• "Fox currently maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week." -- 'Currently' should never be used; it would be better to say something like As of the 2012 television season, Fox.... TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Anything else? How does it look now? Thanks! TBrandley 06:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Fox Broadcasting Company, commonly referred as the Fox network or simply Fox, is an American commercial broadcasting television network owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, which is a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation group; Murdoch co-founded the Fox Broadcasting Company, along with media executive Barry Diller." -- A few problems. First, there should be a 'to' after 'referred'. The sentence is also really long. I recommend splitting it where the semi-colon is.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Though it was officially launched in October 9, 1986,[2] Fox began its official prime time setup on April 5, 1987, with the series Married... with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show airing that night." -- Instead of "launched in", it should be "launched on". Also, I'm pretty sure 'primetime' is a compound word, and should not be spaced.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990, to September 7, 2002. -- There shouldn't be a comma after '1990'.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unlike the "three larger networks", which aired prime time programming from 8 to 11 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7 to 11 pm Sundays, Fox has traditionally avoided programming in the 10 pm time interval, leaving that hour to affiliates to program locally" -- Again with 'primetime'. Also, which time zone is this referring to? EST? Please note that.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary, with a two-hour television special, featured numerous people related to Fox and its shows." -- "featured" should be "featuring".
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The networks' animated shows are listed under the Animation Domination banner, which is a Sunday night programming block." -- You're only talking about one network, so it should say " network's " not " networks' ".
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "It is a full member of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)." -- What is 'It' referring to? The Animation Domination? This needs to be disambiguated.
  • Done. TBrandley 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are some (the majority of) shows on the list not referenced?
  • See below. TBrandley 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, are you saying the one reference used for some titles supports each show's existence? If so, just list it as a general reference. Picking out random ones is odd. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I didn't. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where's the lead?
  • The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the entries are cited, some aren't.
  • Click on the links for them, and their is prove. It is a huge pain referencing every single show on the list.
• Suggest you expand upon each entry to describe what kind of broadcast it is.
  • Again, there's the link. It already states what type of show it is (as this is a list, not an article). TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw the list, and go to peer review, asking what we'd expect from a featured list. This, most certainly, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A user keeps commenting out the lead. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list is suffering from instability, i.e. edit wars, or content dispute, then it shouldn't be listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • See above. The issue is now (at least I think) resolved, per consensus on the article's talk page. TBrandley 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This version of the article I would support however, other than the fact that I can't see why some entries are referenced and why some aren't, in an apparently random manner. The article is lovely when it's not being ravished by unproductive edit wars. Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. TBrandley 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. For now I'm going to change the oppose to neutral and I'll support if it the prose comments made by other editors are addressed. The vandalizing seems to have stopped outright. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the edit warring stopped? If so, good.
  • Yes (at least I now believe). See above. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Many, if not most, of the entries still need citations.
  • See above. It is a pain to reference every show, the article link itself proves its existence and run. TBrandley 22:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are some given citations then? This makes it even more confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Those were already there when I started working on this (I check to see if it wasn't WP:OR on Google Books), and figured I wouldn't removed them, and there book sources, which people often enjoy seeing. TBrandley 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't make sense. Just remove the individual citations from next to the certain shows, and place it as a general reference at the bottom of the list. Who enjoys seeing book sources? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. TBrandley 00:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are the only immediate issues I see, but they are big ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Deux

• Also, to be picky, Millennium wasn't an X-Files spin-off, but rather just a show created by the same person.
  • Removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For Mike Judge, shouldn't you mention he was co-creator and voice actor, rather than just creator and actor?
  • Fixed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Many of the images have unsourced claims, like "star of Married...with Children, which was Fox's signature series during the network's early years." I'm not saying it's untrue, but when was it called the signature series?
  • Replaced and removed. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the dates use YYYY-YYYY and others go YYYY-YY. I know the exception is dates like "1999-2000", but I'd pick one and use it.
  • See below. TBrandley 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Where is that claim referenced?
  • Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fox began its official primetime setup on April 5, 1987" vs "On April 21, 2012, Fox celebrated its 25th anniversary"...
  • And? That's when Fox actually celebrated it on television. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of October 2012, Fox maintains 19.5 hours of programming per week.[3] " but ref 3 was written in 1992, so how can that ref something from 2012? And that ref says 18 hours in any case.
  • Changed "October 2012" to "1992". And, regarding the source information, it says increasing its daily average to 19.5 hours, so that's now fine. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "its original debut" has it had more than one debut?
  • Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "the longest running sitcom" context, do you mean animated sitcom? Do you mean in the US or worldwide?
  • Clarified. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you mean "led to"?
  • Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fox had a programming block for children entitled Fox Kids, which ran from September 8, 1990 to September 7, 2002.[8]" seems oddly place, and makes the end of that para read like a list of factoids, not elegant prose.
  • Moved. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Check image captions, those with incomplete sentences should not have a period.
  • Removed. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the sports shows don't have dates.
• What does "(Mid-season)" mean for upcoming shows?
  • They are planned to air in Mid-season. Added a link. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Piggsburg Pigs!" has an exclamation mark.
  • Added. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ripping Friends is The Ripping Friends.
  • Fixed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar comment for The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot.
• Can you make the Digimon: Digital Monsters link more precise?
  • That's the only and best there is in this case. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Link to the correct The Tick article please.
  • Corrected. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• D.E.A. doesn't link to a TV show.
  • Unlinked.TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Than->than.
  • Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Greed article says it started airing in 1999.
  • Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Boot Camp article says it started in 2001, not 2000.
  • Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps you should check all these articles against the dates you're claiming....?
  • Done. TBrandley 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "from which The Simpsons spun off from." grammar fail.
  • Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't appear to be a colon in Osbournes Reloaded.
  • Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the second general reference the whole book or specifically pages 1 to 1566? If the former remove the page range, if the latter use an en-dash.
  • Done. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tracey Ullman has an e in it.
  • Removed. TBrandley 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it should have an e in it, that's what I'm saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, sorry, done. Thanks, TBrandley 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]