Whether streaming dates should be used in place of air dates when the streaming was first. e.g. a series releases on netflix in 2019 and airs on tv in 2026, you list it as 2019 or 2026? mostly relevant to english dubs. please see the discussion already existing on this page.Muur (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
The current lead states that Shark Week was "created and produced by Tom Golden." The citation currently following that statement is Matt Cohen's 2014 article in The Week. That source discusses the origins of Shark Week as a brainstorming process involving a Discovery scheduler and founder John Hendricks, but does not appear to identify Tom Golden as the creator.
Other published sources attribute the original idea for Shark Week to Steve Cheskin:
A 1999 Washington Post article, "Into the Jaws of Danger," describes Shark Week as an idea suggested by Steven Cheskin and recounts Cheskin proposing "Shark Week" during discussions with Discovery founder John Hendricks:
Discovery founder John S. Hendricks provides a firsthand published account in his memoir, A Curious Discovery: An Entrepreneur's Story (HarperBusiness, 2013), p. 218. Hendricks describes the original brainstorming session and recounts Steve Cheskin proposing, "Well, what if we created Shark Week?" Hendricks subsequently describes the group discussing how to implement "Steve's idea."
A 2015 Washingtonian feature also describes Cheskin proposing Shark Week during the original brainstorming session:
Given these sources, I am requesting that uninvolved editors review whether the current statement that Shark Week was "created and produced by Tom Golden" accurately reflects the published record, or whether the lead should distinguish between the origin of the concept and production of the original programming block.
Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I work at REELZ, where Steve Cheskin is an executive. I have therefore not changed the disputed creator attribution in the article myself and am asking uninvolved editors to evaluate the sources and determine the appropriate wording. TravisOSLC (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
A lot of edit warring the past few days. So let's settle it here. Please comment on if you think Sid Wilson should be listed as a current or former member. I've listed the basic supporting evidence for each side below.
In support of CURRENT:
The main source that keeps getting referenced (even in third-party reliable sources such as Loudwire) is TMZ. TMZ is typically not considered a reliable source here.
There has been no official announcement from Slipknot, Wilson, or any other related party.
Not enough time has passed since the rumor/story broke, and so the article should be left alone until further notice. There's a chance that Wilson may reconcile with the band, and thus he does not get kicked out.
Social media statements from band member Jim Root and a member's wife made vague posts about this situation being either a rumor and/or having misleading details. This contrasts point 4 below.
In support of FORMER:
It's true that TMZ is not considered reliable; however, the website indeed has a track record of verified and confirmed stories before many other outlets. Regardless of someone's view on TMZ, it's not some random fan site or a sloppy WordPress blog. Also, TMZ posted a second follow-up story after their initial article, which possibly reinforces their reporting.
A huge number of other websites have reported Wilson's departure. Most, if not all, point to TMZ as a source, but it's to be assumed that (at least some of) these sites would've asked TMZ for verification, or at the very least, they had a high enough confidence to begin with.
Even though not a lot of time has passed since the rumor/story broke, the current events should be documented to reflect the current perspective, regardless if it turns out to be true or if Wilson reconciles with the band.
Other social media statements from related individuals (such as a confirmed close friend of Wilson) have stated that Wilson is no longer in the band. This contrasts point 4 above.
With the character move merging both Terry and Michael's respective versions to the page, I want to discuss how much of the article weight should factor for both; in my opinion, the weight should be more on the Michael Holt version; not because of WP:RECENT (Holt has existed for 29 years) but moreover, Michael's character is the primary version of Mister Terrific since his inception to the point despite debuting in 1942, Slone has around 300 appearances whereas Michael, debuting in 1997, has over 1,000+. Now I understand character's number of appearances doesn't guarantee anything but that's a noticably wide gap there. Furthermore, it would be a lot harder to argue WP:GNG for Terry wherein Michael has had some academic focus and coverage as a African-American superhero even before the Superman movie puts him in a spotlight even if the page has not (yet) highlighed such.
As it stands, the current inclination is to treat the characters somewhat equally. My edits prior would prioritize Michael Holt as the page's focus and Terry was moved to "other versions" as a sub-heading to address the character. I would like to have some comments and other considerations to be made about this topic about this. CosmicMordecai (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
