Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 30 January 2010

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tosh.0. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tosh.0 at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Comedy Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The introduction sounds like it's a promotion of the show, Tosh.0. It should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.12.210 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it links to the right Mike Gibbons. That is, unless zombies are allowed to be executive producers nowadays. --76.117.110.236 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree, i have removed the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.42.117 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need several more "no sources" banners on this page. I didn't notice till... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.100.182 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the style of...

Currently the page states "In the style of Web Soup. This seems a bit inacurate considering Web Soup was developed completely independently and actually started days after Tosh.0? You could argue it's in the style of the original Soup show, or that around the net segment of Attack of the Show, but considering it started before and has signifigantly higher ratings than Web Soup, the description seems wrong. If no one objects, I'll change it. Iarann (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This Page is about to get Covered in Shit Edits

On his show today the Tosh guy invited his viewers to edit the Tosh.0 Misplaced Pages page, and announced that he's going to read the funniest edits next week. Just giving you bros the heads up. 8bit (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected in violation of policy

From Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Semi-protection :

"Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred,"

So why is this page already protected when there has been no vandalism? kenj0418 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was vandalism, you just can't see it. It's been deleted. Q 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw vandalism before the lock was applied. Check the page history. 8bit (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An accurate but unsourced description of his wardrobe, a good faith typo that causes a problem with the citation displaying, and a the addition of a trivia section. Boy, is it just me or has the quality of "vandalism" really declined in Misplaced Pages recently?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Onorem.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were the vandalism edits deleted instead of reverting the page and leaving them in history? Although I do agree with the need to prevent additional vandalism to this page, the fact remains that the host of the show asked his viewers to vandalise this page which, considering the viewership levels, is a fairly major media stunt and the resulting edit activity may have had some interesting historical value. By deleting those edits so they can't even be viewed in the page history it prevents any kind of analysis of that activity or info it contains. One reason I have always appreciated Misplaced Pages is the fact that I can view previous edits and/or vandalism that may contain politically/racially/etc charged options that can provide insight into various issues. Why delete these out of the history, they seem harmless considering the fact you can revert, protect, and control the content of the current revision? This is the same reason why we timestamp talk page edits and such, so we can look back and see the history, activity, mood, opinions, etc, of various pages and issues. (Pranakhan) (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition the fact that he asked for the action to take place on the show is relevent deserves mention in the article and outright deletion of the results instead of rollback or revert prevents any sort of interesting or detailed entry on the event. Nefariousski (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

He asked us to vandalize it. I swear! user:waterygrave

While that is true, he does not own this page. If there were facts/information on this page that he wanted removed, then he could do ask for them to be removed. But he is not allowed to ask people to vandalize "his" page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be perma-protected anyway

Seeing as this is a WP:BLP-related article, the page should be semi-protected indefinitely until flagged revisions are implemented. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this wp:BLP related? it's a TV show with a host. Are we now considering every talk show or hosted show as falling under the umbrella of WP:BLP now? That's news to me. Nefariousski (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what "related" meant in "WP:BLP-related", yes. Fortunately for Misplaced Pages and its readership, BLP is being extended and applied to more and more articles each and every day. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling Bullshit. There's absolutely no precedent for Talk shows, hosted shows, radio shows, etc... getting protection under the BLP umbrella. Nefariousski (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"perma-protection" or indef semi is only used for pages show repeated and ongoing high levels of vandalism- see WP:ROUGH. This show (and even Tosh's entry)? Not so much. tedder (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets see. He invited millions of viewers to vandalize his Misplaced Pages article(s). That cable network likes to repeat his shows a lot. Why don't you talk to me after the protection of this article expires and let me know if you change your mind on that.  ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Comedy articles
• Low-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• Stub-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles