Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

X-Files screenshots up for deletion

FYI, a large number of X-Files screencaps have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_May_31. -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pilots on templates

On numerous episode Award templates, Pilot episodes are quite prominent. There is some disagreement on whether to parenthetically disambiguate the Pilot episodes in the templates. Recently, Agnosticraccoon (talk · contribs) removed the parenthetical disambiguation. It seems to me that this removal will confuse the reader. Should we restore the parenthetical disambiguation to these types of templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are simply too many award-winning "Pilot"s to know what's meant without the dab, so the parenthetical disambiguation should be restored. – sgeureka t•c 07:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Same here. Omitting show names for the sake of size would confuse readers. --George Ho (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to check if...

I'd just like to check if, IMDb, which is largely considered unreliable, can at least be used as a source for episode lists, as episode lists on the site aren't user-added. Is it so? Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Better to use a DVD release or something like Allrovi if you can. GRAPPLE X 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


the episode list are user added, so cant be used as a direct source, but you can use external links imdb template and put the that in but you cant use it as as direct source, i have used imdb as a way of proving some shows existance but i dnt use it as asource it is unrealible in fact one list on there was copied form wikipediaAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Awake WikiProject Proposal

Feel free to vote for Awake to become a WikiProject here. TBrandley • talk • contributions 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What are the official final rankings

I see that at 2011–12 United States network television schedule this 156 show list was used as the final list. Meanwhile a show like Castle (TV series) uses this 195 show list. Was Castle top 20? It was 20th in one and 22nd in the other list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the second list includes the "Live +7 days" rating, which means it includes people who DVR'd a progra and watched it within 7 days, instead of immediately when it aired. To me, that is the official rating because as far as marketing goes they still include it in their final figures. As such, it appears that a couple of shows snuck in above Castle, because their factored in +7 day rating gave them a few more viewers. Looking at the lists, it appears that the second also included "The OT" and "Sunday Night Kick", which are not on the first list, and which had higher viewers than Castle. So, both are technically correct, it's a matter of Deadline not including two pre/post football shows that keep a large portion of viewers that watch the games themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting and good questions. As for why we don't include those ratings on the Wiki page...I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't cover that page, and don't know their reasons for not including it. It could be because not all sources make it clear that they are using those figures. I have to assume that either no one watched Castle on DVR, or the Deadline figure is using the +7day rating and just not acknowledging it. You'd have to compare all the shows on both lists to see if there were differences in the figures. If there were not, then Deadline is probably using the same figures and not saying so (or not aware of it). As for streamline, I have not the faintest idea about that. You would think that it would, but ultimately we cannot tell if they do not tell us and I've never seen figures for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

One-season show, THREE articles

Today I came across Magic City, an new series that is currently airing its first season of 8 episodes. Imagine my surprise (horror) to find three articles written about the show: Magic City (TV series), List of Magic City episodes, and Magic City (season 1). Why is this kind of article hierarchy needed here? It's not like the show has aired for years. MOS:TV recommends the possibility of creating season pages after about 80 episodes have aired. 8 episodes have been made for this show (plus a second season order of 10 episodes). Surely the season page isn't needed because everything except the episode list table is already in the "main" page. The episode descriptions can be moved there.

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Magic City (TV series)#Merge discussion, so should anyone from WP:TV wish to participate, you are welcome. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar feelings for Sugartown (TV series) which has a separate episode list of three entries.... Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I have merged List of Sugartown episodes into a parent article. By the way, that situation is not the same as Magic City. --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the same. I said I had similar feelings towards the situation. There are many many spinoff lists being unnecessarily created by this project whose content could easily be contained in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
See also Wall of Fame (game show). Why, oh why, oh why? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and the reprehensible List of What Do Kids Know? episodes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, List of At Home with Julia episodes is pretty pathetic too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
And Canal Road (TV series). Is there a guideline within this project that says an episode list should be created regardless of the fact the main article may be tiny? I won't post more examples here, although I'll keep track of them, but these spin-off lists really are entirely redundant, unreferenced (in general) and embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Novice and some experienced editors follow OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, creating not-wholly-unlikely supporting articles for a topic that similar topics in the same field have, in a bottom-up approach. The problem is that we're supposed to approach these via summary style, spinning out info from larger articles only when the first article gets large (a top-down approach). So arguably plages like WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT should be evaluated first before they are created. When they are spun out prematurely, merging is completely reasonable (leaving redirects behind since such are likely common search terms). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I agree, we need to refer to WP:Too soon I think, no point in spinning off episode lists for defunct TV shows that have a single series and went kaput ten years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I lied, here's another : List of Housos episodes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
And List of Laid episodes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone care to tell me the point of List of My Kitchen Rules episodes? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
And List of Australian Prank Patrol episodes? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
And List of Woodley episodes? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone from the project care to offer an opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. I don't know what's happened to this project this year. :( Obviously they all need deleting or merging (the articles, not the project members) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge info from all three into the series article, delete the season article and redirect the list to the series; no one is going to search specifically for "season 1" of a one-season show, but they might search for a list of episodes and should then be pointed to an episode list on the parent article. Treat one-season shows like an individual season of a larger show is treated, with casting, production, reception, etc information all accompanied by a tabled list of episodes. Because all of these cases have the exact same merits (or lack thereof), a mass AFD would probably actually be the best idea; any argument for or against deletion of one will apply to all equally anyway. GRAPPLE X 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Streisand effect (see Talk:Magic City (TV series)#Merge discussion) has resulted in the 8-episode list (with no summaries) at List of Boss episodes to be merged into Boss (TV series)#Episodes. Please keep an eye on both pages for if it gets reversed. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Are these refs good for airdates etc.?

Are these refs any good for airdates and similar?: Addic7ed, WebVoyage? Please reply soon. :) All the best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The first site looks like a fansite...so I would say "no". The second is for copyrights, and I'm not sure it would say anything about airdates. Anything wrong with TV Guide? What is the show you're trying to source?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
A fansite? - Lol, almost any show on TV is listed. All of the info I've seen so far is accurate, except for a cartoon, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, where they left out the third season; The info's not user-added, so... Did you think it's a House fansite, because a look-alike is seen on top of the page? - He's seen, because the website is made for handicapped people (for subtitles or something, not sure...). For the second site, if you search, for example, Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, it'll find its page and list the airdate (the correct one). Episodes and alot of other stuff are also listed. Currently, I'm trying to find airdates for Ed, Edd n Eddy and My Gym Partner's a Monkey episodes.
Being a fansite doesn't mean that it has to be for a specific show. By fansite, I mean it is not professionally run (or at least it does not appear to be that way when I look at the info about the website itself). So, have you tried TV Guide for those shows?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There's much false information there... :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 15:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The Addic7ed website might be good as List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes list went through FLC two times; Thogh it failed, there was no mention of the website being a bad source. Plus, the airdates, production codes, titles, and all pages in general, are not user-added. It might not look as the best source, but it probably is. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


addicted seems dubious i was goign to say at first it seems possible reasonable asa realible source but i dug a big deeper into the site and it seems not only a fanstie buta site that has illegal videos on itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Addic7ed doesn't have any videos on it, illegal or otherwise. It's an excellent subtitle site, specialising in TV shows. Subtitles are the only thing you can download from it. Maybe they have ads to other sites somewhere that have videos, but I haven't noticed them. Barsoomian (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.sub-talk.net/thread-6-1-1.html its at the bottom of the page and says video formats that is dubious in my mind whether it is hosting or linking to illegal videosAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's "sub-talk.net", not "Addic7ed.com". Your link doesn't work for me anyway. And it mentions "video formats"? So what? I'm sure I could start from your user page and get to an illegal video download in three or four jumps too. Barsoomian (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That why i said it seems becuase i cant be sure, and its tehf forum for that site, just because its anotehr domain means nothing, addicted.com owns that domain to, and it there forums, and they havea link at the bottom of htere page, it is suspious at the very least so it cant be used as arelaible sourceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Where does it say at WP:RS that a site has to pass a file-sharing morality test to be a reliable source? All this talk about "illegal videos" is quite irrelevant to the question of whether a site has reliable information about TV schedules. You don't have to certify the site for anything else. Especially since there actually are no videos for download at the site at all. Barsoomian (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Have a look through other wikipeida guidelines you will find that there isa taboo against using sites for source regardless of realibilty that are engage in illegal activiites, there is exemptions but those exemptions have to be takend to realible source notieboard for wider scruntism of the source to see if when being illegal should the soruce be used to verify something generally the answer will be no, its teh fact that they might have illegal stuff on the site makes me wonder ho wthe information is obtained and verified on there site, bignole has summed up other reasons pretty well, it isnt realible if the OP wants they can take it to realible source noticeboard for wider ommunity discussion on it, but they will need to provide the article will be used on and what it is verifying so other users can decided wether they feel it is realible or not.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying that they are doing something "illegal". There are no video files at Addc7ted. None at all. I don't care about using it for anything except subtitles, but I find this repeated assertion that the site is an illegal video sharing site, when none of that is true, very troubling. By the way, I worked out what your "video formats" link is, it's a dead link that went to a FAQ on video formats. You can find exactly the same information here at Wikipedia. I'd be interested to know what country linking to a FAQ about video formats is illegal in. Barsoomian (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thats makles me think it even more because it talks about dvd rip cam rio erc these are aoll ways off providinh illegal copies why have it on there forums if there legit? my personal view is unrealible if you want to say it is take it to the notriceboartd im not repolying to thius anymore the site seems more and more dubious evewn if they dnt host illegal stuff they at very least seem to promote itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. A link to a FAQ ARTICLE ON ANOTHER SITE, with generic information the same as found in Wikipedia, is not an "illegal download". You have no basis for this declaration. Again I ask, where do the criteria for WP:RS insist a site must pass your morality check? Answer: they do not. Barsoomian (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
webvoyager seems liek it might be a realible source but it takea a even deepr coverage of it to be suer but i would use this one for now but not the otherAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's the problem with Addic7ed.com: There is no official "about us" page, which means we do not know what the editorial oversight actually is. Editorial oversight is a key factor in considering a source a "reliable source". So, there's nothing to tell us who they are, how they operate, ...nothing. The fact that they "have" airdates for you does not mean that they are reliable to use (reliability does not mean accuracy, by the way). Secondly, I really don't like the fact that as soon as you get to the page you get a big "DONATE" money sign to the website. That makes me feel, again, that there must not be any real backing and calls into question how many people actually operate it, what their qualifications are, and where the editorial oversight is. Khana, you said their is "much false information" at TV Guide? Can you show me this false info, because I've been using TV Guide and MSN TV Guides since I've been here and they've always been fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, if asking for donations is a mark of Cain, what kind of rubbish site must this be, then? Please support the Wikimedia Foundation by donating today. Barsoomian (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ever notice how Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source either? Just saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You said having a "donate" sign "makes me feel, again, that there must not be any real backing and calls into question how many people actually operate it". Wikipedia has the same sign. Do you draw the same conclusion about Wikipedia? I could find "donate" requests on any number of reliable sites if you insist on having the point beaten into the ground. I'm not advocating Addic7ed as a wonderfully sourced site, but the criteria for rejecting it seem curiously trivial and nothing to do with how reliable it is on the facts. Barsoomian (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with This website or This website?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


THey are both realible as they both get obatin ther eifnromation direct from broadcasters and do have editors who verify the information before published i use them alot as well. you have sumed up why addicted is realible beyond my own reasons.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Bignole. TV Guide states that the series started airing in 1998, when it actually did in 1999 (though originally planned to air n 1998). It states that episodes that aired in 2005/2007 etc. aired in 2012, when the series ended in 2009 etc. etc. That's the problem. The same with MSN. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Khan, the TV Guide link and the MSN link both say the series started in 1999. It says a 1998 TV show, but if you look at the episode list it does not indicate that the first episode actually aired in 1998. It also shows that the last season episode wa June 29, 2008. In 2009, that was a TV movie, which is why it isn't on the last. The fact that the list goes up to 2012 is because, if you look at it carefully, it is showing repeated episodes in later years. It actually has the original episode list there in their original dates. If you're going to dismiss something, please do so after reading it a bit more carefully.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I noticed. On the MSN site, while episodes that are listed (minus those 2012-repeats) are accurate, all of the episodes from season 1 and (almost all) from season 2 are missing, so if I'd have to choose between MSN and TV Guide, I'd pick TV Guide; However, the first episode of the series is not listed there and the second, third and fourth episodes' airdates are not listed. While the info on the two page is accurate, I think the Addic7ed site is easier to... well, navigate, as the lists on the MSN and TV Guide websites are a bit messed up... However, I wouldn't mind using'em. The only problem, if I would be unable to use Addic7ed, it'd be hard to find the airdates for the missing episodes on the lists on those two websites... Well, I guess, if reliable, I could use the WebVoyage site? :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


its a unfortnauate problem with both of them that if the information is slightly different they assuming it a new episode, for example say the title is ed, edd and eddy but the broadcster gave the title as ed edd and eddy because the comma is missing they think it is new episode, when it will be the exact same episode, a online tv guide that giving very accurate infomration is really needed but none exist jsut now, but tvaddic i would say is unrealible you would be best taking it to realible sources noticeboard to get wider commmunity comment on it, i would say the other source seems realible but woul again need wider scrunity to be 100%Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

About to remove unsourced quotes and trivia sections from Veronica Mars articles

I came across Category:Veronica Mars episodes, and noticed quite a few articles (this and this, for just two examples) contain unsourced "quotes and trivia" sections that, in my mind, are original research and self-described trivia, so I am going to delete them. I know these articles on well-liked television series can be touchy with some editors, so I am mentioning it here in case some discussion needs to be had about these type of unsourced trivia sections. Thanks, Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 03:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:TRIVIA, look if there is anything of worth that might make it into a Production or Reception section, and simply remove the rest citing WP:TRIVIA. However, if all that's left is a plotty article stub that has no more (encyclopedic) information than what the List of episodes has, then simply redirect that article to the LoE/season article and demand sizey and sourced real-world information before article restoration in the edit summary (citing e.g. WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:RS). If many ep articles of a TV show have that problem, then inform editors on a central talkpage, wait for possible replies, and deal with the articles in a sweep. – sgeureka t•c 06:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Put your notice on Talk:Veronica Mars and Talk:List of Veronica Mars episodes (where there is a thread on episode notabilty from 2008 that is relevant) if you want input from editors concerned with the show. But it looks like you have preempted discussion. Barsoomian (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

tag one or two of them for AFD and state teh reasons why in there about what you have said here, then you can get wider community discussion on itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of television

In WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television), I am developing an idea about proposing a new notability guideline about television-related topics, and it cannot limit to only fiction. Anything on television, especially in general, can be discussed there. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 9)

The table has been changed and no longer reflects which contestants were in the bottom 2. In all but the first week and the week of the final 4 (semifinals), the couple who was last to be called safe was actually announced as being in the bottom 2. In fact, in some weeks, there were double eliminations, with the contestant with the lowest overall combined total of judges' scores and viewer votes leaving first, then the remaining bottom 2 competing in a Dance Duel to stay in. So even in those weeks, the couples were really announced as being in the bottom 3. The table is very incomplete in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.101.209 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Images?

Are .png images (partly trapsparent ones) preferred to normal ones? Are .png ones preferred to title boards? Just checking. All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stargate categories

I wanted to rename the following categories under speedy criteria:

However, two object renaming because of Stargate Project and lack of "WikiProject" or "Wikipedia" within these proposed categories. Nevertheless, Category:Friends task force doesn't have either one wiki- or something. You can click here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 5. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The outcome was a consensus to rename as Category:Wikipedia Stargate task force. I suggest following this format for other task forces. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers and Frasier task force(s)

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces and withdrawn Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible move of Millennium (miniseries)

There is a suggestion at Talk:Millennium (miniseries)#Name change that that page is moved to Millennium (2010 TV series). To my mind, this would mean that Millennium (TV series) would need additional disambiguation, i.e. Millennium (1996 TV series). Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Show

I am a big fan of Call of the Wildman, it is just I am always very confused on the camera. I know there is a camera man, but I wonder i he ever gets hurt on the adventures in the episodes of Call of the Wildman... reply please I want to hear your responses.

Emms56 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal of I Love Lucy characters

Lucy Ricardo (talk) ↔ Ricky Ricardo (talk)
Fred Mertz (talk) ↔ Ethel Mertz (talk)

I propose mergers of these characters into Ricky and Lucy Ricardo and Fred and Ethel Mertz. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable recurring characters

Could any of the experienced editors offer opinions on what makes a cast member notable? I have read the Manual of Style and the notability guidelines and nothing says that a member of the cast has to be a member of the "main cast" in order to be notable. My opinion would be that a recurring cast member is notable if he or she has appeared in more than two thirds of the seasons of a show and if those seasons were all in a row. But I could definitely amend this if some one else has a better rule of thumb. Specifically I am dissatisfied with the way articles on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit focus almost exclusively on main cast members. Are there certain contexts in which "cast" unambiguously means "main cast"? Or is this a misconception on the part of Law & Order editors? Thanks. Connor Behan (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no hard rules, but there is a spectrum of notability; TV shows simply differ too much for strict rules. However, generally, if you have a couple of paragraphs worth of non-trivial real-world information (e.g. casting, reception), then that character might get its own article. This is often, but not always, true for main cast characters of the current popular shows. Still, attention should be paid to WP:AVOIDSPLIT from the character list and WP:NOT#PLOT for a stand-alone article. If there is only a few sentences of real-world information, or a (recurring) character with hardly any available real-world information still has some plot significance, then he might be covered in a section in a character list. So if you want a non-main-cast character to get his/her own article, then start gathering real-world information, or you'll be stuck with a list entry at best. I hope that helps for a start. – sgeureka t•c 09:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The information I have is on casting and reception - specifically that long time recurring characters who were staples of the show departed in the 13th season. I don't want this information to be spun out to its own article, but I want to list it in the section for "cast changes" - because a change to the "recurring cast" is still a "cast change". I think it's non-trivial because you'd have to watch many episodes to learn this real world information - it's not announced anywhere. Thoughts on this? Connor Behan (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Having read Talk:Law_&_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_(season_13)#Non-appearance_of_long_time_recurring_characters now, I understand your point better, but I fear I have to agree with the other editors there that "Recurring characters come and go all the time". As far as I understand the TV business, actors of the main cast get an employment contract for a whole season, whereas actors playing recurring characters are hired on a per-episode-as-needed basis. Therefore, a recurring character not appearing anymore is technically not a cast change as in "a change in contract", but instead still the same old "hire when needed" situation (with the subtle "but we currently don't need him" distinction). – sgeureka t•c 09:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the show just got a new showrunner (who is likely to have different tastes and change a few things), it seems like this is more than just "leaving the actors with the same old status". Had the old showrunner continued with this season I think he would have hired the actors again. However, this is speculative. Your definition of a cast change being a contract change certainly isn't too big of a stretch. I have put the information in a different article that already lists information about recurring cast departures. Connor Behan (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A good example of what sgeureka is saying is at the article for Martin Keamy, a LOST character that appeared in a series of several episodes in LOST's 4th season but that was about it. The article, however, is an FA because of its in-depth real-world info. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Calandar year awards in season articles

Golden Globe Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards are calendar year awards based on January 1 through December 31 eligibility periods. Many traditional calendar television shows that run from September to May have parts of their season in two calendar years. Thus, the September through December part of the season are in one eligibility period and January through May part are in the other. Many season articles only discuss the awards won for the September through December portion of the season. However, it seems to me that they should mention both GG and SAG awards in a season article. Is this desirable?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I am noticing that it is also common to discuss top 10 lists for the later calendar year of the season. Thus, in an article like Desperate Housewives (season 2), it would be common to talk about only the Golden Globes and SAG awards for the 2005 year and the top ten lists for the 2006 calendar year. For a show like this, it won GG and SAG awards for best comedy in 2005 and was on several 2005 top ten lists. However, it was not on any major 2006 top ten lists so the article would present that it won the GG and SAG awards for best TV comedy, but was not on any top 10 lists. This can not be proper. Discussants at the current GAC review point to other favorably reviewed seasons as evidence that this is accepted practice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree on the critics list. Let's say Grey's Anatomy was included in a top-ten list for 2005. Grey's Anatomy's first season was part of the 2004-05 television season. Therefore, in the season one article, you would note which top-ten lists it was included in for 2005. The next season, season two, was a part of the 2005-06 television season. Therefore, you would note which top-ten lists it was included in for 2006. If you included 2005 in season two, along with 2006, it would be repetitious of the first season; listing the same top ten lists. Furthermore, top ten lists (for example 2006) include all content from the entire year, so the end of the year would not be left out. In conclusion, I feel that a season's article should only include top ten lists from the second half of the season, as the first half is included in the previous season. However, I agree with you on the awards, as they are awarded by season specifically, whereas top ten lists go by years. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Coach Ernie Pantusso?

I have proposed a rename to this Cheers character. So far, there is only one opposer and no other opinions. It has been relisted, so I need your opinions please, but not here. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rod Serling Audio

Hello, I have an audio file of Rod Serling speaking these famous words from his TV program, "The Twilight Zone":

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosives and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy. And a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own."

My question is this: Could this audio file be placed in Serling's Wikipedia Article Page, or on the "Twilight Zone" Page? As computer-challenged :-) as I am, I wouldn't have a clue how to upload it. I would appreciate any input on this. - Michael David (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested: Al-Akhbariya and Syria News Channel

I suspect that Al-Akhbariya may well be the same thing as Syria News Channel, but not having local knowledge or being an Arabic speaker, I can't be sure. Can someone with local knowledge confirm this one way or another? -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Two series with the same name

Hi

There are two TV series with the same name, identical in every way. One is from the 50s and one from this year.

If someone can tell me how the articles should be titled I would be very grateful. I am supposing it will be "TV Series (year)" or something similar, but do not know if it should be the first year, the range of years, or something else that is to be used. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be a big help to know the names of the series and where they were made. As to the year we only use the start year as with this title Sherlock Holmes (1984 TV series). As I'm typing this I can think of a couple other variables so as soon as you let us know the names we should be able to help further. MarnetteD | Talk 04:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

West Wing episodes mass merge

The recent AFDs of several West Wing episodes have made me aware of merges of other West Wing articles, subsequent to AFDs and DRVs which determined that merging episodes in article by article was not the right course. While I'm rather displeased at this circumvention of consensus, the more important question is what to do with these articles. As I've said before and will probably have to say again: I'm not saying that Wikipedia has to cover individual episodes in the amount of detail we currently do, but rather that since we do, we shouldn't leave random gaps. So here are my questions:

  1. Will a discussion here be sufficient to gain consensus for a merge, or should we create an AFD page that deals with all the episodes? (Excepted: ones that won Emmys and so forth.)
  2. Do you agree that we should not be getting rid of articles in this haphazard way?
  3. Should we or should we not merge in episode articles?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It annoys me that they were AFDed. Was there one large discussion or several? Can you point me to any discussion(s)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The ones I saw were WP:Articles for deletion/Let Bartlet Be Bartlet and WP:Articles for deletion/The Lame Duck Congress. Drought Conditions also has a history, and the other merges I've reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cuddles The Monkey

is he a monkey or an ape I remember him being an Orang-utan QueenAlexandria (talk 9th July 2012 UTC 09:55 —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New discussion

Just thought I pass it along that there a new discussion over here. Sarujo (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd merger proposal of Woody Interruptus

As determined in prior proposal, notability of an episode is not easy to define. However, in this proposal, notability of this episode is stepped aside in favor of doing what would be best for Wikipedia. Feel free to join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Episode article image cleanups

It would be helpful if the TV project could assist in helping to reduce non-frees in older episode articles (eg probably many created before 2008-ish) of removing screenshots of the episodes that otherwise fail to "to illustrate a crucial element of the episode - that is, the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary - and where that commentary is in need of visual support to be understood." as per MOSTV. (eg one series I'm seeing are the more recent Star Trek episodes.)

This is less a problem with more recent series where awareness of this isn't an issue; this is mostly from articles pre-dating non-free enforcement. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For example, I am going to start with Ugly Betty articles, as there are many images throughout the episodes, which do not fit the criteria. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is scarce for me, but I have an interest in this and may help out best by compiling a list of TV series whose ep articles need to be reviewed for non-free screenshots. I'll start browsing Category:Lists of television series episodes. – sgeureka t•c 07:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not that every article gets a free one, but I think that we should undetstand that in general the FU standards are enforced with a lower threshold for the main infobox image. I have been in a few debates about infobox image use recently and find that there is some consensus in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really; NFCC for episode screenshots in the infobox must still be met, though yes, there is probably the argument that editors can describe in the rationale for the image the need for it to describe a difficult-to-put-into-text scene. My focus is on images like the one used for Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager); talking heads, live actors, in a situation easily described by words, and furthermore never detailed in the text - a screenshot isn't appropriate at all. (I could argue notability but one issue at a time...). If anything, the focus should be on articles like this Voyager one, where there's barely any reception, and certainly no discussion of a scene use in the infobox at all; those are certainly cases far below the threshold for allowance; those that fall more on the cusp (they are discussed, but maybe they aren't really necessary... but would require lengthier discussion to determine) should be left alone. As long as there's understanding here that there's no entitlement to a infobox image for episode articles, that's the key factor. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mad Mad World

this article has two contestants in one of the episodes the wrong way round ref http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=320953 this is the full episode and as you see Lisa is with Gino and Mr Darby and martin Kemp is with Rufus and Rob (QueenAlexandria) 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; two tips for future reference: (1) please always include a link to the article in question, which was Mad Mad World (TV series), but it wasn't even in your contribs, so I had to search for it. (2) You are welcome to be bold and fix it yourself. There was no controversy or dispute here, you saw an inaccuracy and you had a reliable primary source; just make the edit! Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel

I started to create a page on the upcoming crossover episode of Phineas and Ferb at User:JDDJS/Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel, which I will make into a full article once there is enough content. Considering that this is the first Disney/Marvel crossover, I feel that this page could expand fast. Please help contribute to it. JDDJS (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Turning WP:WikiProject Dad's Army into a task force?

There is a clear consensus to turn Wikipedia:WikiProject Dad's Army into a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dad's Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This Project is inactive and must be converted into a task force. It was proposed previously as a requested move but ended as no move in its talkpage. This time, I hope this may overhaul the previous consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turning The Office Project into a task force?

There is a clear consensus to turn Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US) into a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and the scope of the task force should contain all version of The Office. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 22:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal of turning this Project into a task force was a requested move. Unfortunately, administrators do not accept any type of requests as move requests. Therefore, I'm proposing a conversion here. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In this proposal, this Project must become a task force, just in case of future participants. Also, it is currently limited to only American version and is losing participants because of that. Therefore, The Office Project must broaden its own scope to allow the British version and any other versions. So far, I see three people supporting it in previous discussion. Shall these votes count here? If not, can anybody here re-vote? --George Ho (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The historic Daisy video

Should this be the next Featured Pic?

The historic Daisy ad helped Lyndon Johnson win a landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964 and is an important turning point in political and advertising history. The entire full length video is up for Featured Picture! Click here to check it out. – Lionel (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Free images

I see this flickr account with free images for dozens of TV shows and wonder are they really licensed properly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that I get lots of hits of these same photos when I test them with tineye.com, including the most recent on July 16, 2012 that brings up a hit on a 2008 page [1], I'm pretty sure that they're mis-re-licensing the works on Flickr. So no, these are not free images for our use. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:River City characters

Template:River City characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Character List Articles

I've noticed that this exists: Category:Lists of minor fictional characters. And I've been wondering as to why these articles exist. Take List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, for example. How is it encyclopedically necessary to have a list of every character ever appearing in a Buffy described entirely in-universe? First of all, barely any of the information is verifiable, with one of the sources being a Buffy wiki. Second, even though all of the characters are probably referred somewhere collectively (satisfying the requirement on WP:LISTN), I don't know why these lists of minor characters would be considered notable. Wikipedia should not be creating reference documents for every TV show ever made. These articles are not like List of fictional dogs, which provide the encyclopedic purpose of enumerating a list of independent characters, each with its own real-world context. It's possible I'm missing something here, so somebody please point out my error. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not going to find an argument with this editor. My view is that such articles should be limited to listing characters where third-party sourcing is available establishing their significance. Regrettably, at this point going through every article and making those cuts would be a significant undertaking and likely stir up a hornet's nest of protests...which doesn't mean it shouldn't be done in any case. Such articles would likely also need to be monitored long-term to ensure they did not revert to their previous condition over time. Doniago (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Consider it the lesser of evils. If the article was deleted, editors would start to create articles for each character. Having the list means any such minor character articles that appear can be merged into this one without much drama and only the few notable characters get their own articles. Also, I don't think you need to apply the same strict notability criterion for members of a list as you do for an article subject itself. The article does not use the Buffy wiki as a source, that is an external link. The sources actually cited seem respectable enough. Barsoomian (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As a point: character articles are nearly always verified by the primary work. Notability, on the other hand...
We have made it a point that on WP, coverage of a serialized fictional work generally will often involve a character list. For most shows, this likely can be embedded in the main article about the TV show itself. When a show gains more attention, then likely the character list is one of the first things split off acceptably as a separate article. But this is where it can start going south. For a case like "The Simpsons", where's there's probably well over 100 characters and enough media attention to make them notable, a single list won't do it, and hence why there's multiple character lists there. That works for a show with this much attention, or similar to something like Lost. On the other hand, when you take something like Buffy, which was a popular show but one without a lot of media attention, a minor character list probably isn't necessary; it goes into far too much detail on minor character points that are better suited for a fanwiki. There's probably some trimming that could be made to work the most significant minor characters if there are any back to the main character list. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You're saying that the Simpsons or Lost warrants such a list and Buffy doesn't? I don't see how you can allow one but not the other. As for "Not a lot of media attention", have a look at Buffy studies and get back to us. Barsoomian (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Buffy would certainly qualify for a list of main characters, but the minor characters is extremely iffy and as I read it (and yes, I'm familiar with the show) is very fluffy. On the other hand, Simpsons and Lost have much more analysis about them that likely would merit the minor characters having a list for those; mind you, the same issue with "fluffiness" of excessive character descriptions without putting it into encyclopedic context can still occur. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, I understand the necessity of having character lists for fictional shows, as the recurring characters tend to have important out-of-universe context, such as how the character was created and the public's reception of the character. But even in popular series, what is the purpose of listing minor characters that have no significance in the outside universe? To be clear, the primary reason this all came to my attention is because List of The Legend of Korra characters was recently created, yet the show is definitely not popular enough (nor does it have enough characters even) to warrant its own character list article, so I'm trying to establish some sort of guideline as to when a character article deserves to stand on its own and when it should be merged. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Newer editors tend to create "bottom up" articles, instead of "top down" where we only break out details like this if the main article is getting too long. That is not the case for "Legend of Korra" (once you strip out the viewership chart away, it's far too early to need a plot like that). Unfortunately, it's very hard to convince editors to work the "top down" when many typically think along the line that "Other stuff exists" and rush to create the detailed articles. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying the Korra characters list article deserves to stand on its own? Honestly I'm just wondering so that I don't prematurely start another debate on the talk page when there are already three RFCs going on. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Right now, no, as the main show article is short enough to include the list of characters. Perhaps, (and this is crystal-balling) the show will be popular enough as a followon to Airbender that there will be more to add to the show's page as to suggest pushing the characters off to a separate one, but that step shouldn't happen until that problematic size comes along. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll start a discussion on the talk page. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 18:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in joining discussion, it's happening at Talk:The Legend of Korra#RFC the fourth: Merge the unnecessary characters article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

International broadcast section on TMNT 2012 article

Over the past few days, we have had some issues in the International Broadcasts section of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) article. Sarujo has repeatedly tried to remove the broadcast section on the article in question, but it was swiftly reverted. In the discussion about the International Broadcasts, Niemti (talk · contribs) and DylanGLC2011 (talk · contribs) insist that the international broadcast section of the article is to be kept. I am taking this discussion here to see if we can gain a more broad consensus on this issue here. Should we keep the "International Broadcasts" section, or just remove it? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I direct you to WP:MOSTV#Broadcast, which appears to directly discuss the issue that is being created at the article. In summary, basically we should not be simply listing every channel that a show appears on outside of its country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Old Daytime Emmy Award templates

The following unused templates have been nominated for deletion:

Note that Daytime Emmy Award Lead Actor/Actress templates are now divided into date ranges 1974-1983, 1984-1993, 1994-2003, 2004-2013. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lego TV series

There are two or three TV series inspired by or inspiring LEGO themes, with the two most notable being Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu and Hero Factory. But they are being frequently edited by unregistered users who put in misleading, barely verified, or plain vandalizing information. I would like the assistance of anyone who can give more reliable and permitted references for these pages, can recommend ways of vetting new text, and keep people from putting in inaccurate or nonsensical information about the characters and episode plots. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tim and Eric Nite Live episodes

Template:Tim and Eric Nite Live episodes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

American? Really?

I'm arguing with someone over calling a series "American." Really?, Really?. Somebody talk to this user, who seems intent on not only ignoring thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia articles, but also the dictionary. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("U.S." or "American") 2...please...not again. ;) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I had quite a laugh over the discussion linked above! Thank you for that! To the OP: it is clear that you are correct, and it is clear that your opponent is a new account, low-edit-count, WP:SPA without much experience. So while we don't need to WP:BITE him very hard; I think he has seen the error of his ways and won't get in our way in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging Lilith Sternin into Frasier Crane?

I propose merger of two articles into one. You may join in. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Hi,

This is an invitation to "Television" members to comment on my proposal for a "Westerns" WikiProject to deal specifically with articles regarding Western movies and Western TV series', major Western actors, directors and people involved in this vast genre over the past century. This is for the fictional Wild West – such as Hollywood's idea of the Old West – so not a historical project. Comments, ideas and further support appreciated. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish[chat] 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns

The Puzzle Place

Would someone check out The Puzzle Place? Although the persistent obvious vandalism at that article seems to have died down, there have been a lot of changes to puppeteers/voice actors and so on, and I don't know enough about the series to correct it if it's false. Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

DVD order or broadcast order?

Sometimes episodes of a show are broadcast in a different order than they were originally intended to be, such as in the case of Firefly. In such cases, the episode order is often "corrected" on DVD releases to follow the creators' intended order. In episode list articles, which order should the episodes be listed in: By original broadcast date or by the order they appear on the DVD? I'm having a discussion about this at Talk:List of The Venture Bros. episodes#Episode order appears to be wrong, but that's pretty much the only TV-related article I've ever worked on so I don't know if there's a standard or if this sort of thing has been discussed before. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would go with both. I think that the standard order should reflect the airdates - and I think that is reflected across Wiki. I think that a second column, if absolutely necessary could be created renumbering the episodes. You can even do "sort table" options to allow a reader the ability to sort the episodes into their chronological order. If we're talking about 1 episode out of place or something, unlike Firefly which was just a mess, then you can probably get away with a footnote. Generally, our primary order should reflect airdate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with broadcast order. If the production codes are known then they're a good indication that episodes aired out of order; they're included as standard in episode lists anyway. A little prose to explain that the order has changed across presentations would also be a good idea. And yes, Firefly was a mess, but I think I mean that in a different way than you. :P GRAPPLE X 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to jump in: The production order of a TV show has ZERO to do with intended watching order, broadcast or otherwise. Episode production is often re-arranged by external factors (guest stars availability, etc.) These are internal codes and are of really no interest or relevance, except to the show's aficionados. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
List of Undeclared episodes has a different approach, listing in neither broadcast order, nor production code order, but the order intended by the creators. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is List of The Venture Bros. episodes. Some of the episodes in the first two seasons aired in a different order than they appear on the DVD releases (the DVD order matches the production code order). Since 2006 the episodes have been listed by airdate. Now an editor has re-ordered them to match the order on the DVDs, adding the note "The list below reflects the episode order on DVD releases, as chosen by the creators, not the original broadcast order." I believe they should remain in broadcast order (I also think the "as chosen by the creators" claim is, at best, inference). With Firefly, airing the episodes out-of-sequence caused confusion with regard to story continuity and thus could be confusing to readers, but this isn't the case for The Venture Bros. I like the idea of listing them by airdate and adding a sort button so they can be sorted by production code, but I'm not sure if the sort button is supported by {{Episode list}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If that is a reasonable compromise, I would propose that question to the template talk page. I'm not great with codes so I don't know if it is, or if it could be made to be sortable. Obviously, it would be significant as we're talking about sorting rows with big plot summaries, and not basic cells.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As much as I love Firefly, and as much as I think it's best to reflect the creator's intentions over the network's, I don't think the revised episode list was made *just* to reduce confusion. Similarly, Dollhouse lists episodes that were never even broadcast (placed in their position on the DVD). It seems standard WP practice to honor the creator's intentions, not just whichever network broadcast it first. Finally, as previously pointed out, Production Codes can NOT be used to verify a creator's intentions. For example, in the case of The Venture Bros., the writers will often leave the premiere episode to the end of the production, thus giving themselves a better idea of what they need to explain at the beginning of the season (this can verified by the production numbers in Seasons 3 and 4, or by listening to the recent Nerdist Podcast featuring one of the creators). Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
late in posting been business trying to mediate a dispute. ok dvd order should always been used because generally when the dvd is released it is released in the proper order, broadcaster and known to air things out of order for variety of reason ratings is big one, either because they want to pull a big audience for a partical episode or the show is in decline so they want to wrap the show up and skip episodes. another reason is because of finical reasons but it doest matter the reason why , the fact remains they do it, i know a uk broadcaster aired a 12 episode show out of order how can i say that, well because they aired episode 12 after episode 4 because they knew the show was going downhill so rather get the show finale out of the way, the bit in it that says it definitely the end is the person dies in it, when they air the next episode, episode 5 as epsidoe 6 they person is alive again whit no reason for being alive. i just think the dvd order is best and more accurate, i dnt see why the air order is seen as so important. before i am asked what is the show called i cant think of the name it just sticks in my mind before or the show cont unity being out of syncAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, doesn't excuse original broadcasting order. Wikipedia should not be retroactively changing things just because someone decides later to put something in a different order (whether through original intention or change of mind). For example, if a film is released theatrically and then later in a DVD cut of the film events are changed (e.g. maybe a director wanted a different scene later and it was too late to include it in the theatrical version) then the plot summary reflects what was shown in the theaters. Later in the article, the addition/subtraction of scenes can be discussed through reliable sources. That is the same thing here. The table should reflect how the show was aired, with indication somewhere (whether in the table or outside it) on how it was shown out of order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the order that was intended for the episodes (making it the correct order) would be the ideal way to have it set out, rather than the airing order. Because of the network's rescheduling and other factors, the intended viewing order is sometimes altered, but is generally unaltered on the DVD release. However, the general guidline seems to be airing order across wikipedia, and I'm sure this is for good reason, and so do not oppose listing episodes in aired order. Having said this, I believe that the original intended order must be made clear somehow. The production code sometimes gives some idea, but as it has been pointed out, this order is not necessarily the intended viewing order, so there needs to be some way of stating the intended order. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to look at the situation. Are we talking about 1 or 2 episodes out of order, or way more (ala Firefly). If it's just a couple of episodes then a footnote would be sufficient. If it's more then, we need to think of a way to re-organize a table on command.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The case that brought me here was List of The Venture Bros. episodes (prior revision, in broadcast order). It's just a few episodes in seasons 1 and 2 that were aired in a different order than they later appeared on the DVD releases. With Firefly, the network airing the episodes out of intended sequence has been cited as one of the reasons the show didn't do well, since the re-ordering confused the story arc, and the show's early cancellation meant there were episodes that never aired. Not so with The Venture Bros: The order of broadcast vs. order of DVD presentation doesn't confuse the plot at all, and all episodes were aired. The argument for listing the episodes in the DVD order is generally that this is "the proper order" as "intended by the creators", but there is no direct evidence for this, just inference. We don't know why they're in a different order on the DVD than the order in which they aired. We assume this represents the creators' original intention, but one could just as easily posit that they rearranged the order for the DVDs because they felt post-facto that it was a better order than how they originally aired. I don't find the "this is how they appear on the DVDs" argument compelling in and of itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the real question is: Should Wikipedia reflect the creator's intentions/preferred viewing order? Ordering episodes by the order in which a US network chose to air them isn't particularly noteworthy. If they're broadcast in a different order in a different country, e.g. Canada, or the UK, which should take precedence? Is it the country that made the show? Is it the country which aired it first? The two aren't necessarily the same. And what about co-productions, where a show is made by several countries? (E.g. Dr Who, Wolf Hall, Rome, etc.) It seems to me that the safest and most accurate order should be the creator's preference -- Provided that reliable proof can be found of such a thing. In the absence of proof, I concede that broadcast order should probably suffice. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Preference is always to the country that made the show. It is in the Film WikiProject as well. Again, creator's intentions should be identified with reliable sources and prose content. The fact that a DVD reordered a series does not mean that it was the creator's intentions. It means that the studio decided to reorder the series for whatever their reasons. You cannot assume that just because it has been reordered that that was the original intention. That is why a table should reflect original airdates, as that is objective, and make notes (or develop prose) when reliable sources indicate that the order was originally intended to be a different way by the creators. We should not be retconning anything because we later found out that they want to change it. Accuracy would be indicating what the original order was, followed by explanation of what the order was intended to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was addressed to me or not, as you have apparently ignored everything I wrote apart from the second sentence? Confused :-/ As I asked: Who takes precedence in co-productions? Sometimes shows are made by one country for another territory, so it cannot be the case that the country that made it takes precedence. (Monty Python's German episodes spring to mind.) What about episodes that were never aired? Also, what about the other points I raised? Finally, I found your tone a little patronizing. I'd appreciate it if you tried a little harder to make your points in a less confrontational way. Thanks. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Both directed at you, in part, and then just clarification in general. I don't agree that preference should be "creator intent", regardless of reliable source, because that negates the historical perspective of the show (and Wikipedia is about the historical perspective, not what just happened). I do agree that it needs to be acknowledged that there is a different order. Regardless, without a reliable source indicating WHY it was re-ordered, all we have in the case of the original argument (and in most cases) is a DVD boxset that reorders the show. In such a case, all we can do is state that it is in a different order than originally broadcast. I do not propose (and I am not sure if you were actually proposing this) that we adjust the MOS to say that "original intention" be used to order a series over "original airdate", because again I think that removes any value to historical perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Your points seem to ignore the myriad of exceptions I've raised. I agree with others that Networks are notorious for re-ordering episode orders. I believe in such a case that a note should be made, so it can be recorded. If this is what you're proposing, I certainly agree. However, the way you've worded your response implies that Dollhouse and Firefly are both incorrect. Is that what you're stating? In the case of the Venture Bros. (which is only a small part of what we're discussing), it is well known that the show's creators are heavily involved in the DVD/Blurays production. Regardless of this, I've gotten in contact with one of them to ask for clarification. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that as far as Firefly goes, this is fine, as it contains a way of sorting the table to broadcast order and to intended order. The only issue there is the preference giving to intended order, when broadcast order should be first since historically that was how it was presented. The prose also explains the situation. As far as List of Firefly episodes goes, I would say that, IMO, this page is wrong for reordering the page in favor of intended order. I think broadcast order needs to be the primary reflection of the article, with something to explain the real order. Now, there was talk about determining if a code could be added to the episode table to allow for reordering based on chronological/conceptual order. I think that should be done so that both can be observed by the reader. I do not believe in basically reordering for the sake of it, because it sends an inaccurate message to the reader who may want to know when something originally aired over where it was intended. Obviously, both are important, but preference should be to historical perspective over recent developments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've asked about getting a sort feature added to {{Episode list}}. The discussion is at Template talk:Episode list#Sort feature. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a table that contains all the available information is probably the best solution. I would still like to hear how you would handle the aforementioned issues, though. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Which issues did I miss? :(  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Future Airdates

Hello, I'm curious what the prevailing attitude is toward the inclusion of airdates that occur in the future. (One day, four days, 12 days, etc.) I sense that contributors take pride in being the first to let Wikipedia know when the next episode of their favorite show is slated to air, but these airdates aren't always accurate, and sometimes get bumped. And I've also noticed a vandalism trend where dates will be changed for no logical reason. Bots?

In my recent experience, at List_of_T.U.F.F._Puppy_episodes an IP user submitted an airdate of August 12, 2012. I reverted it based on my understanding of WP:CRYSTALBALL. They resubmitted. I reverted, then attempted dialogue. Then another IP user submitted the date. Since it is not my plan to get all Custer's Last Stand with everybody over this stuff, I was curious how other editors handle future airdates. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source to verify the date, then it is fine. The fact that it gets bumped just means that we would change it upon verification. That's all. As long as there is a reliable source, it's fine (e.g., TV Guide, MSN, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Wessex Rangers

Template:Royal Wessex Rangers has been nominated for deletion. (Royal Wessex Rangers is the fictional British Army regiment featured in Spearhead (TV series)). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

NCIS "Premise" section is LOADED with spoilers!

I don't know how one would even edit this section. I found it quite disturbing that there are so many spoilers in this section, which is labelled "Premise" and as such should be only a brief synopsis of what the show is based upon.

Seems that the show's producers, directors, and others would do something about this. How can this be fixed?

Martianpackets (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. That said, in my opinion the last 2 paragraphs of NCIS (TV series)#Premise (paragraphs 4 & 5 in the current revision) are detailed plot summary not necessary for summarizing the show's premise, and could easily be cut. The third paragraph is just a list of the cast and characters and is therefore redundant to the "Cast and characters" section. Those are just my thoughts. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FLC for Arrested Development awards list

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development for Featured List status. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development/archive1. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

I've placed SpongeBob SquarePants (character) for GAR. Please comment here for any concerns. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

PAAFTJ Television Awards

PAAFTJ Television Awards was created recently and its "awards" are now noted in dozens of articles. But the only evidence this exists is a single Wordpress blog. I've done an AfD. Even if it's actually a real "association" and not a hoax, I don't think these awards are notable enough to be mentioned. Barsoomian (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Westerns

Howdy, WikiProject Television!
Your editing history indicates that you may be interested in joining the new Westerns WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of fictional Wild West articles. If you are interested in participating, you are welcome to sign up at the project page. We hope you will join us!
Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not particularly well worded for non-userpages, but yeah, this WikiProject is now setup and still in the early stages of building its project area before user-participation can really begin to function. Anyone interested, please feel free to join. Note, this project not only covers film and TV, but Western novels, comics, actors, directors and authors, etc who make the fictional-Wild West possible. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Simpsons episode template awaiting feedback

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#Episode_template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Barb.co.uk

I was going to ask at WP:BBC and WP:BTVS, but they don't seem to be that active. Is it possible to link directly to a specific date or table on the BARB website, especially the recent ones, such as from Weekly Top 30 or Weekly Top 10? As far as I can see, it doesn't seem to be possible. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cruft/indiscriminate lists policies

In the past I've sometimes deleted ridiculous unsourced listcruft such as this [2], using WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:CRUFT as rationale (especially point 3 of NOTGUIDE, which, although it refers to videogames, seems wholly applicable to television series).

However, a user restored the material with the absurd rationale "WP:NOT GUIDE rules checked, the listing of mecha and beasts do not contradict the rules stated" [3] . While it's obviously not possible to list every single conceivable circumstance in a policy page, it's obvious to me that the content violates the NOTGUIDE/INDISCRIMINATE sections of the NOT policy. However, upon surveying that user's edits, it appears a substantial portion of his editing work on Wikipedia is writing unbelievably massive (often 9-12kb) lists of ever single mech or enemy in an anime.

Since there is a broader issue here than merely a single article, I would like to be able to point him to something more concrete so he can't use the "lists of [whatever] aren't specifically forbidden in the policy page" defense. Does anyone have a good suggestion here? Also, can we add a point to WP:NOT somewhere that is akin to point 3 of NOTGUIDE but applicable to television? I'd like to stop this problem now before he wastes more of his time and degrades more articles with this unencyclopedic content. Some guy (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Hell's Kitchen US Series Pages

There is a proposal currently at Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) concerning preventative semi-protection on previous seasons. Please look at it and provide feedback. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Hnarn01.jpg

File:Hnarn01.jpg is under deletion nomination for having an invalid license. It's a Babylon 5 screenshot, so someone needs to add a fair use rationale. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template categorization

At WP:AFC/R, Special:Contributions/86.40.106.197 has requested a wide range of television template categories, some by country (such as Category:Belgium television navigational boxes), some by show (such as Category:Blackadder navigational boxes). Many would hold very few templates with little chance of expansion (how many Blackadder navboxes will we ever create?). I'm even more skeptical about the country categories: There's no reason Belgium TV navboxes should be more similar to each other than to, say, Argentina TV navboxes. Categorization by country thus seems a rather arbitrary criterion which would only be useful if the parent categories were so large as to be unwieldy and needed to be broken down in some way, but that's not the case. This WikiProject seems a good place to discuss the categorization of TV navboxes; what do we need? Is my reasoning sound, or should these proposed templates be created? (Currently some have been created, others have been mass-declined pending the outcome of this discussion.) Huon (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And many others were already in existence before now, e.g. Category:Italy television navigational boxes, since 2010, or the Turkey one from 2009. Category:United Kingdom television personalities navigational boxes is merely an extension of Category:United States television personalities navigational boxes. Category:United Kingdom television network and channel navigational boxes is an extension of the US version. Such a mass refusal, because they need to be discussed and the others don't, is exasperating to say the least. Whatever happened to WP:BUREAUCRACY or the policy of ignoring all rules? This is hardly common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the organisational use of such categories; organising by decade, medium or genre would probably be a lot more sensible. GRAPPLE X 01:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
As for how many Blackadder navboxes will we ever create?, well how many Category:Only Fools and Horses navigational boxes will we ever create? How many Desperate Housewives do we need? I don't see what makes Blackadder any different. There are at least three already and maybe others somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument; and I'd not hesitate to !vote for the deletion of those cats if it was brought up. GRAPPLE X 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the organisational use would be relating to seeing which part of the world has which franchise, e.g. Template:X Factor (Romania) or Template:The Voice of Vietnam or Template:Albanians Got Talent or Template:Holland's Next Top Model. Many of these have different versions worldwide.
That's no reason to sort the templates by country, quite the opposite. Sorting by country would hide which part of the world has which franchise by putting the templates in different categories. Furthermore, we don't need to categorize the templates for that purpose at all; the articles should provide that information. Huon (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
What about by broadcaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
And shouldn't the same logic (i.e. no reason to sort by country) apply to Category:Television series by country? What is the difference between an Israeli reality television series and an American one? Or a German crime television series and a Canadian one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Language, intended market, actors, style, likely setting ... I'm pretty sure I can recognize the difference between a Canadian and a German crime TV series even when they're dubbed in the same language. "By broadcaster" seems an even more useless categorization scheme for templates than "by country" because firstly, the resulting categories will be even smaller and we'll have to create even more tiny categories, and secondly, the differences between templates for one broadcaster's shows and another's are likely to be just as insignificant. Why do we need more template categories in the first place? Huon (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

GA TV network articles?

I'm working on writing nuvoTV from scratch, and I would like to know what exactly the article should contain. Can somebody direct me to a few GA TV network articles? Thanks in advance. Zac  06:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

TV vs Television

Just a quick question since I can't seem to located it in any of the Manuals of Style. Is there a preference between "TV" and "television" in the body of an article? I tend to see a lot of article on anime series use the phrase "TV anime" or "anime TV", sometimes followed by "series" but not always. I have though of doing a sweep to make them consistent, either by changing them to "anime TV series" or "anime television series" depending on which form is preferred by the MoS. —Farix (t | c) 18:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Television" strikes me as being far more encyclopedic than "TV". In your above example, "anime television series" sounds much better and more professional to me. Doniago (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be my preferred wording, but I wasn't sure if I was running into a case of WP:ENGVAR or if this is more similar to WP:CONTRACTION. —Farix (t | c) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to go with "anime TV series" as it is less intrusive change than "anime television series". If "television" ends up being preferred, then it wouldn't be much of a problem to do another run. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What's with English speakers? "Anime" equals to Japanese animation from TV. There is no need to disambiguate further; in fact, "anime" is sufficient enough, and "manga" is sufficient already. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
My mistake: anime is ambiguous, so... I'm unsure. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Television sounds much better than TV. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, definitely television. GRAPPLE X 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Either. There is no need to prescribe the full version. "TV" is perfectly respectable and has been in use for over 60 years, the OED has cites going back to 1948, including such publications as Times Literary Supplement (1957), writers like Vladimir Nabokov (1962). As well insist that "USA" be replaced by "United States of America" in all cases. You don't have to be long winded to be taken seriously. Barsoomian (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I dont think we should enforce. there are certain situations that need the full version, but it is currently more associated in short. Do we call DVDs by anything else? what about CDs? Or how about UMD? (granted UMD is quite specific). We don't have to get too technical. we don't have to elaborate the obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

Am I the only one who thinks numbered lists should start at one? Please join the discussion at Template talk:Episode list#Number columns. 117Avenue (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest roles of all time lists

I am trying to find out if there are greatest role lists or greatest fictional character role lists. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Greatest roles of all time lists with any advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces

I wonder if anybody is still interested. It has been on for two months, and we have four supporters, including me. I'm still working on Cheers (season 2), and I'm doing the sandbox version of List of Cheers characters. I'm way behind, and I absolutely have little or no interest on making Frasier episodes, UNLESS it's Cheers-related. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British stage, film and television database help

I'm still trying to create the Willy Loman article. If you know anything that might be analogous to www.IBDb.com for West End theatre please chime in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#West_End_theatre_database. Also, looking for BAFTA data.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced station listings

Just to drop this Wikiproject a notice that there is an editor that is adding unsourced "Stations" sections to television programs that were broadcast in syndication. One IP has already been blocked[4] and I spotted another IP from the same IP range at Ronin Warriors and Sailor Moon I'm not sure if these IPs are related to Mark Lungo (talk · contribs), who was also added syndicated stations to articles earlier. 01:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think these edits by the IP are likely the same ones as Mark Lungo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FLCR

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Dexter (TV series) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TBrandley 01:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cable television task force

I think it's time to create a cable television task force. The articles are poorly written, poorly linked, and frankly there are a lot of articles that need to exist in this field that don't. Just as an example there are absolutely no articles that mention cable tv programming from any given time. If anyone wants to help out, please do so. Thanks. Lighthead þ 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I forgot, here's the page if you want to help out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Cable television task force. If I end up doing anything wrong please either help me fix it, or let me know. Thanks, again. Lighthead þ 03:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels

There's a dispute underway between a couple of editors on that page. Could someone else familiar with television programming take a look and try to sort them out? I'm not familiar with the topic but got sucked in as an admin.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your attention. The primary question is whether a channel list should include only the immediately available channels or also a historical review of changes in channel assignments. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Awake

Category:WikiProject Awake, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Wikipedia Awake task force. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Notability of TV station subchannel articles

Discussion about the notability of Subchannels is begin discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. --Spshu (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

I operate a WikiProject tagging bot. I was wondering if there would be any objection if I were to run the bot on articles related to television. This simply means that articles that currently do not have any talk page that are about TV shows and episodes will have the relevant WikiProject tag added to the article. Articles where the talk page already exists will not be affected. I am working my way through a complete list of articles without WikiProject tags, of which there are around 250,000. When I spot groups of articles that are similar, I locate the relevant WikiProject and tag them appropriately.

If you have any concerns or questions about this, please do say. If you have specific tasks for a WikiProject tagging bot, please get in touch. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead references incoming

This was spotted by User:Rumping so credit goes to them. BT Internet are closing their customer webspace and deleting the content. Which means that all references that end with btinternet.com or btinternet.co.uk will become dead links on 31st October 2012. This project has a lot of references that are based on btinternet sites, so it may be worth getting busy with www.webcitation.org. The following are lists of all the articles that use btinternet.com and btinternet.co.uk. - X201 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We had a similar problem at the VG project when a key reliable site announced they were shuttering completely. We were able to request a bot to go through and auto-archive the links. Assuming btinternet sites are all reliable, I bet you could do the same thing. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on actor Robert Boulter

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Last Weekend (Television series)

I don't know what convention is, but this has no plot section and 9 rave reviews by a COI editor. Could someone please just have a look to help it be in line with convention bit? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

China Central Television channels

These channels of China Central Television are just subtopics and do not deserve individual pages. I wonder if I must merge them now. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

template:TVF

{{TVF}} has been nominated for deletion. This is an external link template to a site that provides a TV station signal strength map -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Boeing 727 crash experiment

2012 Boeing 727 crash experiment is a joint TV episode and science experiment article. But the aviation side of the article editors seem to remove the TV information, so can someone bring the TV side of the article up to snuff? The TV series involved was deleted, the production companies involved was deleted, which I've restored, so someone needs to keep watch to see that we don't have a skewed representation in the article. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Stag Convergence

The Stag Convergence, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments/opinion

Alerting project members of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#What_constitutes_.22soap.22.3F where comments are requested about the inclusion of nighttime dramas in the WP:SOAPS project. Thank you, Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mio TV

Mio TV has a listing of all the channels it carries. Is such listing acceptable or to be removed? --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your project is being adopted by the WP:GOCE

Just wanted to drop a note here letting this project know that the Guild of Copy Editors is running a "blitz" from October 21–27 to copy edit all tagged articles from this WikiProject. Drop by and take a look if you're interested in helping. —Torchiest talkedits 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

American Horror Story GA reassessment

I've started one, due to recent restructuring. Please check it out. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's colors

Hi! I was wondering if there is some recomendation of using colors for seasons or it is in random? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Television series set in Van Nuys, California

Category:Television series set in Van Nuys, California, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. szyslak (t) 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about channel lineups in general

Channel lineups, like List of Dish Network channels (United States) and List of channels on Sky, are discussed in WP:village pump (policy). Express your views in regards to them. --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Extending from this, an AFD has been started for one of these articles (the above AT&T Uverse listing) which can be found here. It is anticipated that if this one is deleted, the AFD will be used as a precursor to handle all such other pages that George Ho refers to (specifically those in the category Category:Lists of television channels by company) without having to AFD each one, so a wider consensus would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
See related thread at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Meaning of Wikipedia:NOTDIR.
Also, note that the village pump reference above would call for deleting all "List of channels" articles, from the United States and other countries.
Not addressed are analagous articles, such as List of XM Satellite Radio channels, as well as non-media related "List ofs". --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
List of AT&T U-verse channels is now deleted per AFD. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) is now undergoing discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

These nominated lists resulted as "Delete". Enough said. --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How many more AFDs after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky? --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups? --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:List of Astro Channels is also nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Channel lineups for comparison and contrast below. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky Movies 007 HD

Have people no shame? Why not making information a section of the main topic? --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's only active for a month. So, if you can see somewhere to put it, go ahead, trim it down and merge it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WWE NXT

There's a big giant mess at WWE NXT articles. WWE NXT was moved into Wikipedia: space, and then moved back and moved back into it, and moved back out to History of WWE NXT, in the meanwhile, a second WWE NXT article was created at "WWE NXT", and then a THIRD article was created at WE NXT ... The talk page for the "History" article is located at WT:History of WWE NXT and got separated from the article, and we have two useless redirects from projectspace at Wikipedia:WWE NXT and Wikipedia:History of WWE NXT And there's also NXT Wrestling... --- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups for comparison and contrast

In spite of, or in addition to, the eventual outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 29#List of DirecTV channels, and related Articles for Deletion, could we do something like AVS Forum does here and/or invite them to participate in Wikipedia? It could serve the encylopedic research and academic goals of being able to compare and contrast the offerings by various providers in one all-encompassing article. Thoughts? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

FCC television coverage maps

The FCC offers a comprehensive collection of television-station transmission coverage maps by DMAs, including translators. I've added it as an EL to the Media market article. Ylee (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

naming of season articles

Hello. I've made a proposal to change the naming conventions to remove the non-disambiguation use of brackets from season article names. Under the proposal, Doctor Who (season 1) would become Doctor Who season 1, and so on. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#naming_of_season_articles, where I've been trying (and failing) to get a discussion going about this. I'm not about to do anything precipitous, though! Morwen - Talk 14:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Notability of TV station subchannel articles

Discussion about the notability of Subchannels is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. This a relisting to get enough for a good consensus. --Spshu (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Lone Gunmen (TV series) at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the Television WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article The Lone Gunmen (TV series), which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement.

Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces

The Project is not created. So I wonder if a task force may be necessary. We need more articles and improvement on articles that relate to Cheers and Frasier. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Requirement to use title card over logo for TV series infobox

To head off something before it edit wars, is there any requirement to use a show's title card in lieu of a standalone vector/clean logo image that would normally be included in the title card?

While for many shows this is non-free against non-free, there are isolated cases where the show's logo can be a free image while the title card would not and thus this would also provide an opportunity to reduce non-free content. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any such requirement. I support logos over screenshots for two reasons: (a) They're more representative of the franchise as a whole (across merchandise, advertising, etc.) than a screenshot is. (b) They're more likely to be free-use than any screenshot ever would be. We had this same discussion about ten months ago (where I explained much more in depth, should anybody be interested): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2#Series infobox images - logos over interstitial titles. — fourthords | =Λ= | 06:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
a) If the article is about the TV show, then the screenshot is more representative of the subject of the article. It's not our business to build a brand identity for some "franchise". b) Despite claims that these logos are free use, I doubt many would hold up to scrutiny, unless it's Helvetica text in a square. And there has never, ever (tell me if I'm wrong) been any problem about WP using a low res screenshot in an article. (So of course we will never really have a problem using the home made version either, despite it being no less being trademarked or under some copyright.) After 10 years or so I have to wonder what the real motivation for all this paranoia is. Seems to be an excuse to wipe out perfectly inoffensive images that no one would ever make an issue over, except some editors here. And c) often these "free" logos someone has made look like crap, certainly are much less attractive than the actual screenshot. Barsoomian (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of TV show logos are free, in that they fail the "threshold of originality" - text and simple shapes have no creative expression and thus uncopyrightable. It's not necessarily about using a screenshot but a reminder that our non-free content policy says that free content should always be used over non-free. We don't care about the quality of the free image as long as its clearly representing the show's image. That said, there are case-by-case considerations - I would never suggest replacing the Lost title card with just a plain sans-serif "LOST" because the slow, focus-playing zoom on the 3D letters is part of the show's identity and non-free is well justified there. But if you take something like House MD or the Big Bang Theory, and the logo is clearly in the uncopyrightable area. --MASEM (t) 11:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how a logo in a screenshot is more or less free than the same logo redrawn as a graphic. The screenshot is surely fair use. Anyway, probably every TV show has trademarked its logo, so using that in any form is not "free", regardless of copyright, though I'm sure our use would never be cited as a violation. Barsoomian (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Trademarks do not affect our free/non-free content policy, so while yes, many logos are likely trademarked, if they are uncopyrightable they would be treated as free images. While a screenshot of the title card is fair use and is appropriate to use to identify a TV show, if that can be replaced by a free logo for the equivalent use, we are required to do so by WP:NFCC#1. If the title card and logo are both non-free, then it doesn't matter. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is really no reason to speak in general terms about this issue, because it will almost always need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. If there does exist a free image that can be used in place of a non-free image, it would be preferable; this is almost never going to be the case, however. In this specific instance, a screenshot of the title card adds no additional value to the article over the logo image; the same is true vice versa. Neither image is free, and neither image is inherently more valuable to the article than the other; frankly, it does not matter which image is used.  Chickenmonkey  10:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is this common sense or original research?

There is a WP:Requests for comment about whether or not some info in the Power Rangers Megaforce is original research at Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce#RfC: Is this common sense or original research?. Powergate92Talk 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

TMNT 2012 - The "citation needed" tag and its necessity for observable, verifiable information

Hello all. I contribute regularly to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series). I'd like to get some edification about how to best use Citation Needed tags. In my estimation, a fellow editor seems a little heavy-handed in the use of these tags for observable, verifiable facts. A few weeks ago, s/he added a bunch of CN tags after voice actor names, executive producer names, etc, even though these facts are easily gleaned from the reliable primary source, the show itself.

An example (but not the only example) of what I believe to be an unnecessary CN tag involves this sentence: "Realizing he could no longer live a normal life topside, Yoshi retreated to the New York sewers where he raised his pets as sons and taught them the ancient Japanese fighting art of ninjutsu.[citation needed]"

In the show we've learned that Splinter was originally named Hamato Yoshi. We've seen him as a human walking around with pet four turtles in a small terrarium, we've seen him and the Turtles exposed to a chemical described as "mutagen" and they've been transformed physically. We've seen them retreat to sewers, we know it's New York because the sewer manholes say NYC, we observe that he calls them his sons, they call him "sensei" and they are "Ninja Turtles". Not a whole lot is left to personal interpretation.

Are editors allowed to include these types of facts, or do we need citations for every single claim? It seems ridiculous to find a citation that proves that Splinter was a man, for example, or that Leonardo's mask is blue. Surely direct observation without interpretation is not considered original research? I appreciate any guidance you reasonable folks can provide. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Multimedia templates

I have created about 200 multimedia templates (see multimedia works towards the bottom of the templates section at User:TonyTheTiger/creations) in the last 2 months. Many have dozens of links such as {{Cinderella}} and {{The Three Musketeers}}, while others have just a few such as {{The Old Man and the Sea}} and {{Gigi}}. I have been trying to make them look as uniform as possible so that if you go to the bottom of a page like Oscar Wilde they all look the same. On that page all of the multimedia templates were created by me. However, on pages like Charles Dickens or H. G. Wells many of the other templates were created by others. I have even tried to make the titles of the templates on these pages look like the ones I have created. After two months of work creating these templates, Robsinden (talk · contribs) has started undoing a lot of my efforts, but in a fairly consistent way. We have reached an impasse on two or three issues:

  1. Should we include dates in template titles? See Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.
  2. Should include foreign languages in multimedia templates. E.g. Rob removed many foreign languages. I think the old version was better, but Rob thinks only disambiguation justifies parenthetical text.
  3. In the case of ballets or operas such as {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Cinderella}} should we include the composer.

Since I am pinging many projects, please hold all the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates#Additional_disambiguation_info_in_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"X-Files" A-Class review

If anyone who is into The X-Files or sci-fi in general would like, there are a few episodes that are up for A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject The X-Files A-Class review. It would be super awesome if someone could give them a read through and list any issues. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 in American television split AfDs...

Apparently there was an editor who decided to split up the events portion of 2012 in American television into eleven different monthly articles for being too long. They put up a discussion on the talk page, but there was only one comment because there was never any notification on the front page they wanted to pursue a split at all. Despite not having any consensus at all, they split the article on the 16th, and now the page for January is predictably up for deletion due to not having much context or purpose outside of 2012IAT. Just letting you know; I'm tempted to reverse the split wholesale myself and NAC the AfD, but I'd rather have things play out within the proper channels now that we're stuck in AfD with this. Nate • (chatter) 06:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Essentially new article in need of categorising

After discussion at Talk:Deficit spending it was decided to spin off Deficit financing which had nothing to do with the rest of the article, to its own page. I'm guessing that given its subject matter it belongs under your umbrella? Thank you for your attention, almost-instinct 18:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox television

As I need a consensus to carry this out, I thought I'd notify the project of a discussion I have started so people will comment. Discussion is here. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Gilmore Girls Episodes

Template:Gilmore Girls Episodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Gilmore Girls. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Also, Category:Gilmore Girls navigational boxes has been nominated for deletion

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC on non-free soundtrack/novalization cover art in articles on television shows

I've started an RFC here on the use of cover art from soundtracks or novelizations of television shows that are part of larger articles, among other cases. The TV project input would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

List of comedy-drama television series needs some attention. Sometime this summer, the entire list appears to have been blanked by a user who then reconstructed it as an entirely unsourced US-only list, following which a few international series were readded by other users; I've since reverted it back to the version that existed before the blanking. However, that version still isn't particularly well-sourced: a relatively small number of series do cite proper sources — but most don't, with the result that I've had to devote time to removing utterly inexplicable entries such as Atomic Betty, Futurama, Frasier and NCIS; per discussion on the list's talk page, people have also taken issue in the past with entries such as King of the Hill, Breaking Bad and Fringe.

So, since I'm not willing to reconstruct the whole list all by myself, I'd like to ask for some assistance from this project in getting the list up to scratch. Ideally, of course, the list should only contain series which can directly cite a real source that explicitly characterizes the series as a comedy-drama, any series which can't be properly referenced as such should be removed, and no series should ever appear on the list without a valid source in the future. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about the appropriateness of the use of TV.com as an external link. You may wish to share your opinions at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Examples

A section listing examples of featured articles includes TARDIS and Dalek, which are no longer featured articles. Is there any reason why they are still listed there? Greengreengreenred 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dance Moms cast section discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the cast section of Dance Moms, which can be found at Talk:Dance Moms#Cast section. I am not involved in this dispute, but input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cuckoo (TV Series)

Someone has gone onto the Cuckoo TV Series and changed all the information about the show with some incredibly racist and stereotypical language. Although I have watched the actual show I don't know everything about all the characters in the show to change it back myself. Please can someone change or take down the offending article until it is replaced with the correct information. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have been fixed. — WylieCoyote 12:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

House of Cards (U.S. TV series)

Is House of Cards (U.S. TV series) a television series or web series? It is distributed by Netflix, so it may be wrong to classify it as a "TV series." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question W. It looks like this is going to be a wave of the future. Since we can now "stream" shows on our TVs (rather than only on our computers) it is, in a sense, a "TV series." It looks like it is being produced and filmed just like any other TV series. I wonder how ratings for the series will be reported. If they are handled like any other cable series then I don't know whether we need to carve out a new section for these in our MoS. On the other hand if multiple editors feel that they should be handled differently then that is fine too. One suggestion is a new category along the lines of "TV series streamed online" although that may be too wordy. MarnetteD | Talk 21:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"On-demand TV series" (or "VOD TV series")..."Internet TV series". These times, they are a-changing! — WylieCoyote 12:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Lassie and Mister Rogers Neighborhood categories

I strongly suggest that a separate category for a list of Lassie (1954 TV series) seasons should be added. Furthermore, I'd like to see the removal of redundant categories from Lists of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood seasons category. How can we go about doing these things? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Lassie: Firstly, I fixed the seasons to where the double-digit ones aren't in with the single digits. Secondly, Category:Lassie (1954 TV series) episodes probably should've been called Lassie (1954 TV series) seasons as there are no episodes created to be wikilinked to go in that particular cat. The List of Lassie episodes can be catted in the Seasons cat or the main one.
Re Mister Rogers: All the seasons need to be retitled Mister Rogers (season _ ). I know the season articles are lists, but what television season article isn't? Then the cat should be retitled Mister Rogers' Neighborhood seasons. The words "List(s) of" is unnecessary in these types of categories. Rule of thumb: there is no category called Lists of television seasons so why call TV shows' seasons that? But there is a Category:Television seasons. — WylieCoyote 14:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope you know, I had each season in numerical order, but I could probably fix that on my own. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: I moved every season list into the new category. Anything renames and stuff you feel like doing is up to you at this point. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Upon further review, updating Mister Rogers' Neighborhood with proper naming and categorization across the board is a massive undertaking. I cannot/will not do this alone. — WylieCoyote 06:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Have re-titled all the seasons to their respective shorter titles, for example: List of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood episodes (season 1) is now Mister Rogers' Neighborhood (season 1). I've also renamed them in the Template:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood so when you click on a season number it doesn't redirect. As for further dab fixes, I'm not going to track down every List of... episode link. — WylieCoyote 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I've realized a way to line the MR seasons up in the category. The ol' {{DEFAULTSORT}}. I'm officially finished with anything MR-related. — WylieCoyote 10:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability and medical TV shows

Hi,

There is some discussion at WikiProject Medicine about listing medical terms used in episodes of e.g. medical dramas (which are the bulk of medical tv shows...) However, there is a clear issue of WP:N, since not every episode of these shows will meet notability guidelines. I will note that every episode of the first season of MASH has a page, but these have been challenged in the past on notability grounds. I am hoping mainly to invite comment and discussion. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Being an episode of a television series doesn't inherently come with notability, but given the prevalence of television in media culture, most TV shows are going to be discussed by secondary sources to the point of meeting WP:N with ease. Many medical dramas are quite popular, and therefore widely-discussed in reliable sources—MASH, Casualty, ER, Grey's Anatomy and St. Elsewhere spring to mind as shows which will find it easy to pass the bar of notability with things like television critics' reviews. However, the first part of your comment seems to be dealign with a different matter—the shows themselves may be notable while concepts within them aren't, so if you mean things like fictional illnesses used medical dramas, those would have to be the specific subject of secondary material to meet WP:N. If Hospital Drama X is notable, and an episode feature a patient with "shittingyourfaceoffitis", that notability isn't passed on to the concept unless, say, a newspaper critic wants to discuss the illness, books maybe deal with fake-versus-real illnesses, etc. I'd really need to know what your specific objective is to know how WP:N and TV impact it. Hope that helps you some. GRAPPLE X 02:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to encourage you to take a look at the discussion, but I think the general idea was, for the article on Hospital Drama X, season 3 episode 62, there would be a wikilinked list of the medical conditions or procedures referenced in that episode. It might therefore have entries for both Fournier gangrene and "shittingyourfaceoffitis", linked in the former but with an explanation that the latter is fictional. Again, it would be great if you could engage over on the WP:MED talk page about this, as I think the intent is explained in more detail there. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I also note that while Grey's Anatomy is a high-traffic page and project, with a number of substantial high-quality contributions, there are not individual pages for each episode. Putting together a per-episode list therefore might be problematic in terms of where to put it and how to justify its inclusion, since by itself it might not meet notability criteria. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Rescue Me (Cheers)

In my opinion, this episode should not be inherented from the season, Cheers (season 3). As for the article itself, it is a partial replica of the season article. If you agree or disagree, go to Talk:Cheers (season 3) --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly

This Project is currently Inactive. I'm proposing that it be converted to the TV's task force. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ling Woo

Ling Woo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actors by era

Category:20th-century actors and Category:21st-century actors are fairly useless. They should be broken down by decade. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Actors_by_era.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Susan Delfino#WP:COMMONNAME

Hello, everyone. Your input in the above linked discussion would be appreciated by me. Over the years, this article has been moved from its common name, and I'm certain that the latest move still violates the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Twin Peaks

I've created an RFC about creating two season pages of two-season television series. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ITV

ITV had a major rebrand today and as a result a lot of related pages need to be updated. Digifiend (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Crime drama genre page missing = links go to the wrong page

I posted this on the Wikiproject Film talk page, but I think this is the place to sort it out. I think deletopedia hit and there is no longer a relevant page called "Crime drama". It is, however, a category commonly used in US television. The page for Crime film is defined as "Crime films are films which focus on the lives of criminals." is not the same as a "Crime drama". There's a redirect set from "Crime drama" to the Crime film page. All Crime drama links for detective TV series that aren't "Police procedural" now go to that page. See Rizzoli & Isles, Elementary (TV series), Perception (U.S. TV series) . The shows that link to "police procedural" are also called "crime drama" on the respective show's page, e.g. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. But there are crime dramas that don't match the description for police procedural and links for the genre there now go entirely into the wrong direction. Kindly fix this. A general genre page for crime drama could lead to police procedural, drama and other relevant pages. The expression is far more common and well known than "procedural." Should your portal not be the correct audience, kindly repost this where there are competent contributors who can alleviate the issue. THANKS --99.11.160.111 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:With wendybarrie.JPG

File:With wendybarrie.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bering Sea Gold

I've proposed that Bering Sea Gold and Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice be merged -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Influences added to the sidebox

I already suggested it here. I would find that a nice improvement of the articles. What do you think of it?--80.218.156.126 (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of TV series (and miniseries) articles.

I think this guideline needs tightening up. A couple of discussions have started up here and here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Television!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Some ideas include:

  • Women who have made an impact in television on air and behind the scenes
  • Television technology created by women, or where women had a role in developing
  • Women's focused television series and stations

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Casualty (TV series) short plot summaries

Short plot summaries
I am curious to know why certain editors have the urge to post a brief and often unsatisfactory "Short plot summary" a couple of weeks before transmission.
Am I alone in preferring it to be done as a complete summary on the actual day? We have another example posted just 29 minutes ago –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
17.42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

it should be noted this is much bigger problem than just casualty it happens on most pn tv shows lists. thr last discussion i had on itr was it was agreed not tv guide applied for erpisodes that have aired and shoould be replaced on tranmission but it doesnt seem to appky for future episodes. Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

''All My Babies' Mamas'' listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''All My Babies' Mamas''. Since you had some involvement with the 'All My Babies' Mamas' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

johncheverly 18:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Carol Connors/Siv Aberg Mix-up

You assert that Carol Connors was the hostess of the "Gong Show." This is patently false. "Siv Åberg, a one-time Miss Sweden, was also on hand, acting more or less as the show's hostess."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Barris. Please delete the incorrect info, or confer w/ the editor of the Chuck Barris and/or Gong Show pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Exosquad, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen

The disambiguatory terms for the Hell's Kitchen TV series is under discussion, see Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible split of Cartoon Network work group of WikiProject Animation

Greetings, a discussion of a possible split of the Cartoon Network work group of WikiProject Animation is underway. If you have questions or comments, please comment here. Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 07:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers/Frasier task force

After failed proposals I proposed elsewhere, I guess it's time to create the new task force as a parent of WikiProject Television, but how do you title it? Just "Cheers task force"? Using only "Frasier" undermines the origin of Frasier, but people want Frasier as part of task force, which I have been against. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and then created Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Cheers task force. Can anyone help me improve its page? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek episodes and episode screenshots and NFC

There is a discussion at WP:NFCR about screenshots from Star Trek: Voyager (most which likely fail NFCC). I've dropped a note already at the Trek project, but it would be helpful to get additional voluntary help in reviewing and removing screenshot images that fail NFCC, not just from Voyager but other Trek series. (And this likely extends to many other series as well, but Trek's the point of interest there right now.) --MASEM (t) 17:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional discussion comments needed: WWE Attitude Era footage removal

Tagged, awaiting consensus; and requested further input. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional discussion comments needed: Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice

-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagged awaiting consensus.
Stalled and needs further input. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability of fictional characters

Hey there, I've been working through the Stanford Archives and I've recently come across a decent number of fictional characters from various television shows and movies. The problem I'm having is whether or not each of these is notable enough to have an article. If not, which is what I suspect of most of them, then is it better to redirect to the article for the show/movie itself or to an article that lists the characters of that show/movie? For instance, should Mr. Drummond redirect to List of Diff'rent Strokes characters or to Diff'rent_Strokes#cast? Or should it be a redirect at all? I feel like there should be a general consensus on this and that I am simply unaware of it. At any rate, I don't want to change them until I am sure of how to proceed. The list of characters so far is at the top of this page. Sesamehoneytart 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Real Housewives Needs Help!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Real_Housewives The Real Housewives franchise does not have a task force but I am hoping that anyone here who is interested in some proposed ideas about getting some Opening Sequence information that was deleted possibly re-formatted or presented in a different way than it was, (or keeping it although I have been repeatedly told that consensus says "no" even-though I'm still not convinced that participants were qualified to make that decision).........please stop-in at The Real Housewives talk page and see discussion related-to "Opening Sequence", and "IF Opening Sequence was a page like The Simpsons "couch-gags""[[5]]24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)-TY.24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

where to move Mash Up?

Article about Mash Up series at Mash Up (tv show). Should it be moved to "Mash Up" or "Mash Up (TV series)"? Other Mash Up TV article is Mash-Up (Glee). --EarthFurst (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Busy World of Richard Scarry article date issues

On The Busy World of Richard Scarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP hopper based in California is constantly changing the actual broadcast dates back to the incorrect ones despite numerous blocks and a failed discussion. This has been going on for months now, and I am asking someone to please intervene as I don't want to get blocked for edit warring. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

There is a discussion on Transporter: The Series on the Talk Page re the Air Dates. I won't go into details here, but if a few people could swing by and take a look and contribute in any way they see appropriate that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 10:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Flight of the Conchords episodes

This episode list is propsed to be merged to main article Flight of the Conchords (TV series). Join in discussion to help enhance consensus. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HOF-TV

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:HOF-TV#Suggested_move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Starz Entertainment

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Starz_Entertainment#Requested_move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible addition of parameters to Infobox television film and Infobox television episode

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television episode#First broadcast channel?. -- Trevj (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories for films based on television series

I draw your attention to the following discussions, as I intend to cite them as precedents to rename other categories for films based on works:

Please comment at the CFD discussion page rather than replying here. – Fayenatic London 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Danger Rangers: Biased

Was reading the Danger Rangers page and I noticed that it is basically written like an advertisement - sentences like "The learning does not stop yet! Even though the show does not air on TV, you can visit the official Danger Rangers website (www.dangerrangers.com) for educational activities fun for all ages." are a prime example. Am not sure of the protocol for rewriting or revision. Marthelos (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of .... writers/directors/etc.

A bunch of lists of mere writers, directors, or crew of one show is too much to bear. List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors is nominated as a test for deletion. You may discuss the situation in general here, or discuss that list in AFD. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Meet up suggestion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA#San_Diego Comic Con. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Downton Abbey task force?

I believe that every series page of Downton Abbey must be created. They are given wide coverage, not to mention reviews. Also, there were discussions about characters. Recently, I watched the whole series and got hooked. Perhaps create task force? --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Larry the Lobster

The usage of Larry the Lobster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Larry the Lobster (Saturday Night Live) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mad Men images up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 27 were several have been nominated -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Vincent.png

file:Scott Vincent.png has been nominated for deletion. Does anyone know the copyright status of screentests? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of one-off programs

Hi all, how do you categorize TV programs that run once, such as a documentary? Is it still appropriate to place them in categories with "series" in the name? Should Category:Documentary television series, for example, only have recurring programs? --BDD (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fullscreen capture 10162011 72225 PM.jpg

file:Fullscreen capture 10162011 72225 PM.jpg (Scrabble Showdown) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Daryl Dixon article

IPs (the same person, I'm sure) keep adding "Badass" or "Bad Ass" as the character's occupation in the article's infobox. I'm not sure what to do about this, considering that I shouldn't just keep reverting; if it was a clear-cut case of WP:VANDALISM, I'd be justified in violating WP:3RR (which actually wouldn't be a WP:3RR violation). And page protection would likely only be temporary; as soon as page protection for the article expires, or even before then if the IP has a registered account or decided to create one and goes to the length of getting WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, the addition will continue to be added after being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Matter currently taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New article created: Neville Page

I've created the new article, Neville Page. Feel free to improve or discuss at Talk:Neville Page. — Cirt (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisner Washam

Deletion discussion that any of you may be interested in weighing in on. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Update for C-SPAN Bus program article

Recently I made a request on the the C-SPAN Bus program Talk page. I'm looking to add a short sentence to the article noting that C-SPAN has recently expanded their Local Content Vehicles program, which travels around the country filming and producing television programming for C-SPAN. Because I work as a consultant to C-SPAN I would prefer not to directly edit the article. Would someone here be interested in helping with this small edit request? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode

There is a discussion about {{cite episode}}, which is heavily used by this project, in progress at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite episode deprecated parameters. From what I can see, two of the parameters, |episodelink= and |serieslink= were "deprecated" (at least as far as documentation goes) without discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Abyssinia, Henry's FAR

I have nominated Abyssinia, Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 21:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Wire writers

Whether you were involved with List of The Wire writers or not is not the issue. This list is nominated for deletion. Improve consensus by clicking linked heading. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

New portal: UK television

I started a new portal that may be of interest: Portal:Television in the United Kingdom Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic Convention International meetup proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Faust navbox

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#The_most_complicated_template_yet_.28Faust.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Episode counts for a pulled show

There is a bit of contentious editing at Ready for Love (TV series) regarding the episode count. It has always been my belief that the infobox only included the count for aired episodes. Sometimes the episode summary tables include the number announced. What should be presented in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The instructions for {{Infobox television}} state that |num_episodes= should contain "the number of episodes released. In case of cancelation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired." Since only 2 episodes have aired, |num_episodes= would normally be "2". However, since there is a reliable source stating the total number of episodes is 8, 8 is acceptable. However again, "2 (6 unaired)" seems a better choice. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding images to C-SPAN article

Hello WP:TVers, earlier in the month I asked for help here with an update to an article about C-SPAN's bus program. I hope I'm not overstaying my welcome by asking about another: I've recently posted some suggestions for new images to include in the flagship C-SPAN entry. Because I'm consulting for C-SPAN, I figure I'd better avoid direct edits, so I'd like to find another editor interested in the subject.

Relatedly: once this is done, I plan to take the article to Peer review, and then see if it has a chance at FA. I'd love to get help from anyone here on any part of that, but in the meantime it would be awesome if someone could evaluate the images I've proposed. See here for that request. And if you have any questions, please let me know! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this request has been  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE:

I wonder if this may be a concern to any one of you guys, but I've added a US TV image to Template:American broadcast television. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this SPAM?

This user is adding links in drama articles to the online streaming site of the subjects on DramaFever. Here are the edits. BollyJeff | talk 23:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are "other users" doing the same: Here are the edits and also here Someone has already started reverting this last one, so I guess I got my answer. BollyJeff | talk 16:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Awake

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Awake has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Awake (TV series) characters merge proposal

The character articles have been proposed to be merged into a character list, see talk:Awake (TV series) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Psychos"

the usage of Psychos is under discussion, see talk:Psychos (TV series) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Help

A flurry of new and confusing edits has been made by a newcomer. Please help sort it out.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Overview sections

Trying to get feedback on "Overview" sections for the Manual of Style page, but there is not a lot of traffic. Hopefully, others will see it here and come over and discuss. Discussion at WT:MOSTV#Overview sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting peer reviews of C-SPAN article

Greetings, WikiProject Television. A few weeks back I initiated a peer review for the C-SPAN article—I'm interested in taking it to FA soon—and I'm looking for editors who might be interested in helping with this process. So far it has been reviewed by one editor who has focused on the references and their formatting, but I am interested in a review from a content standpoint as well. If anyone here is interested in helping with this, please take a look at the peer review request here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/C-SPAN/archive1

Worth noting: I am actually a consultant to C-SPAN, so I will not be editing this article directly. Instead, once I have all the review comments I think are likely to come, it's my plan to make a copy of the current article in my user space and implement any suggested changes there. If anyone has questions, please find me on my Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Needing peer review on One for the Road (Cheers)

Can anybody make a peer review on this article? I can appreciate it, thank you. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"VCR"

The usage of VCR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:VCR (disambiguation) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback Request

I would welcome additional opinions at Talk:American Dad!#Periods and Quotation Marks. I am having a disagreement with another editor over the appropriateness of placing periods within quotation marks. Thanks for your time! Doniago (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Help on Angelina Ballerina:The Next Steps

a user is putting false information on the article Angelina Ballerina: The Next Steps the info he was put was Angelina moving From Chipping Cheddar to Mousecity in American, Angelina and the other being teenager, and say Justin Beiber and Hiraly Duff voice the characters. The official site tells a different story; it state that Angelina is 8 year old[1] and moving to the other side of Chipping Cheddar. The TV guide site even shown who the cast are. I'm editing the article right now, but need someone to fix up the article and cite the source Forgot to link the official site.

mich (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The following text corresponds word for word with the opening of the "Plot Summary" given in IMDb: 

     It was the age of Da Vinci and Michelangelo, of enlightened 
     creativity, Machiavelli and unparalleled intellectual
     achievement. But it was also the age of rampant lawlessness,
     incessant war and unspeakable depravity.

I haven't compared the two texts to see how far down the two passages the correspondence continues; for the present purpose I am assuming that it is extensive.

The quality of the writing is very good. I hope wiki was the original source and not the other way around.

The IMBd site is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1736341/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl.

MarilynConant (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Roseanne

StewieBaby05 (talk · contribs) has stubbed out all the season articles for Roseanne, but with no more detail than is at List of Roseanne episodes. They all should have {{unref}} on them, but season 4 and season 5 are all high priority seasons and have {{GoldenGlobeTVComedy 1990–2009}} on them. Any help cleaning up these somewhat high priority season articles with basic formatting and a brief cited summary of at least the awards in the templates would be appreciated. I fear these might get redirected back into the list article, but object to these two seasons being redirected because of their prominent awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

{{TopUSTVShows}} contains Roseanne (season 2). That is another season that would be helped by some cleanup.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Upcoming television series

FYI: There is a new CfD involving deletion of Category:Upcoming television series and Category:Upcoming television seasons, which are subcats of the nominated Category:Upcoming products. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Updates to the MOS

There are proposals to update the TV MOS. Please visit the talk page and provide additional input. See WT:MOSTV#General Principles Section proposal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stubbed high priority seasons

The following high-profile seasons have also been stubbed out in the last several months:

They almost all need much more detail. Please come help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Everybody Loves Raymond

StewieBaby05 (talk · contribs) has stubbed out all the season articles for Everybody Loves Raymond with a little more detail than is at List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes. They all have {{unref}} on them, but season 6, season 7 and season 9 are all high priority seasons and have {{EmmyAward ComedySeries 2001–2025}} and/or {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVComedy 2000–2009}} on them. Any help cleaning up these somewhat high priority season articles with basic formatting and a brief cited summary of at least the awards in the templates would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He has done that to all other season lists. Can you report this to WP:ANI or a more suitable venue? --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this frowned upon? Can you name some other shows? Has anyone tried to talk with him?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
People did on talk pages, but they must have notified him about deletion of separate season pages. As for other shows, List of A Different World episodes, for example. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of the seasons that he did are for very successful shows. See the thread below with several others that all have important navbox templates on them. When you are dealing with the most critically acclaimed and highest rated seasons of all time, we want individual articles because there is encyclopedic content that should be presented in them. There is nothing wrong with him stubbing these out. It will look even better when someone gets around to filling these in. There are a few shows such as A Different World where the need to present encyclopedic content on a season-by-season basis is not so clear, but I am not worried about those.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cheers (season 1)

Another editor and I disagree about editing a summary about a two-part episode. Therefore, I started an RFC that had very little posts. Please join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now Aussie and I have reached the impasse, so I hope for more people to come in and improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are only you and I at an impasse? Apparently you were at an impasse with the editor who originally disagreed with you. I only went there because of this thread, as an uninvolved editor. It just so happens that I agree with him. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That editor... I don't know how to put this, but I wouldn't take him seriously, although I would have challenge him if he were a great spokesman as you are. Not that he's not a bad spokesman or anything. ...Maybe I can contact him to discuss with me and challenge me. Would that be fine? --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguate Extras?

There is a rename discussion at Talk:Extras. Join in to improve consensus by commenting. --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Nickelodeon

Portal:Nickelodeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Existence of Brady Bunch closing scenes after the square pictures in 2 episodes

Wikipedia says two Brady Bunch episodes, "The Honeymoon" pilot episode, and "Greg Gets Grounded"; do not have closing scenes after the 9 square pictures cover the screen, but I heard a few mention some scenes got lost in syndication. Some claim the two episodes that do not appear to have a closing scene after the 9 squares appear, did have ones that got lost. The alleged one in "The Honeymoon" supposedly has Mike and Carol in their hotel room talking about raising their new family and new things to come. The one that supposedly was in "Greg Gets Grounded" has Bobby and Peter in the back yard watching their frogs and talking about how poorly their frogs did in the contest. I don't think they exist. Can anyone confirm whether they exist or not? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sopranos seasons filled in

Request for Feedback

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:American Dad!#Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Cartoon Network

Portal:Cartoon Network is up for peer review. Please comment here. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can official TV episode loglines be used on Wikipedia under the umbrella of fair use?

Hi, I was wondering if there was a clear policy on the use of loglines (aka episode synopses, aka episode summaries) in "List of...episodes" articles. In my Wikipedia travels, I notice often that the episode summaries are copy/pasted from sources such as TVGuide.com or Amazon Instant Video or... I would imagine that these loglines come from the studios directly and are intended to be used by broadcasters, vendors, etc. Does using these fall under the umbrella of fair use, or would the use of these synopses be considered a copyvio? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For future episodes, where maybe one or two sentences are present, its generally okay to quote those (With sourcing) since a plot summary statement can't be made reliably. For aired episodes, we strongly urge WPians to write their own statement, though sourcing to a synopsis can be okay for this. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we need more input here, because that is news to me. I have always heard that you cannot copy/paste summaries from elsewhere (show official website, "TV guide"-type sites, IMDb, etc.) because it is considered a copyright violation. In addition, sourcing a summary does not "excuse" the violation, it is still a copyvio. Also, there is no difference to whether the summary is for a future episode, or for a show which has aired. I've never seen anyone claim "fair use" for episode summaries. Hopefully someone else will chime in. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
One or two lines of text, with citation, is not a copyright violation, it is simply a fair use quotation. A full paragraph blurb is not appropriate, however, but if there's a full-text blurb like this for a future episode, one can summarize it. But if all we have for a future episode is something like "Jack faces the murderer of his wife." there's almost nothing we can do to paraphrase that without knowing, so quoting it directly with citation is fine. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, OP here. What I am seeing fairly often, (especially in articles related to kids' TV,) is the copy/pasting of published synopses from established sources, such as the on-screen cable TV description, etc. Sometimes the come from sites such as TV.com, which I believe may be user-contributed. The synopses are virtually never sourced, and often contains unencylopedic stylings, such as, "Will our hero make it out alive?" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You are completely in the right that if you see such cases where it clear its copied out of such a source but without source citation, to either strip it out, add the citation, or even rewrite the synopsis if possible. Straight-up synopses without a source is a copyvio. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it. It's a mite tricky, this process, since it's unclear from where the synopses originate, and who's just reprinting them. But I'll go about it with open eyes. Thanks! (And of course if anyone else has any other thoughts, I'm all ears). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for episode airdates?

Does the community recommend/acknowledge a reliable source for episode airdates?
I recently noticed a flurry of edits at List of Hey Arnold! episodes, first from an IP editor, then from a newly-created, single-purpose account (SPA). (Article edit history) At first it looked to me (and to Cluebot) like date vandalism, but at some point I had to AGF. The date changes were not initially sourced, although the SPA did eventually cite www.epguides.com/HeyArnold as the source in this edit, but later removed it, and cited IMDb instead. Clearly IMDb would not qualify as RS, but what about the other source?
Sub-question: Shouldn't the airdates be listed in the {{Start date}} microformat, and if so, is there a bot for that? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cue sheet"

The usage of Cue sheet is under discussion, see Talk:Cue sheet (computing) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

SAG Awards templates

The creation of the Six Feet Under seasons has completed Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2000–2009. Now we only need two more series to complete all of SAG templates. Last season's Downton Abbey (season 2), which is currently a redirect, would complete all the SAG Award-winning drama seasons and we need a few Sex and the City seasons to complete all the comedy seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Template:Infobox_television_channel

Hi there, I've posted a suggestion on the Infobox television channel template Talk page and I'm looking for other editors to weigh in. I'm proposing updating the infobox to create a "Streaming media" parameter to link to a network's online media website; I suggest putting this in the infobox in place of the underused "Internet television" parameter. Please take a look if you're interested! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV_series)#Current editing drive that could use the input of members from this project. MarnetteD | Talk 23:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Shared universe

There is a ton of unsourced original research under Shared universe#Live-action television universes. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Terra Nova

There is an RfC in progress at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV. This RfC deals with applicability of the MOS to TV articles and issues arising from the current wording of the MOS that affect all articles, so involvment by members of this project are encouraged. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I proposed a merger of the child episode list and the parent article. Join in the talkpage to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Main characters

Which is the concept of "main characters"? At ICarly, an user keeps adding that Victoria Justice is part of the main characters because Justice was credited as a "main character in 'IParty With Victorious'", which is a crossover double episode or a short movie. This means that Justice is a "main character" in 2 out of 109 episodes? I frankly don't want to edit-war with this person as I've seen this typical editing: "I add something, Tbhotch disagrees and revert, he is wrong and I revert as I added it and Tbhotch must search for consensus to exclude". I tried to find something at WP:TVCHARACTER but I found nothing about this "special" ocassions. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Cast information says, "please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Main cast status is generally reflected in the credits; if somebody is credited as a main character even once, they're regarded to be a main character. That's why we have situations such as in The Big Bang Theory, where Sara Gilbert was credited as a main cast member in only 4 episodes (out of 135 to date), but is still classed as a main character. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, random opinion here, and I could totally have no legitimate point, but I would argue that for what is essentially a departure from the norm, a special-episode that combines unrelated shows as a stunt for fans of both episodes, the idea that Justice got an "and Victoria Justice" credit (that's how it reads backwards at around 4:09 here) doesn't seem to intuitively suggest that Justice was suddenly a main cast member. When "important" celebrities appear in television eps, they will often negotiate for billing worthy of their notoriety. Since this was a mash-up of two established series, they would have to give Justice top billing as she is the lead on her own show. I don't have specific examples, but I'll try to poke around out there for crossover TV shows to see how it's normally dealt with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think in this case, when we're talking about merging two separate series for a crossover episode (ala CSI and CSI: New York) I would say that for each respective series, individually, the actors are not main cast members on the opposite series (unless they already were). But for an episode article, they would all be listed as "main" when it's a crossover in that regard.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. Being marked as a Wikiproject of interest to the article, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Travel documentary, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Jack

We are having some difficulty determining what to do with {{Jack}}. Most importantly, we are trying to determine whether Jack the Giant Killer and Jack and the Beanstalk should have separate templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 2)'s FTRC

I have placed the topic to Supernatural season 2 up for Featured Topic review. If you agree or disagree with this nomination please voice your thoughts there. GamerPro64 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Television shows set in Chicago, Illinois

Does Category:Television shows set in Chicago, Illinois belong in both Betrayal (TV series) and Crisis (TV series), which are shot in Chicago?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Internet television or Web television

Resolved

Please comment at Talk:65th Primetime Emmy Awards#Internet television or Web television regarding the following: At 65th Primetime Emmy Awards, I need some help with lingo. I am probably messing things up. Here is the current content in the WP:LEAD: "Netflix made history by earning the first Primetime Emmy Award nominations for original online only internet television or web television. Three of its webseries, House of Cards, Arrested Development and Hemlock Grove, earned nominations."

based on comments at Talk:Web television#Merge Web and Internet Television?, I have resolved that this is web television.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on applying WP:NFCC#8 to screenshots of TV episodes

There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Non-free images of a specific television episode that people here might be interested in. It concerns whether or not it violates WP:NFCC#8 to show a screenshot in an article about a television episode. Your input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

65th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards article

Please help update the 65th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards article. I've begun, but there's a lot of categories to update. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Deviser and devised by credits

ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and devised by Russell Lewis. As enumerated in BBC Commissioning, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, similar to the "developer's" role that Ronald D. Moore had on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I suggest "Devised by" should be added to {{Infobox television}}. Thanks. 72.244.204.183 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.angelinaballerina.com/usa/about.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_16&oldid=1261150014"