the info about Jinsy. Many fictional shows and books have details given about them. Perhaps a seperal article which could put the info about Jinsey such as the Tesolators, views, governance etc...? I quite liked reading about the place. Robauz (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]