Can anyone tell what this show is about?

maybe this would help : https://tvtonight.com.au/2018/02/underbelly-files-chopper.html ?

I'm not into the underbelly files minis but that would be your best source. If that review doesn't help, that show has been mentioned a few times on tvtonight website.

Gadfly wrote:
http://www.tvmaze.com/shows/34858/underbelly-files-chopper

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the show summary... summarize the show?

Starring award-winning actor Aaron Jeffery (Wentworth, McLeod's Daughters, Water Rats) as Chopper, an outstanding cast will feature alongside him, including two-time Logie Award winner Michael Caton (The Castle, Packed to the Rafters) as Chopper's father Keith, Todd Lasance (The Vampire Diaries) as Chopper's nemesis, gangster Syd Collins, and Ella Scott Lynch (Love Child) who will portray his second wife, Margaret with whom he shared a love that defied obstacles and lasted decades.

It seems to talk more about awards, who is playing what character, and what other shows that they've been in. And almost nothing about the plot of the show, including the characters. Who is Chopper? Why does he have a gangster nemesis? What is significant about his father Keith? The only thing here that seems to be relevant--somehow--is that he shared a long marriage with his second wife Margaret. So it's a... romantic drama? Or what? I'd edit it, but there's pretty much nothing here to edit it to a summary. If you edit out the non-summary stuff, it reads, "Chopper, Chopper's father Keith, Chopper's nemesis, gangster Syd Collins, and his second wife, Margaret with whom he shared a love that defied obstacles and lasted decades." That's not a summary, is it?

Also, judging by the original show image (it's now in the galley as the first image), the name of the show is... "rbelly Hoppi"? Because of the portrait/banner thing.

Without doubt you can just delete those summaries if you spot them. They are not plots and should not be used as it tells nothing.

If banners are used as portrait, I simply delete them as users do not obey our policy....

I added a new summary and poster (and some other stuff).

Thomas wrote:

If banners are used as portrait, I simply delete them as users do not obey our policy....

In this case it was not only added as an poster, the user named it "poster". *rolls eyes*

Edit:

There is still the issue of the duplicate show entry.

Does TVmaze consider this a separate show, or Underbelly S07 ?

I replaced the image with a poster-oriented one. And one without the title, because the title is already on the page. But that's just me.

I left the summary in so that people could see it. I'm less concerned with deleting unacceptable summaries, than accepting them in the first place. It doesn't do any good to shovel shit out, if contributors is busy shoveling it in at the same time. :) Or better to teach a man than fish than give him a fish and all that.

Plus, there more of other people than there is of me.

@momijigari

I wish people did not delete pictures out of the gallery that others have submitted. If you delete your own that is different!!!

What in particular was wrong with the image I submitted? It was basically the same as the original image except a) poster, and b) without the title. The original image is still there.

But... I guess it's okay to delete other people's show images, then?

All images seem to be still there and intact.

wmulder wrote:

@momijigari

I wish people did not delete pictures out of the gallery that others have submitted. If you delete your own that is different!!!

So far if people are disobeying our policy by adding non-fitting banners as poster (main image), i find it completely justified to delete theirs.

Now this means not thst we can delete pictures whenever we want.

@Gadfly, did not see yours, but what was it like?

As I said, it was basically the first yellow-tinted image (far right) but without the title and in poster format. My intent was to stay as close to the original contributor's image as possible, while making it fit to TVMaze standards. If the image I found had a title in poster format, I would have kept the title as well. But it didn't.

It was there and showing up on the main page after i submitted it.

So are similar banner images with the titles imbedded preferred and similar poster ones without a title deleteable? Also, oddly, the full title on the current show image (with "the untold story" at the end) doesn't match the title that TVMaze lists for the show.

JuanArango wrote:
All images seem to be still there and intact.

How are you making that determination, based on edit log:

http://www.tvmaze.com/edit/view?id=6921139

Do you see that image in the galley?

http://www.tvmaze.com/shows/34858/underbelly-files-chopper/gallery

Or are you looking at something else?

momijigari wrote:
There is still the issue of the duplicate show entry.

Does TVmaze consider this a separate show, or Underbelly S07 ?

We don't seem to have answered this question.

Gadfly wrote:
We don't seem to have answered this question.

Looks like the season is already deleted.

I'm still kind of curious if gallery images should be deleted.

For instance:

http://www.tvmaze.com/edit/view?id=6921303

It was presumably deleted because it is "not a poster". But... do gallery images have to be poster? Show images have to be poster. But that just means selecting a different show image if one is available. Which happened in this case.

And three of the current images in the gallery are "not a poster" either.

http://www.tvmaze.com/shows/34858/underbelly-files-chopper/gallery

So shouldn't they be deleted as well? Including the original image, which is still there (far right of four, with the yellowish tinge).

I thought we dealt with this months ago with the whole image quality question. There's no reason to delete images from the gallery, but images can be changed out if a better one is found.

LadyShelley wrote:
I thought we dealt with this months ago with the whole image quality question. There's no reason to delete images from the gallery, but images can be changed out if a better one is found.

I thought we dealt with it, too, which is why I wondered why we... hadn't? The question isn't about an image being changed out, but an image being deleted.

It seemed like what was done here was in contradiction to what we dealt with months ago.

I hate to seem redundant, but I can't tell if you're agreeing that it was supposedly dealt with but hasn't. Or if you're wondering why I'm bringing it up when it has already been dealt with. If it's still happening, it doesn't seem "dealt with" to me.

LadyShelley wrote:
I thought we dealt with this months ago with the whole image quality question. There's no reason to delete images from the gallery, but images can be changed out if a better one is found.

exactly, images should only be deleted if they are wrong (wrong show, wrong actor and so on), otherwise the main image can always be replaced with a better looking/fitting new one, but the old one should definitely stay in the gallery.

Gadfly, please message the user who deleted it and ask him why he did it.

thx

Juan

JuanArango wrote:
exactly, images should only be deleted if they are wrong (wrong show, wrong actor and so on), otherwise the main image can always be replaced with a better looking/fitting new one, but the old one should definitely stay in the gallery.

Gadfly, please message the user who deleted it and ask him why he did it.

thx

Juan

It's momijigari, going by the link above. He was participating in this thread and we were talking about the image (it's in the first post), so it seemed kind of pointless to PM him as well.

Not to mention you said earlier the image appears to still be there and intact. Which made me wonder if what I was seeing was correct. I... guess it is?

It's also possible I was wrong about the fact that he deleted it, or that he didn't think he was deleting it. Or that the system deleted it when he just tried to replace it. Or momijigari didn't know about the data policy. Since that all involves Data, that's why I'm posting in the Data forum.

Gadfly wrote:
It's momijigari, going by the link above. He was participating in this thread and we were talking about the image (it's in the first post), so it seemed kind of pointless to PM him as well.

Not to mention you said earlier the image appears to still be there and intact. Which made me wonder if what I was seeing was correct. I... guess it is?

It's also possible I was wrong about the fact that he deleted it, or that he didn't think he was deleting it. Or that the system deleted it when he just tried to replace it. Or momijigari didn't know about the data policy. Since that all involves Data, that's why I'm posting in the Data forum.

I am a bit confused now and do not want to read all posts again, is the image still in the gallery or is it deleted now?

LadyShelley wrote:
I thought we dealt with this months ago with the whole image quality question. There's no reason to delete images from the gallery, but images can be changed out if a better one is found.

If a better (higher resolution/better quality) version of the existing image is uploaded, what's the reason to keep the original (i.e. the same but worse quality) image on board? Why spawn duplicates?

Same goes for the people portraits (some contributors are too lazy to make a couple extra clicks to get a full-res image from IMDB/agency website and uploading a small thumbnail from Google image search results).