Talk:The Real Housewives of New Jersey/Archive 1

Dina Manzo

If it is stated on the page that Dina Manzo has left the show then she should not be listed on the side box list of current cast members. She should be removed or added to a list of past members crazzycorbe (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed WP:COPVIO and WP:NOTPROMO violation

I recently made this edit to remove text that was an unambiguous WP:COPVIO and WP:NOTPROMO violation. Please see evidence here of duplication of copyrighted material.

I plan to review the rest of the article in the near future and excise other violations, if found. I am happy to discuss this issue. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also made this edit to remove text that was an unambiguous WP:COPVIO and WP:NOTPROMO violation. Please see evidence here of duplication of copyrighted material. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Season 4

I'm opening a topic for Season 4 and the general condition of this page. There has been a lot of vandalism and nonsense but also a lot of GREAT WORK done with this article. Please help me make this a great page! The disruptors and deleters have been delt-with by Admin.♥ so-far. And yeah if you are going to mention Kim G you should have cousin Rosie in there too.68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Indented line68.37.29.229 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A question has come-up about capitalizing the "H" in "housewives/housewife". Does anyone want to vote or have a discussion about this? Personally, my preference is to use the capital "H", in any instance referring to the women who are considered an "official" "Housewife", and/or if the word "Housewife" is being used to refer-back to the title of the show.68.37.29.229 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Example. The Housewives and their families went down the shore. (I'm from NJ and yes "down the shore" is correct)...........as-opposed to "The housewives and their families went down the shore." I could be wrong about this so it is open for discussion.68.37.29.229 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 68.37.29.229 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the BravoTv.com website uses the capital "H" when referring to the women. (from BravoTv.com)"...During last Sunday’s episode, we gathered the best fan comments as well as messages from the show’s producers and even the Housewives themselves, and you’ll see them all tonight at 10/9c when we air our “Social Edition” of Sunday’s episode...."68.37.29.229 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 68.37.29.229 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Can it be established that the word is a proper noun? Does the production ever refer to the housewives on the show with the capital "H"? If not, do any reliable, secondary sources do so? If either can be produced, then yeah, we can establish it as a proper noun. If not, then it should be assumed to be a common noun. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes-that bold quote above is taken directly from Bravotv.com. There are numerous secondary sources as well. It is a little tricky-though, almost has to be decided on a use-by-use instance? I usually have to ask myself a couple questions, "Am I referring to a "Housewife"-one of the cast-members, or a "housewife", in general, or any specific "housewife"?....that's why using the specific rules that you pointed-out to me suggest that it could be correctly capitalized as a proper noun. I'm trying to think of other examples that this could be compared-to. Members of a team? In any event, "Housewife"-is also considered a title in this case and you may well be aware that some of the vandalism to the article has been caused by persons trying to claim, "Housewife"-status, for cast-members who do not have a right to that title. (although they could correctly be called, "housewife"-lol) Thank-you for giving this article your attention.:)68.37.29.229 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Signature/Title-Card Quotations

I saw this raised on WP:ANI, and am weighing in here as an editor: the quotes absolutely must go. They are not encyclopedic. Selecting a few quotes is original research, which is not allowed. The make the article read like a fan book. At a bare minimum, you would need to show that an independent reliable source has chosen these as particularly important quotes; then you would need to demonstrate that the quotes are needed to for an encyclopedic overview of the topic--that is, that they aren't just here for decoration. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK-YOU! for attending to this. But, you are incorrect. AND-it is not only The Real Housewives of NJ page that this has been done-to. 1st of all, we need to STOP referring to the material that has been deleted as, "Quotes", they are not quotes, they are more like signature slogans. They have importance all of their own. I am going to start moving parts of the discussion over here. To answer what you have said, that HAS been DONE already and explained repeatedly. So I am going to try and find the discussion and move it here24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I brought this over from the incident board:<[1]> 24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ip, you are wrong. Slogans, quotes, signatures, whatever you want to call it they do not belong here--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop copying masses of discussion from other places, it is not how we do things and it achieves nothing that a simple link does not, paticularly since you're just block copying it and losing all links and formatting. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(yes i have posted this elsewhere and i am posting it here as well) Quotes? Not really. The "quotes" are not really quotes. They have been chosen as signature-statements for each character and they are delivered in the opening sequence of each episode. Again, all anyone has to do to research the importance of the "quotes" is to paste any of the deleted quotes into a search-engine, (Google), and pages upon pages will be returned. The, "quotes"<----(misnomer), are, again, anticipated every season. They, (the misnamed, "quotes"), are referred-to and speculated-about in media and online. Wikipedia has been the only source of the signature-statements, assembled in such an easy-to-find fashion. ALL-sourceble, referenced, important, etc. I am sorry that there is a misunderstanding about the importance of the siggy-lines, but that is the consequence of editors who are not familiar with the material that is being discarded. If you need any more info. that would help you to comprehend what is really going-on here please let me know but I am getting frustrated by the way that this is being handled.24.0.133.234 (talk)24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you have said here has any merit whatsoever. Regardless of what you want to call them, little snippets of text from the show are not encyclopedic content. The fact that you can find them on google is of little relevance, you can google practically any line from any show and get plenty of results. You have so far given no reasons at all as to why they belong beyond a claim that they are important, with no evidence at all to back that up.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)That explanation (by 24.0.133.235) is valuable, because it actually verifies that the "signatures" are not allowed. What you're describing is basically an unformatted pull quote. We don't do that. We're an encyclopedia. Lines like that are there to "show off" a particular character, or to make the text more "interesting". We are not here for that purpose. Our job is to provide a factual summary of this television show. If a particular quotation is very important and has been discussed in reliable sources, then put those quotations in running text and, more importantly, tell us what the reliable sources have said. I am now going to remove those "signatures"; do not reintroduce them in this manner. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No! it is not little snips of text. And not exactly signatures either! In TV-lingo they could be called opening title-card hero-shot remarks. I hope that clarifies it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC) NOTICE to all interested parties this has been moved to dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Real_Housewives_of_XYZ24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Also, I have-to state the fact that I find the custom of editors using the term "we" as-in "we don't do this or that her, (on Wikipedia), to be offensive. I know that I am speaking for more than just myself here but I am not going-to elect myself as spokes-person of Wikipedia. As-in, We do not allow the bla bla bla bla bla24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, can you please read WP:TALK to see how to properly format and sign your comments. Your comments are all bunched together and it's quite difficult to follow conversations you're participating in because of that. All that said, I suggest you read WP:TVMOS which is a great guideline to use when one is writing television show articles (of which I do quite a bit). A section of that guideline, "Things to Avoid", deals with these quotes or "hot shots" or whatever you choose to call them. When you get down to it, these random, out of context quotes are basically just taglines or pull quotes which should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a fansite nor is this a site where editors need to include snappy, out of context quotes to get readers' attention. You may think it looks interesting but it looks amateurish. These snippets of dialog taken from God knows where do not help readers understand why the show is notable. That's the goal here - to cover topics that are notable and present them in an encyclopedic manner. Editors should and cannot include random bits of fun information just because they like it. I like a lot of things but they don't always belong in the context of an encyclopedia. The fact that all these quotes are totally unsourced is also a problem. There should not be a quote any where on this site given by living person that is not reliably sourced. It does not matter if one can Google a quote and find it somewhere. A Google hit proves nothing except that whatever you're searching for is on Google somewhere. I can Google my own name come up with some hits but that doesn't mean there should be an article about me here. Throughout this entire conversation, you have not cited one policy that supports your opinion to keep this content. All you keep saying is that you like this information and everyone else who disagrees is wrong. Correcting people who (correctly) call these snippets of text as quotes doesn't anything. They are in fact quotes because someone said them and they are presented as such. I don't care what people in the "TV biz" call them or use them for - they're quotes. Unsourced, random quotes presented for no significant reason. The fact that you cannot come up with one policy to support your inclusion of this information should be a pretty big indication that you may be on the wrong track and should familiarize yourself with the policies of this site. I suggest you start with WP:DISCRIMINATE to get a grasp on what should and should not be included in articles. Lastly, I'm fairly certain no one here intended to offend you by using the pronoun "we" in the context of describing the majority of editors. It's simply shorthand for referring to the community of editors here who write articles and attempt to make sure policy is followed - it's not meant to be clique-ish or anything of that nature. You're putting far too much thought into someone's usage of that word. If you're offended by that, I don't know what to tell you except to get a thicker skin because there are far more offensive things in the world than someone using the word "we" when describing a group of people who do the same thing. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been properly signing almost all of my remarks! Sorry to tell you but, when you state that we are discussing "random" hot-shots or quotes/whatever they are called, you are one hundred per cent incorrect. They were not random. They were listed chronologically and exactly as they were said by each character.(not long-enough to be a COPYVIO so don't worry about that). There may be a better way to format them or list them to avoid this problem in the future? Did you know that this topic has moved to dispute? There is a link there to a very short youtube that shows exactly what these things are btw. I never said that I like the info. ha ha. I think that I agreed with the person who commented on the content. Standing alone the statements are stupid, but they are what they are whatever anyone wants to call them-(but I don't think that calling them quotes is a good idea to avoid confusion). You have posted a lot of things here that you are saying that I said but I did not! Sorry that you don't understand.I have stated policy. Assume Good faith. Also pointing-out the error of policy such-as, "quote-policy"-that does not apply in this case. Also from the 5 rules of Wikipedia that this material is very much like an almanac.I put some thought into editors who use the word "we" when they could speak for themselves. I have a "we" position on this as well, but I am choosing to post in the singular 1st person to avoid the implication that I have an army of editors behind me since that would be a little intimidating. Again-the items are most certainly not unsourced. They are over-sourced if anything. So many sources that the easiest way to source it is to point to the youtube link like I did on the DR board. Is there a policy of using the same source 20 or more times for the almost same topic? Or just leaving something unsourced or defining it or formatting it differently? Since you are still calling this "random" I have no choice to but to understand that you misunderstand the problem-(like many other people but that does not mean that I am incorrect). If you think that I am incorrect about this random business could you please explain further how the topic could be considered random in any way? It was categorized and cataloged in an almanac-like, encyclopaedic way from what anyone who had ever seen it could see, but maybe there needs to be some format or title-change to the info. (and we ARE talking about numerous pages and sections) to present the info. in a way that would explain it to someone who has not seen the show could understand especially to avoid future deletion of the work. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

PROBLEM with Deleting Signature/Siggy-"quotes"

In the interest of trying to keep the topic in one place, to obviously avoid having to repeat the same statements ad nausea, because there is a comprehension problem, I posted clips of this discussion as posted elsewhere. It has been DELETED four times. This is I guess, a big joke to the trolls who now run Wikipedia. (and yes I say, "run" because they are referring to themselves as "we" and indicating that they speak for Wikipedia). IN any event---THIS is my most recent attempt to post the discussion HERE.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a little more of the nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=53693647724.0.133.234 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Pertaining-to the topic of repeated deleting of The Real Housewives Signature "quotes"---"New York City is my playground" etc. The sigs were a valuable resource ONLY to be found for easy reference here on Wikipedia but there has been an edit-war going-on on ALL Real Housewives pages where people who apparently want people to believe that they are deleting "random"-quotes from the series.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Two comments. 1) The only comprehension problem is yours. 2) Instead of badly pasting massive blocks of content from elsewhere, which just makes a mess, why not do as I have already suggested and simply link to it. That keeps everything nice and tidy, instead of having multiple different conversations crammed into one incoherent place--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As you already know, this is now a dispute, but to answer that question it is because obviously I have been repeating the same thing over & over. AND--I don't need to have all of those windows open in my browser, plus, in case you do not know, having the topic in one place facilitates a conversation about the topic.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Jac16888,24.0.133.234 ,Qwyrxian,Mike Rosoft,SineBot, and all others interested. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I have requested dispute resolution. Thank-you for giving this your attention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in keeping a centralized discussion, stop making additional sections about the same topic. Most of us are of relatively normal intelligence and can follow a conversation from one place to another. There are a total of four people commenting on this - since no one else has indicated that they're confused, take that a sign that we understand what's going on. And if you don't want to repeat yourself - don't. We all get the gist of your argument. Just because some of us don't agree does not mean we're lost or confused. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I have insulted anyone's intelligence but I have been asked the same questions repeatedly. There is either a lack of understanding about the topic-or trolling, and although I have tried to direct the topic to one place, that has failed repeatedly as well. And yes I am going to say, repeatedly, again, I already posted this, answered that when someone involved in this discussion asks a question that has already been answered. If you understand the topic-that's great. Other people here have indicated that they do not by requesting the same info. that has already been given. And it is easier for me to say, "asked/answered already" and answer it again than it is to go find the link to where it has already been asked and answered.24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing where anyone has asked the same questions repeatedly or how your attempts to direct the topic in one place has failed. You're not getting the feedback you want which you're attributing to others misunderstanding your plight. Since my patience is already wearing thin, I'm going to start an RfC myself. Further comments about the quotes can be made there. That will run of 30 days in order to reach a proper consensus. Depending on the consensus, changes will be implemented or the article will be left alone. Please do not start another section regarding this topic even if it is to explain how you don't want to repeat yourself. We all get it. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Do you realize that you have made contradictory statements? You say that you have seen this discussion all over the place, and then you say that you have not seen what was posted (more than once) which is it? Or both? I'm confused by your statements24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of various quotes

The following discussion 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.

---

In the past few days, there has been a disagreement about whether to include various stand-alone quotes throughout this article. To my understanding, Jac16888 removed the various quotes that are featured at the beginning of the mini-bios of the cast members of this series on the basis that they are "rubbish". (S)he was reverted by User:24.0.133.234 shortly thereafter. A discussion was started in an above section by Qwyrxian but my spidey sense is telling me that an informal discussion probably is not going to work for various reason. As I can't find any policy based reason to include these quotes, I propose that they be removed per WP:DISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:LONGQUOTE, and to a lesser degree WP:QUOTEFARM. Further, each quote is unsourced and taken out of context. Even if the quotes could be sourced, this is the kind of fancruft-y and "it's interesting" editing style that should be avoided - especially in articles dealing with pop culture topics which are already a magnet for people who think every bit of trivia should be included on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT. I think a better alternative is to remove them from this article (per my reasoning above) and include these on Wikiquote. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

They are not various. They were chronologically listed title-card-opening-statements. The reason that it is incorrect to refer to the words as "various" is because they were what was used, in the order that they were used. Not a variety of quotations or statements or words. Correct they were presented in quotation marks, because they were taken-from what someone said. But that was not and is not the intent or reason for the items being included.24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Although this discussion has been moved to dispute I have no problem answering these questions to your satisfaction here. Thank-you for requesting further assistance.24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry to keep saying what the "things"-are not. I do realize that it is easier to understand what something "is" and providing policy in this spot is fine with me and actually where this topic, or part of this topic belonged in the 1st place. I am going to go find that youtube link from the dispute page since that is what we are discussing.24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The deleted material was certainly not "stand-alone" items. They don't even make much sense on their own and are much better suited to an encyclopaedic format that deals with the topic, The Real Housewives of....24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSGa30PcDPE 24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be caught up in semantics about what these "things" should be called. That's really the least relevant point in all of this. You can call them ancient texts from the Gods for all I care, why should these words with quotation marks be included here? Why should these words with quotation marks that were taken from the opening credits in sequential order be included in this or other Real Housewives articles? What encyclopedic value do they add to this article? These are the questions you should be asking yourself and attempting to explain to others instead of harping on the "these aren't quotes" part. And yes, these are stand-alone/random quotes - anyone can look at the text and see something that says, "If you're gonna mess with my family, you're messin' with me." followed by "Life is about change. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches" and conclude that the two sentences are unrelated and random. Is there proceeding or following text that further explains these sound bytes? Nope, just a mini-bio about the person who said the words. Encyclopedic article should not try to recreate the opening sequence of a television show in text form. That's all this is - a collection of written sound bytes included for no reason whatsoever. Pinkadelica^♣ 10:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"A "discriminate collection of information" does not violate the policy." Thus, the hoarding of information WP:DISCRIMINATE mentioned above does not apply. It qualifies precisely as a discriminate collection of information.

Is it too trivial? Or trivia-not exactly, it is not trivial enough to be globally categorized as trivia although some of the items taken separately could be considered trivia questions or answers . No I would disagree although that is a valid question.
Move it to WikiQuotes--I looked there and I don't see how the vast amount of info. that is subject to deletion would fit-in there. IF the info, and we are talking about all of the shows, was moved there (but where I do not see), could or would a link to the items be on the main-page for the shows, (where it is currently or subject to deletion)? The show pages are really not "too" long at this point, so would a link to another page just be like a goose-chase if there was an appropriate place to put the material? I would not dispute moving it there IF there is a place for it to remain somewhat intact/ and accessible.

WHY I think the material should be included:
WP:PRESERVE On preserving information: "Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts." (that has been occurring with this info.)and "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" (since we are talking about multiple shows and sections I agree)

WP:IAR it is possible that this material may be an exception at this point

WP:DELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT

WP:FIVEPILLARS 1)-"It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias almanacs, and gazetteers"(check) Also "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."

WP:SOURCE "...the information comes from a reliable source"-the main source in this case is Bravo television or the television show/episodes themselves.

It is most definitely not WP:NOR. Although there probably has been vandalism, the items can be verified. But maybe they should be protected?

Behaviors that have occurred here: I am sorry for any of these that I have done but I have maintained trying to discuss this from the very beginning:

WP:TEND

WP:DISRUPT

WP:ICANTHEARYOU

I have no choice but to submit to a consensus and I agree that a consensus should be reached here even-if the decision is to leave the info. out.or re-format it although it is not just this page it is all of the The Real Housewives pages. Even-though I think that is not the correct choice. What I do not agree-to is a consensus that is not based on the topic or based-on a misunderstanding of what exactly is being deleted. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pinkadelica, I'd like to ask that you remove the RfC tag. 24 already opened a discussion at WP:DRN, and we really shouldn't have two different dispute resolution processes going on at the same time. Alternatively, if 24 is willing, we can close the DRN, and let this RfC run. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it here since there is a better likelihood of a neutral 3rd party coming-along but if it is moved I reserve the right to move some of this over there.24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
To answer" And yes, these are stand-alone/random quotes - anyone can look at the text and see something that says, "If you're gonna mess with my family, you're messin' with me." followed by "Life is about change. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches" and conclude that the two sentences are unrelated and random. Is there proceeding or following text that further explains these sound bytes? Nope, just a mini-bio about the person who said the words.
No. Again and I am sorry that you apparently do not understand the significance here, "If you're gonna mess with my family..." was said by Caroline Manzo in Season 1-(as noted), and the next season's remark which was listed in order was her signature/hero-comment "Life is about change". To further point-out the relevance, the 2nd remark alluded to the entire following season's "Theme" for Caroline Manzo's character and her "change of life"-storyline/plot. Also-there has been a long-standing convention of bolding each character's current or most-recent siggy/whatever it is24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
THIS:

Caroline Manzo

Main article: Caroline Manzo

(Season 1 – present)

"If you're gonna mess with my family, you're messin' with me." (Season 1 – Season 2)

"Life is about change. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches." (Season 3)

"Life is short. I have no time for drama." (Season 4)
24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about the DRN. I'll close this and the discussion can take place there. Pinkadelica^♣ 12:27, 7 February 2013 (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.

Attention-there is a dispute about material being removed from ALL The Real Housewives

there is a dispute about all of The real Housewives being discussed at [[2]][[3]]24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Objection to DRN being closed but

I am objecting to everything about the DRN that was done for the deletion of 128 separate and individual items plus additional info.
In particular, this is in reference to the matter of the episode-opener "introductory statements" ie:
Camille Grammer "It's time for me to come out of my husband's shadow and shine." (Season 1)
"Diamonds aren't a girl's best friend, freedom is." (Season 2)
Yolanda Foster
"I like to have fun, but I don't play games." (Season 3)
Brandi Glanville
"Money doesn't give you class, it just gives you money." (Season 3)
Lisa Vanderpump
"In Beverly Hills, it's who you know, and I know everyone." (Season 1)
"Life in Beverly Hills is a game and I make the rules." (Season 2)
"Life isn't all diamonds and rosé, but it should be." (Season 3)
...and so on.
For anyone landing here on The Real Housewives of New Jersey topic talk-page, this was a franchise-wide edit that occurred done by one editor. (ALL of the "The Real Housewives of..." were (to use the word edit would not really describe it). In all, 128 "quotes" were removed. from Wikipedia.
The DRN was closed despite non-agreement of all parties. The editors and admin. involved exhibited extreme ignorance of the subject matter being discussed and a refusal to educate themselves as-to the importance of the material remaining on Wikipedia. Of course no attention was given to the abuses by admin. or any of the wrong behaviors exhibited by many of the editors who were involved.
If you are reading this and you are concerned about the material, one thing that you could do that would be helpful is to leave here your definition of exactly what the "quotes"-are as far as a resource that should remain on Wikipedia. Title-Opening segment/introductory statements.....I'm sorry to say that I am ignorant about exactly what the little snippets should correctly be called, but for the purposes of this problem, simply calling them "quotes", caused a problem.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The only person not in agreement was you - because of your complete refusal to accept what you're being told. You can bleat about your imagined "admin abuses" as much as you like, nobody cares. The content is gone and consensus is that it stays gone, end of story. --Jac16888 ^Talk 22:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This IP has gone far far beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There's not a single editor who supported him at any of the three different locations he took up the fight, and this is over. If I weren't involved here, I'd hat this whole section since it seems to be just another way for the IP to post these quotes on a Real Housewives Wikipedia page somewhere. The horse is long dead, gentlemen. Let's move on. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 24. If you want to pursue this further...I think your only venue is WP:ARBCOM. Alternatively, I guess you could start a discussion at WP:Village pump (proposals) to see if you can get community wide consensus to change part of Wikipedia's mission. But there's nothing more to discuss here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I happen to think that at some point, someone, maybe one of the (possibly more than 128 different helpful editors)editors who has been helping to work on this topic, maybe someone who stops-in for verification of their facts...will be interested in what exactly happened to the deleted items. Maybe someone who sees this talk page will actually be able to explain the significance of what was deleted. You can spam this talk page all you want but I will continue to complain about this here and maybe on the other The Real Housewives of...pages where the same thing was done.Too-da-loo!24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny that the mission of Wikipedia is brought up. http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/What-is-Wikipedias-mission-statement Without pasting exactly what is said here, the info. that was deleted serves that mission statement on every point. As for (incorrect) arguments that the material was, "pull-quotes", and some of the other oft-repeated objections which were also wrong, (but that didn't stop anyone from raising the same indisputably wrong short-cuts/arguments over and over)..."A "collection"-yep. Yes, yes, and yes. Five times yes for the "5" whatevers.check.check.check.... WikiQuotes? Unlike other people who were involved in this discussion-I looked at that idea. I looked on WikiQuotes, and I could not find a category where the deleted opening-sequence-character-introductions (not random "quotes"), would fit. No real constructive suggestions like maybe re-assembling/re-labeling the info. as stubs of some kind.
Nope. Just the same unhelpful and incorrect objections because ultimately the quotes sound so stupid I guess. I never said that they were not ridiculous (the words that were said) or somewhat "garbagey"-when taken out-of-context. But that is exactly why in my opinion the items made some kind of sense where they were and how they were presented. Although I also have admitted that there is/was a very strong possibility that someone who is ignorant to the value of the statements could make the same mistake in the future and that some kind of protected change be made if only to change the labeling.
I also agreed to source, re-source, and re-re-source, with the question of how much is too much and my question about could the same source be used for ALL of the 128 or so statements that were deleted if "sourcing" was the big problem? The items in question have been used multiple times in many mainstream media as content, and often in the title of articles. The statements have been parodied as I sourced in the DRN.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that if you do not follow dispute resolution procedures properly, and instead just continue to edit tendentiously here on this talk page, I will request that you be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am responding to comments on the talk page. If the comments are related to the topic, I have a few things to say. I would suggest that questions and comments posted here try to remain germane to The Real Housewives of New Jersey and editing or whatever is appropriate to be discussed on this page although I wouldn't want to tell anyone what they can and cannot do.If I am blocked it will be because I am not doing anything wrong by talking on this talk page but an effort to disrupt productive conversation about the state of television shows on Wikipedia(in my opinion). And the last time that I checked, opinions are allowed here
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are certainly allowed, but you need to realize that you've voiced your opinion already here, at ANI, and also at the DR board, and you've failed to get even a single other editor to agree with you. You're beating a WP:DEADHORSE, and at a certain point people are just going to stop responding to you because the point has already been made. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know that my point was made right when this actually happened. That is why I have so much to say about this. Just because no one seems to agree with me does not mean that I'm wrong. That's fine if people stop responding. Its fine if this entire convo gets deleted like a lot of the other garbage. I will still want to leave a mention of what happened to the items that were deleted because I am of the opinion that someone will come by and wonder what happened and to The Real Housewives introductory statements and it should not be hidden in some teeny-tiny history/edit page.
I have a question about tendentiously. Since it has been mentioned here-Would this actually apply to talk pages? I did look at that and it makes perfect sense that tendentiously could be a problem as far as articles are concerned and please excuse me if this is incorrect, I really did think that the talk page was where an editor-(IP or not), could discuss their opinions or POV? I actually was under the impression that that was in some respect what the talk pages were for! If i have made a complete error with that. Then perhaps I am the one who has a serious learning disability when it comes to the meaning of the words in the English language? If so-I am sorry about that!
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to leave yet another section about this matter. The previous four sections of this talk page all deal with the removal of the quotes. There's nothing more to say about it. Dayewalker (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if this particular section were to be deleted, I would like to reserve the right to keep my original section-opener. I really do not understand what it is about seeing those "quotes" that apparently is problematic. The reason why I posted a few of them, was that keeping them together as a group illustrates for people who are more familiar with The Real Housewives, exactly what was deleted instead-of referring to it as you-know-whats.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying you started this section to "reserve the right" to post those quotes here to preserve them? Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? No. to invite anyone who has something constructive to say about the material or who has suggestions about making a stub. or changing it so that it would not be subject to deletion again. Also since quite a few people worked on it, it has occurred to me that at some point they may want to know what happened.
Also-it is quite possible that someone could start re-posting the items as they have already done, and I was trying to prevent all of the work from being discarded, but while I put some effort into that undoing and re-posting it myself, that was a waste of my time so I wouldn't want them to start over again only to have it all declared, "rubbish"-we don't allow quotes. and, Oh-what? There are 128 or so of these that editors have been collecting, oh-I'll just get rid of all of it across the entire franchise and when 5 minutes later someone comes by and politely asks that the matter be discussed then to have people throw shortcuts at them that they claim proves that the material doesn't belong, but then when someone like myself who thought that they understood the English language,.......looks at those "objections", like, "indiscriminate", and they see that the assemblage of information is/was actually the complete opposite of "indiscriminate", and that "discriminate" material is perfectly acceptable....that they may want to think twice before taking the time to do that.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
And to answer my own question which I looked-up because I sincerely did not know, I suppose that comments that are posted on a talk page, especially comments which are unrelated to the topic of the main article, could be considered tendentiouslythe link that was provided speaks directly to, articles and their titles (quote)" Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding verifiability and the neutral point of view.". That is pretty clear but it leaves talk pages out of it.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages cannot contain WP:BLP violations, etc., but they are not held to the exact same standards as articles. It's not tendentious editing when someone posts about unrelated topics on a talk page - it's just off topic posting that is typically deleted. Talk pages are for discussing article content (not the topic itself) or improvement, not for documenting why something was removed. They're also not here for the purpose of retaining removed material for posterity because someone might get confused over its removal. If one of the supposed 128 people who have edited the article since its inception come back and get totally confused, they can go to the article history or this talk page and see why it was removed - it's all pretty clear in both locations. It seems like you want to retain the information here on the off-chance that someone will come along and agree with you thus proving the rest of us were wrong and the content will go back in. That, IMO, is an attempt to game the whole dispute process. You had your say as did the rest of the editors that participated. You don't get to keep discussing something over and over until you get your way. If someone else wants to revisit the removal or weigh in, they can open up a discussion on their own. Perhaps consensus will change at that point. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point I am trying to move on from the original keep or delete question so that is not the point of anything that I am posting here. I am trying to discuss The Real Housewives of New Jersey and the other The Real Housewives pages, as it relates to the information that was deleted yes, for different reasons which I have stated. I have pretty much conceded to the dispute being finished but it was suddenly closed in a manner that I felt was incorrect that is why I mentioned it here. But the entire intent for this section was not to comment on the DRN. And yes I was trying to summarize or recap some of the non-productive ways that this has already been handled to try and eliminate those problems. And I don't know why I would not be allowed to keep discussing it if by "it" you mean the information that was deleted and what could possibly be done with it to make it fit back in the articles or somewhere else. That doesn't really make any sense to me. The information itself is valid and pertains to the topics. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the removed info. is valuable info. and that it was assembled and posted on The Real Housewives of New Jersey and other Real Housewives shows article pages for good reasons. My solution to the problem of admitting the information at this time, is to have a sub-category with a heading-(located within each character's sub-category) that more correctly identifies the items as the episode-opening introductory statements. Annotations discriminating between current and past "mission/introductory statements" or however they should best be defined, should also be continued in my opinion but it is possible that a template for the items be created rather-than the way it was previously done. There is also a problem with sourcing the items. If all of the items are to be included as a sub-category, with the understanding that they are there for a reason that pertains to the topic, is it necessary to completely source each individual, (128+) statement, or only highlight and source the more notable ones?24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much all of what you just said is completely meaningless, with one exception, which answers a lot as it identifies the misconception that led you to start this gigantic waste ot time. You believe the removed info is valuable. It is not.--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That is my main problem here. When I see statements saying that the material is "rubbish",not valuable and merely "quotes", I immediately think that someone with that opinion does not know what they are talking-about. I am not the one who posted the info, in the 1st place, the over 128 statements plus season info. was added by various editors. But I am thinking that every editor who did that considered the "value" of the info.
Also, because I personally have used the Wikipedia articles as reference when fact-checking The Real Housewives of...info. and many mainstream media such as The New York Times has utilized the "quotes"/deleted material, in their articles, with some media using the deleted info. as titles of their pieces. And parodies of the introductory statements/"quotes", have been found,....well-I just disagree completely that there is no "value" to info. for that and the reason of its relevance in the 1st place which in my opinion is easily understood by anyone who is familiar with the topic.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a demo that I am working-on on my talk page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.0.133.234 It does not have any sources on it and is beta. Keep in mind that the original placement of the info. was directly under each woman/character's name-(there is a spot for that in the template), AND that each woman does NOT currently have her "own" page on Wikipedia-but some of them do. IF each woman did have her own page, the template would probably not belong there either because it is directly related to the show anyways.I would appreciate constructive comments24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Constructively put as possible... you're wasting your time. It doesn't matter how you set them up or lay them out, they do not belong on Wikipedia. If you had paid the slightest bit of attention to anything many editors have told you over the last few days you would have realised that by now--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That really is your opinion and maybe the opinion of other people, but as I have pointed-out there are people including the opinion of the person who 1st undid the deletion in the 1st place. I was not even the one who first undid the deletion. Another editor noticed it. After a few days I noticed what was going-on and attempted to alert editors to the franchise-wide removal of the material.
It already was on Wikipedia and it "did" belong here. That is a fact as I have already pointed-out. If it belongs here or not now is really a matter of opinion at this point. I'm pretty sure that it "does".24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

1 person reverted me, only to accept it when I explained the content was not appropriate, and has since read and ignored everything message you sent to attempt to recruit them to your cause. The fact that the content was here does not meant it automatically gets to stay, and it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of consensus, the clear consensus being that it does not belong. Stop wasting everybodies time, including your own, and go find something actually productive to do --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has weighed in on this by now and given their opinions, and consensus is against this material. There's nothing more to say at this point. Dayewalker (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "everyone" has weighed-in. I will agree that the consensus seems to be against keeping the material but there is no reason not to keep talking about it as far as I can see. If you have nothing more to say about it, that's fine.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Imo, it is possible that the issue may not be widely noticed until the show begins an additional season(s). Depending on the air-date(s) for season premieres, that could take awhile. That would be when helpful editors would visit to update and add the new information. I don't know if it is worth it to keep talking about this with the same people who have already voiced their opinions, but I plan on maintaining my position that the info. should not have been deleted in the manner that it was, and that the info. was particularity suited and an asset to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

About the original deleting of the information, I still have a lot that I have not already said. "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.[5]"from(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V)--speaking-to the questions about sourcing the info. that was removed. There was a lot in my opinion.
And other locations on WP that advise on leaving disputed material alone while a dispute is in progress, (which did not happen). There were so many objections raised about the deleted info. and the way that it happened was contentiously avoiding correct policies in my opinion, that I think it also wouldn't hurt to keep re-addressing various portions of the dispute as a way to re-cap and answer objections that were not defended.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

24, I'm not sure why you can't let this go but you've gone past beating a dead horse and have began to beat the old grave of the long dead horse. You opened a dispute, people weighed in, consensus was reached. That's the dispute process in a nutshell. It wasn't done "incorrectly" because it didn't work out in your favor. If you had more to say, you should have said it when the DRN was open instead of spending your time posting the same argument repeatedly and derailing into baseless accusations of "admin abuse" and insulting people's intelligence. A dispute isn't going to stay open for six months just so you can re-state your opinion or gather votes. Consensus isn't based on votes anyway so it doesn't matter if you got 5,000 people who agreed with you - if an argument is not supported by policy, it's meaningless. What you're doing now is nothing short of gaming. I suggest you read WP:STONEWALL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because you're clearly not grasping that a consensus was reached and you don't get to keep "polling" people until you win. Revisit the subject in a year if you feel so strongly about it but your attempts to keep this going despite the fact that no one is interested or cares goes against the entire dispute resolution process. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

24, please either continue to pursue dispute resolution. Since I am willing to state right now that I'm not interested in mediation (I don't think there's anything to mediate, as policy is abundantly clear and the consensus was complete except for 24), and mediation must involve all participants, your next step is to seek arbitration with ARBCOM.see below I do not know if they will take the case. In the meantime, I think that the rest of us should probably just ignore what gets posted here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, you could start an RfC on the matter. This would bring uninvolved editors to the page to discuss the matter. Make sure that if you do so, you start a new section, and make a short, simple, and neutral statement of the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem moving-on from the dispute and I have no desire to point out on an item by item way that the entire matter was handled incorrectly. The RFC that was already opened/closed is posted in violet above. I motioned that I wanted to continue the RFN but it was closed anyhow. I am no longer interested in pursuing a dispute about the problem but I will continue to work on having the info. admitted back onto Wikipedia and if anyone has a problem with that it is a personal problem in my opinion24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Although since the material was deleted improperly in the first place, I think that that point will stick with the issue for awhile24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect would work here?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect 24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A redirect to what? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The material was deleted properly, IP24. If you'd like more input on the matter, go file an RfC. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening Titles

Starting a section here about "Opening Titles". The television show Storage Wars has a section in the article labeled "Opening Titles". This is not to say that something belongs w/The Real Housewives..., just because it is "somewhere else", but to compare and contrast to the significance of the type of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_Wars_%28franchise%29
A d actually that page is kind-of "broken". The better version is one that is given the titles of a character who just committed suicide [[4]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Balelo 24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a page with a section for television shows that have noteworthy openings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_sequence24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of posting opening title info. in a section that explains the significance of the info. like the way it is done on the Storage Wars page. I don't think that I would want to do that myself at this point since my communication of the English language is apparently confusing to many Wikipedia editors who might delete the work if I did it but I would be willing to help defend any opening title section idea for The Real Housewives pages.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many TV shows contain information about the opening theme song, monologue, or title screen. They do not list the lines that change week to week. For shows like The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) where the monologue changed season to season, the information is listed there. An informative section comparable to either of those would be appropriate here, so long as you don't list out each show's signature line. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

TY-Unlike the vanity-card endings for 2 men and a boy, the lines for The Real Housewives are changed seasonally as well. I will check the Twilight Zone. So I think we can count this as an editor who agrees that the info. should be included?24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The major difference that I can tell between The Twilight Zone, besides the quality of program and general "importance' of quoted opening lines, is that for The Real Housewives, the info. was posted and compiled more on a character-by-character basis, rather than a season by season? That being said, I think the original way that the info. was posted for The Real Housewives makes sense.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[[5]]<---more info.on Talk:The Real Housewives24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

talk:24.0.133.234|talk]]) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)