Talk:Xleague.tv

Citations needed!

The sources currently used are mainly press releases trivial statements about the channel launching, and the Eurobird listing does not appear to mention XLeague at all. I will be putting this up for deletion in two weeks unless there are proper in-text citations (so people can see what the citation is actually supporting), from reliable, wholly independent sources.--Drat (Talk) 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it should deleted as the sources come directly from the parent television company and from watching the channel. If it does get deleted, then such entries like Game Network & Friendly TV should be deleted as well for the same reasons as above. Also, the link to the Eurobird listing is to a page that gets updated when new channels and changes are made. Eurobird listing for XLEAGUE.TV can be found here http://www.lyngsat-address.com/uz/Xleague-TV.html Ryoga3099 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, If you look the majority of satelitte and cable television channels featured on wikipedia are rarely cited, what kind of evidence do you need to the channel and shows actually exist? They're all featured on the official website and on several press releases. but what "reliable, wholly independent sources" would you need for a channel of this ilk? --Guru Larry 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other articles don't meet the standards is no excuse. A few examples of good sources would be press articles, interviews, etc. These also have to be non-trivial. A few sentences in an article about gaming shows in general isn't any good.--Drat (Talk) 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say Press Articles, you don't count Press Releases at all? --Guru Larry 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response to this question. I should have said articles in the press, not "press articles". Press releases are of course generally PR pieces, not written by neutral third-parties, thus making them less reliable (depending on what information they are used to support). There are certain situations in which they can be used, but the article must not rely on them as a main source.--Drat (Talk) 02:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, there needs to be proper assertions of why the channel is notable, and these must be sourced to independent, reliable sources. "Other crap exists" is not a valid argument.--Drat (Talk) 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What about information like whos appeared on the channel, etc? This is a television channel that goes out to the whole of the United Kingdom and rolling credits of the show are shown at the end of the programme. Ryoga3099 14:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you create a references section on the page? I've tried looking at more notable pages, like 24 (TV Series) but it only says: "reflist" on them. Ryoga3099 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Look in the code of the page where the footnote markers appear after the text they support. You will see that there is a reference tag containing all the details of the source and a name for the tag. You only need to do this full reference once, the first time the ref is used. Later uses of the same ref need only a shortened version of the ref tag, with the name that was set.--Drat (Talk) 02:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume I write by editing here, and not start a new section, with the + tab? Of the article, I had only noticed this particular page after I finished editing the content in question - so I endeavoured to address the concerns brought here. --Shanksington 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual, reliable sources, like the BBC, is that acceptable?--Shanksington 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "multiple" bit merely means that the totality of notable coverage on the subject is more than just a freak, once-off thing. Individual sources are fine, but of course, the more the merrier.--Drat (Talk) 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Show Contents

I have re-added the list of Retro Corner episodes appeared so far, as I said in the post, this is an Encylopedic page and not a digest, so as with other video gaming shows and completly unrelated wikipedia pages, I feel the list should stay until it can achieve a seperate wiki page, alongside other shows...

Though if theres a way to reformat it akin to the presenter lists, that would be very much appreaciated.--Guru Larry 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding the names of its cast and guests for each show including narrators for presenterless shows. More will follow as we get more names. Also adding studio photo for The Match. This is given by the broadcasters themselves, so permission is given for the use of its logo and photos. (How do you resize the picture? Picture in question is xleague_thematch_studio_with_guests.jpg)Ryoga3099 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding photo and cleaning up spaces 212.134.182.14 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving league list from The Match section as it is more suitable towards the website where the actual leagues take place. Ryoga3099 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contraction of XLeague content

Am in the process of reeling in the XLeague-related content, removing duplicated information from certain individual show pages leaves them too short to be valuable on their own, especially given the channel's infancy, limited notability and small selection of programmes. This will allow myself and others to wikify and otherwise improve the quality of the page more effectively.

This may take some time, so the page will be a WIP for a while.

I have requested cropped versions of the images that are too tall- specifically Game60 and Casual Gaming Show- and am in the process of proposing a mini-infobox for TV programmes to fit this page and pages like it, as the regular one is much too large for the small amount of content.

(The last few anonymous edits were mine, BTW- only just signed up after realising the extent of the project) Beemoh (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Revising content to fit within Wikipedia standards

I am in the middle of reworking, and redoing the sources, references to this item. This is so that this article is Wikipedia compliant. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Ryoga3099 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

History section has been redone to include relevant references. Ryoga3099 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Main introduction re-edited and 'website' section fused with introduction text. Ryoga3099 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging individual show pages into XLEAGUE.TV page

I suggest merging all the shows that have individual pages into one single page, which should be the XLEAGUE.TV page. I believe that sources can not be found for these individual show pages and that this article could benefit from having the text from each of these pages into one simple page. Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The following pages should be merged: Games Night, The Match, Reviewmageddon, The Chart, FIFA Interactive World Cup, Guru Larry's Retro Corner, Inside Gaming, Game60, Wez and Larry's Top Tens, Trailblazers Ryoga3099 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about Guru Larry's Retro Corner, Wez and Larry's Top Tens and Reviewmageddon as they have all spun off into their own shows after Xleague died.--Guru Larry (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the best idea to merge all of these shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhumanehuman (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All 3 articles are good the way they are, It shouldn't be messed around. It's stupid to merge them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highsco (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

pretty stupid to merge them together, mainly because they all spun off into their own shows when Xleague died (and 2 of the 3 still go on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daegranos (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe these articles should be merged through the Wikipedia:Merging guidelines of Text and Context. Not only would merging such pages benefit the XLEAGUE.TV article, but would also condense the scattered information into a Wiki-fied article. Considering that each of the individual show pages contain very little sources and repeated sources on each of these pages, guidelines would suggest that merging these articles would be better. If there is a good reason to leave these pages as is, then please suggest them rather than just saying "it isn't a good idea", as that is not a good argument. With them merged and re-edited, the article could then be resubmitted to the WikiProject Video Games for assessment. Ryoga3099 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that it wouldn't be a good idea, several of these shows no longer have anything to do with Xleague and still live on with new episodes being made on other websites, and yes, there are sources for several of them to back up this claim which I shall promptly add.

Also, If I recall, there was a admin on the Xleague forums by the name of Ryoga Hibiki, whom was an employee. I think he's now also an admin on the Enemy Down/UKeSA forums. Would that be you at all perchance?--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether new shows are made, it still doesn't hide that fact that these pages have little or no sources attached to them. The way they are written are also in stub form, which is why merging them into one associated thread would be more appropriate. New episodes can still be mentioned in the one article, and can be placed in a sub-category within the page.Ryoga3099 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But that would make them unrelated articles, therefore totally acceptable to have their own separate articles, by your account we should therefore put The Simpsons in the Tracey Allman Show article as it was part of that show originally. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both The Simpsons and Tracey Allman Show are significant to have their own pages, although in my opinion, the Tracey Allman Show should be under Tracey Allman. Anyways, like Drat says above in previous discussions, using other articles as examples is no excuse or argument in this particular discussion. What you should be doing is putting up reasons as to why it should not be merged and what benefits this will give to Wikipedia, while following guidelines that Wikipedia have set, rather than asking questions on who I am and what I do.

I believe that merging these threads/pages would create a better write-up on the subject of XLEAGUE.TV. Reasons have been mentioned in my previous talkbacks. I gather that whether the nomination will be approved, will be based on several factors outlined in this discussion. I would suggest that you should read up on the merge threads in Wikipedia to familiarize yourself with these guidelines. Ryoga3099 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

they should just stay the way they are, maybe larry & wes have great plans for the shows, thus making the existing articles great places to start putting all that new info on. and why is bringing up other articles no argument? it's a prettty good argument if you ask me. (retro corner & whatever larry does have no more ties to xleague now if i'm correct, so why should it be under xleague? if anything it should be under guru larry). also, by your argument as to why you want it all under xleague, shouldn't then every show and movie that fox made be under fox and not under its own page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daegranos (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, TNWA who owns XLEAGUE, also owns the Guru Larry presented shows you've mentioned - probably with the exception of one, which would be Guru Larry's Retro Corner - as I would assume that was made on Screwattack before it appeared on The Chart on the XLEAGUE.TV channel. If Retro Corner was made before it appeared on XLEAGUE.TV, then definitely, that should be separate, with write up reflecting that and supported with sources.

Another way of looking at it would be that TNWA owns the shows that were commissioned when XLEAGUE.TV was a channel. However, I would believe that Guru Larry would have had his own production company producing these shows - which would be good for him under a legal standpoint. For example, Red Dwarf was commissioned by the BBC for 8 seasons. While the 3-part special was commission by UKTV for the Dave channel. All the shows produced were made by Grant Naylor Productions. The BBC owns the rights to broadcast and sell Seasons 1 - 8 of Red Dwarf but the brand remains that property of Grant Naylor Productions, probably because of the terms of contract that was signed when commissioned. This was probably why the production company was able to get Red Dwarf commission by UKTV.

So, I would believe that if Guru Larry would like to continue creating shows under the name of Reviewmageddon, etc, he would have to go through the contracts that were signed and get a lawyer to find out what can be done. Of course, nothing would stop him from making similar shows under different names. Just look at when the old Top Gear presenters, Quentin Willson, Tiff Needell and Vicki Butler-Henderson ended up in Fifth Gear, using the old Top Gear magazine format style. I would suggest naming the show based on another Michael Bay film.

In terms of the proposal of putting the write-up under one roof, there are several factors that has to be looked at before you can consider whether it is a good idea or not. Here are the reasons why I think it's a good idea to merge them:

• Condensing - because each show doesn't have a huge amount to text, moving it under one page would create a better read, in the same way you wouldn't split Sam & Max's episodic games into 6 different pages. You won't have to click on each show just to read a short blurb.

• Editing and Sources - if someone writes up something under XLEAGUE.TV or adds a source to support their writing, then you would have to repeat the process on the separate show page. It would be easier to edit it under one subject. Also, most of the shows on individual pages, don't have the require sources to support itself as a standalone - with many duplicating sources. With the shows under the same page, sources can be reused in other areas of the article using smart tagging.

• WikiProject Video games - part of the reason for merging would be to get a better rating under the WikiProject Video games project. The article needs to be structured and flow in the way a Wikipedia article should. Like what I tried with the UKeSA article, I tried to write what I can using the sources I've found around the internet, by doing Google searches, etc. With that in mind, I would try and do the same with the XLEAGUE.TV article. Again, it would be easier and manageable if it was all under XLEAGUE.TV

• Unbias writing - Unfortunately, a lot of the writing seem very promotional, bias or could be seen as an opinion rather than fact. For example, a show can only be seen as popular when a source supports this claim, like the amount of viewers compared to the rest of the shows. Removing bias comments, would end up with an article with only 1 or 2 lines worth of write up. This would surely put the article in-line for deletion, considering that most were created by Guru Larry. We don't want that.

In terms of the Fox example, that's just common sense not to stick every show and movie under Fox Broadcasting or/and 20th Century Fox. Fox Broadcasting have made and commissioned thousands of programming since 1986. 20th Century Fox have made and commissioned thousands of films since 1935. XLEAGUE.TV however has only made 15 shows since 2007. Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, from reading various sites/forums, Guru Larry said on the ScrewAttack (and another site, I'll need to look again), he never signed any contracts ever whilst at Xleague. The Retro Corner was on ScrewAttack before Xleague started and on another post (Possibly said by Wesley Lock), they were never paid for Reviewmageddon. I thought Larry was a friend of yours IRL Ryoga, you made him an a moderator on the Xleague forums after all.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If no contracts were signed, then from a logical point of view, the shows would be wholly properties of the current owners, who would be TNWA. It also means he was paid as a freelancer for appearing on the show as well as content. In the same way a jeweler would do if they were asked to create a unique crown for the particular King or Queen, while he made it, he can't say it's his property. I'm no legal expert, so I can only go by common sense. Do you know if "The Retro Corner" was called "Guru Larry's Retro Corner" or just "The Retro Corner" on Screwattack? Ryoga3099 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

guru larry's retro corner, and by your logic every video that you can watch on youtube is owned by youtube which is retarded if you think about it.

oh, and just like you did before, i'm going to scoff away your argument of a jeweler because you can't compare these two things.

but what does it all matter, are you so butthurt that you want them merged? they're FINE the way they are and everyone except for you agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daegranos (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in many ways, I do agree with your statement, but that's why every company has terms and condition to cover themselves. Under YouTube's Terms of Use, Point 10 - Rights you Licence, by uploading a video, you are giving complete rights of the content you upload to YouTube, which means they can do what they like, within law, with your content. That's one of the reasons why you find shows like RudeTube, showing user generated content on television. It's also one of the reasons why YouTube get legal notices from companies to remove copyright material, because ultimately, it's their responsibility to manage their data.

Like I said, the merging of data is to improve on the articles using Wikipedia's guidelines.Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You cant merge them, thats like merging all the shows from the BBC or something, everything was individual and great, and they should be left as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.13.11 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, It's giving Youtube permission to use the video on THEIR site, it's not exclusive otherwise they could sue sites like machinima.com for putting the videos up on their own website using their own embedder. Machinima still own 100% of the videos, they just allow Youtube to do what they want with the copy of the video that's on their site, not the total rights to the video in general. But it seems merging is what YOU want Ryoga3099, not what the majority wants. Which is so clearly evident by the fact you were willing to stab your friend in the back to get your own way.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose merging the articles. This article needs more information about XLeague.tv itself, not of individual programmes produced by them. For an example, see BBC and look how much of the text is dedicated to individual BBC shows. If you really feel that some of the shows are not notable enough to have their own article, I suggest you take them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He already did that and it was ignored and deleted. I don't see why this matter is still up here. It's a vote of 6:1 against. So the banner really needs to be removed. But that's a very valid point about the article should be about the channel itself, not the shows on it.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not a vote, it's a discussion :) Anyway, it seems that there's no consensus to merge so I've removed the tags. Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)