Template talk:Antiques Roadshow

sourcing international versions[edit]

I see edits that modify the list of international versions. We need to ensure we have good references for which shows we include (if not here, then at the individual articles).

For example: Why do we include Antikrundan but not Tussen Kunst en Kitsch? Why do we include Antiques Roadshow (U.S. TV series) but not Canadian Antiques Roadshow?

Not saying we're doing it wrong, only that without sourcing, it feels a bit arbitrary. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well: that's only because the Swedish version has its own article over here unlike f.e. the Dutch and Flemish or even German ones, and also the American one, but not the Canadian one, since that's just a referral to Antiques_Roadshow#Canada! Extremely sexy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What I'm getting at is that each inclusion in the list needs to be justified with a source, confirming its link or heritage to the original BBC programme that's the subject of the article this template is attached to (as opposed to any old show about valuable junk :-) Asking the reader to visit each link to there verify the connection feels lazy, like putting all the work in the lap of each reader to repeat. The links themselves can't be used as sources, though I'm not sure exactly what policy prevents it (this maybe: WP:NOTSOURCE). CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I have an alternative reply: I am not sure I see the value of such an incomplete list. What international shows that get articles of their own is arbitrary from the reader's point of view. If we do have an "international version" section of the template, I feel it should be complete. Whether it points to stand-alone articles or just the section of the main article surely is a secondary concern. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that it's probably best to put the template on hold while we sort out the international section of the article itself. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this was never resolved, I made the "next best thing edit" and linked to the section directly. That way we strike the middle ground - we do have a complete section (through that link) but without having to spell each programme out. CapnZapp (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]