Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

One Survivor category still under discussion

The Category:Winners in the Survivor franchise has been relisted and ongoing for a while. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

African Queens (docu-series)

New series produced by Jada Pinkett Smith, focusing on African monarchs. Recently stirred up controversy among Greeks and Egyptians, and would like more editors. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

For starters, I think the disambiguation should be "TV series" as per WP:NCTV. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) nominated for deletion

The article Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) is nominated for deletion. Your input on the nomination is welcome. George Ho (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

| list_episodes = #Episodes

Simply something to note, there are 2,600+ articles that use |list_episodes=#Episodes in {{Infobox television}}. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep – it's basically disallowed under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. And yet there are still articles where removing this will be reverted, despite being MOS-justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Realistically, I could remove all of these using AWB, but I'm not sure if there's a clear support for editing so many articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Definitely problematic – AWB should not be used for edits for which there is not an unambiguous consensus. Because there are some editors who oppose this edit (despite the MOS being in support of it), it is reason enough to not try and do a "mass edit" on it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. In the meantime, I've added a {{preview warning}}. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever(talk) 13:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, everyone, I am proposing that we expand the scope of WikiProject Television to create several task forces for streaming services like that of Netflix, Amazon, Apple Plus, HBO, and Hulu. These are the ones off the top of my head that I think that is useful since there are hundreds or nearly thousands of articles related to these services about the programming alone. Netflix should be a given considering we have several Netflix navboxes for the exact purpose of linking shows among other articles which have gotten extremely large just to link them all together. And the fact of scope for Netflix is probably the largest of the services put together.

We should be in contact with the Film project since these companies also produce films, not just TV shows. But we have more articles for television shows than films. And the task forces should have the parameters with the project banners and have the ability to list the importance of the articles from top to low for these services. As of right now, there are only five task forces for networks, BBC, Cartoon Network, ITC Productions, and Nickelodeon. Although, both ITC and Nick are tagged as inactive. Disney doesn't need one since there is already a Disney WikiProject that covers the streaming-related articles for them.

Regarding naming, it should be simple such as the following:

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Netflix task force
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Amazon task force
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Apple Plus task force
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/HBO task force
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Hulu task force

Look to seeing everyone's thoughts and ideas on this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm personally opposed to this. As can be seen by the graveyard of dozens of TV related taskforces, these usually don't go anywhere. What would you gain from creating 5 new task forces, that you are missing now without them? Gonnym (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    Because the scope of articles for these services is only going to get larger. Probably by the end of this year, we will end up with hundreds of more articles. I think for project organization, it can be better served than just having the TV project banner under just two cats. For general articles about Netflix under its main category, there is enough that would concern a task force. And most of the task forces are inactive due to their limited focus on one area. Like G.I. Joe, The 4400, and 24, for specific shows or franchises, these have or do end eventually. The services are only growing and more will be written for it, a task force I think help with making this easier. Like my mention of the Netflix navboxes which have gotten massively huge over the years. This would concern a task force let alone the main project like this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • These are probably too much task forces for a relatively way too specific scope. How about just a streaming task force? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed – just one streaming TV task force makes more sense than five, esp. since some of those five will be small. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm on the fence right now about whether or not the taskforce is even needed, but if it is to exist, I feel like it should be one single task force, rather than five. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry... not clear why we need to make a distinction between "TV" and "streaming TV". This is already (thank god) a distinction that is going away as we move away from labelling things "web television series". Sure, in the early 2010s, maybe such a distinction was useful but as every year goes by, we see that TV is TV is TV, no matter how it is delivered/reaches us. About the only major distinction at this point is that TV series delivered via streaming can be released all at once in way that they cannot be via broadcast (although even here we have series released 2 or 3 episodes at a time, sometimes over the course of days or a very small number of weeks)... but such TV is still following all the conventions of TV as it has been in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, etc. etc. etc.
So... my opinion is that we don't need a separate "streaming" TV taskforce. Whether a show debuts on a traditional broadcast/cable channel or via a streaming service, it's still a TV show. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't feel the need for these task forces, but if so, it should definitely be a singular one, not many. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Like some of the other commenters on here, I'd support a singular streaming TV task force, as streaming is here to stay, regardless of whether it is on the "decline" or not, considering the fierce streaming war(s) going on right now. Besides, I see the issue with task forces like "HBO task force" is that HBO Max may go by the wayside this year, if it is merged with Discovery+ as rumors have suggested, and I'm not sure of how long Hulu will be around, as I'm betting that Disney would love to role that into Disney+. I think having one task force would be better because it is inevitable that some streaming services will merge in the next couple years. Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I also don't feel additional task forces are necessary for this topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I do not think we need several different task forces for this. They would most likely end up inactive just like a lot of TV related task forces. — YoungForever(talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I could go for a single streaming task force. But we should bear in mind that streaming covers both film and television. So this would become a task force of two projects. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    Right, I think a collaborative task force, with Wikiproject film, would be great, and I have to disagree with the pessimism of those such as YoungForever. Historyday01 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In general. While asking for comments via RfC is a good idea, many commentators might not be associated with the WikiProject and would not be involved either after the comment. It is advisable to discuss among the members of WikiProject and see if it makes sense to create task force(s). There wouldn't be any usefulness if the RfC is closed as consensus to create one or more of the proposals and there're no editors working in them ending up as just vanity projects and junk in talk page banners. Thus, ask the members and discuss if something makes sense and if there's interest. Or be bold and create if the initiator is expected to be an active member for a reasonable period — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
There's 502 users listed as participants of the TV project under the respective category. There's no way pinging that many people would help. And it's hard to know unlike on some other project spaces if there are active or not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't mean pinging all of them but just another regular new section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Yeah I just wasn't sure to do it as another section without the Rfc. But I think there is enough support for just a single streaming task force. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't categorize these comments as support for any taskforce, rather it feels there is mostly opposition to any taskforce creation, single or otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

So is the consensus to oppose a single streaming task force or no consensus? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you do not have the consensus to create any streaming related task forces. — YoungForever(talk) 20:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Generally when you suggest a new task force/WikiProject, you need to gain people that want to do it with you first. It's a bit pointless having the infrastructure if no one is going to do the work with you.
What's more, I dont really know what the difference from TV to streaming is, as they are all broadcasters. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't appear there is a consensus. Historyday01 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a mild consensus for possibly one "streaming television" workgroup. There is a decided consensus against multiple workgroups. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It's okay if a task force isn't created for this topic. Perhaps in a year, it can be brought up again depending on the future status of streaming. Thanks to all those who added their thoughts. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ABN (TV station)#Requested move 23 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABN (TV station)#Requested move 23 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Velma

Based on MOS:TVRECEPTION and the general consensus on MOS:TV and WP:TV, audience reception is allowed only when audience ratings/reviews are being discussed by reliable sources as in like talked about by reliable sources. I need some pairs of eyes on the article as there is an editor has removed an entire section about audience ratings/reviews clearly discussed by reliable sources twice already as seen here and here. The audience response of the article is no different than The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1)#Audience response and many many TV series that were review bombed. It does not look like they are planning to stop anytime soon. The editor is also ignoring the multiple closed discussions on the article's talk clearly explained what is allow and what is not allow by multiple editors. The editor also started a new discussion on the article's talk about why audience reception supported by reliable sources is not even allow, please feel to join the discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 13:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved
 – The editor seemed to understand now after multiple editors explained to them why audience reception is allowed when it is supported by reliable sources on the new discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sanctuary (sumo TV series)

Hi! Just to make sure, is anyone working on an article about Sanctuary, the upcomming Netflix TV sports drama on sumo? I began a sandbox on this subject. See trailer, IMDB page, and article in Japanese - OtharLuin (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That would absolutely be the wrong article title for it – if moved into mainspace, it should be at Sanctuary (Japanese TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah cool, I actually got an answer for that! I asked WikiProject Sumo and no-one really answered. Don't hesitate to help on the sandbox if you want to. Thanks again - OtharLuin (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Independent station (North America)#Requested move 3 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Independent station (North America)#Requested move 3 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution/admin assistance needed

Are there any admins on this page? Because I am in need of assistance to help resolve a dispute.

User:BlueboyLINY has been harassing me for several weeks in regards to my work on TV-related articles, calling my edits "disruptive", "non-constructive", and "vandalism". I recently made corrections to The Merv Griffin Show that corrected some longstanding issues–namely, the timeline of the program leaving CBS and returning to syndication–and provided references with links to prove accuracy. BlueboyLINY reverted my edits back to a previous version, containing the inaccuracies, and labeled my work as disruptive. He left messages on my talk page threatening me with blocks if I continued to be disruptive or violate WP:3RR. BlueboyLINY also claims to be interested in consensus but has not explained the real reason why he chooses to revert and undo my work. In short, he has been bullying me and claiming ownership of articles.

I took this issue to WP:ANI and nothing happened there, I suppose because 3RR wasn't violated. I've also asked another admin to intervene, but I chose to come to this page as there may be admins who work on these articles who also may be able to assist in resolving this situation. Any help that can be provided will be greatly appreciated. MasterControlMaster13 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@MasterControlMaster13 and @BlueboyLINY, looking at Special:Diff/1153065043, I prefer most of his changes except for using {{ubl}} inside {{plainlist}}—that's not how you use unbulleted list for accessibility purposes, and you don't use it for formal line breaks not separating list entries (something I've also had to learn!)—and also the sudden removal of references in the paragraph However, Griffin's show continued to rank in second place behind Carson, even after the move.. I do note that this isn't the first edit war I've seen with Blueboy. If you would like assistance finding source material for high-priority gaps in sourcing, please let me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
If all BlueboyLINY wanted to do was make tweaks here and there, then fine. But again, he reverted my edits completely and called them "disruptive", put threatening warning messages on my talkpage, then restored my additions in a series of revisions and got credit for it. This user is being unfairly incivil towards me and it is extremely discouraging me from making future contributions. MasterControlMaster13 (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for List of Station 19 episodes

Discussion has started to split List of Station 19 episodes to several season articles at Talk:List of Station 19 episodes#Splitting proposal. Drafts have been created, but consensus for splitting is requested. Request for discussion was made at Draft:Station 19 (season 5). Pallettown (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fuji TV#Requested move 30 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fuji TV#Requested move 30 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Junior Bake Off (series 7) nominated for deletion

I started the deletion discussion on Junior Bake Off (series 7). Your inputs there are welcome. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant) nominated for deletion

The article Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant) is nominated for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bluey (2018 TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Does Draft:L'isola dei famosi (season 7) meet the notability criteria

Mongies has written the draft and I am trying to ask at wikiproject about it because it is not my strong topic area. Does the draft meet notability criteria? Is there a more specific notability criteria documentation page for television shows? Thanks Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

also Draft:L'isola dei famosi (season 10) Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Nope – it's all the usual trivial WP:INUNIVERSE horserace nonsense that is endemic to the reality TV series article. Basically fails WP:NTV for having no 'Reception' (reviews) and no 'Production' section. There's no real critical secondary coverage here that I can see.
Sidenote: We really need to add a WP:NTVSEASON section to WP:NTV! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It most definitely fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. — YoungForever(talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Black Mirror/List of Black Mirror episodes

More eyes on Black Mirror and List of Black Mirror episodes over the next few days might be helpful (or weigh in at discussion here). Per tradition, the number of episodes and titles for the upcoming series were leaked a while ago but lack a reliable reference. The fansite What's On Netflix lists them without a source but reliable publications like The Hollywood Reporter note that neither the number nor titles of episodes have been confirmed (and certainly not the order, which can be changed last-minute).

I'm at 3RR on the latter article already. Tedious work, unfortunately, as we'll soon have official confirmation. Courtesy ping to Alex 21 and Indagate who have edited since the announcements. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I responded with this on your talk as well, but What's on Netflix is unequivocally an unreliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Is it worth getting What's on Netflix added to WP:RSPSS. - X201 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Possibly. Same would go for What's on Disney+. Same exact type of site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
What's on Netflix and What's on Disney+ probably should be added to WP:TVFAQ#Unreliable sources. Sometimes they even use IMDb as a source. — YoungForever(talk) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for using WON as a source. I agree with any further reverts on it and listing it in a guideline as unreliable. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
In this case, I would recommend we sort out the problem of 650+ articles using an unreliable source. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
information Update Since the consensus on this project is that What's on Netflix and What's On Disney Plus are unreliable sources because they are fansites, I have added both of them on WP:TVFAQ#Unreliable sources. — YoungForever(talk) 23:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about reality TV players at WT:NBIO

I opened the discussion about reality TV players and WP:NACTOR at WT:NBIO. Link: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Applying NACTOR to reality TV contestants. George Ho (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

TheFutonCritic at List of Futurama episodes

There is an editor at List of Futurama episodes who claims that The Futon Critic is not a reliable source for future airdates, despite the source clearly displaying the airdates and given episode designations, as per WP:TV standard practice and consensus. See my talk page for more. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The source wasn't the issue, it was the lack of episode titles that in said source that was. Although the above user has already linked me a the section I need to read, one moment please.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not really seeing anything regarding just the serial numbers without any titles, does that scenario still count as reliable?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The episode numbers are reliably connected to the relevant airdates. Titles are not the sole designation for an episode. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping to get a third opinion on the matter as the series has had a history of airing episodes out of production order. That was my main gripe regarding the situation.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, where are the prod. codes like "8ACV01" coming from then? Futon Critic often has prod. codes – like "#1101" here – that don't match the actual prod. codes used for episodes. So, right now, we have an episode table without episode titles, and with prod. codes that are unsourced, and which do not match the cited source. If it weren't for the fact that the episodes' writers were also listed (and can we with certainly link the writers in the WGA database to the same episodes listed in Futon Critic?!), I would say there wasn't enough here to justify an episode table yet. But even with the writers, the prod. codes look to me to be a problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The production codes are almost certainly guesses using the format SACVEE, where S is the season and EE is the episode (this is consistent with previous seasons and other shows). There's a decent chance it's right, but as of right now, I don't think we can confirm it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Guessing or assuming production codes without a reliable source that explicitly provide the productions codes is considered to be WP:NOTCRYSTAL. — YoungForever(talk) 05:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
So, right now, we have an episode table without episode titles Can you elaborate on this? All twenty episode titles are readily sourced.
Furthermore, TFC having episode number designations with airdates and no titles is exactly the same as WGA having episode number designations with writing credits and no titles, I don't see the difference between the two situations.
Concering the production codes, I found this edit from Tv's emory, but I don't know how valid the explanation is; whether or not it supports the exact use of 8ACV01, etc., it does support the order of the episodes' production. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
You're right – there are titles. But the current prod. codes are a problem. The other issue is that I do not think we can be 100% sure that the WGA episode ordering is the same as the TFC ordering – to me, this probably represents a WP:SYNTH: it's basically an assumption. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with IJBall, it is WP:SYNTH for the production codes. — YoungForever(talk) 15:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The production codes are likely SNYTH, yes, but their order of production is sourced. As far as I can tell, it would also be an assumption, at this point, to assume that the episodes will air outside of their production order. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Production codes should be removed until the episodes air or a reliably source that explicitly say 8ACV01, etc. Order of production are not explicitly the production codes. — YoungForever(talk) 03:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done Removed production codes. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I just got back from a weekend at a deadzone. Did we come to a consensus here regarding TFC sourced release dates for the first half of season 8? I would assume so based on the conversation.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Drag Race lip syncs

AfD participation welcome:

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

American Idol and sex/gender

For some reason the Elimination chart in the Idol articles indicate, right after the name, one of two genders--something that strikes me as utterly redundant and very much out of step with reality. What's worse, this is indicated with a pink or a blue box, and that's really just ridiculous. Neither User:Wikisteveb4 or User:BrickMaster02 were able to give any kind of explanation for their reverts of my edit on American Idol (season 21). Y'all, please: it's time to do away with this silliness. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The reality TV series articles, generally, are a mess, filled with unsourced, WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:UNDUE, and MOS:ACCESS-violating tables, but whenever anybody tries to do anything about it, the "fandom" editors revert them. These articles are probably beyond fixing, unless somebody does something about them at the "institution" level. We here at WP:TV are basically powerless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
You could not be more out of line. This is something that the American Idol pages have had for DECADES. If you want to make a change like that, you go to the TALK PAGE!! The last thing I deserve is for you to be blasting me for reverting an edit you made when you should have referred to the talk page first. Please stop! Wikisteveb4 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikisteveb4, don't be silly. What I deserve, and what everybody does, is for a revert to be explained. What you did, this, is profoundly uncollegial, even childish--and of course uninformative. As for your argument here, "it's always been that way", that's...well that's not a very strong argument either. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Wikisteveb4 It seems clear in this discussion that the consensus is very strongly against you, after the initial editor did what you said - they talk it to the talk page (i.e. here), and proved that you have no support for these edits. That means you won't be reverting again. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I strongly agree about it being ridiculous. It should have never been allowed in the first place (20 years ago says a lot). It's all useless coloring with access violations. However, if consensus is needed, we can start right here with a discussion. Wikisteveb4, what does these colors serve for the understanding of the table? Mike Allen 02:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
We have already had discussions in WT:TV that have established consensus (here) that these tables are out of line. It doesn't matter – these discussions are ignored, and any attempts to "fix" these reality TV tables are reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall We eventually got the Survivor table changes to stick, and I received minimal pushback when I made the Big Brother tables conform with MOS:ACCESS and all the rest. I think we can take care of this, too. There is absolutely no reason why those American Idol tables need to have a column for gender colors. “That’s how it’s always been” is not a suitable explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I have finished editing American Idol (season 1). I removed the unnecessary gender columns, and since I was there, I cleaned up the rest of the article and tables to bring them into compliance. Please let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Bgsu98, thanks--I couldn't do much more than just remove the colors, since the complexity of those tables goes well over my head. Keep em coming. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The colors - although there are lots of them - are at least labeled in each cell (ie. Eliminated, Bottom two, Safe, etc.), so it does seem to meet the requirements of MOS:COLOR. I standardized them at least, because the Wildcard cells at the top were green, but blue at the bottom, and so on. At least keep it consistent... Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
My problem with these articles, with so many "results" tables like this, is that it still effectively violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and basically WP:INUNIVERSE as well (this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite), even if it now meets MOS:ACCESS, but I never seem to get much traction with this argument... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
One thing I would like add to this discussion is that for Season 4-14 the gender of the contestant determined which semi-final group they participated in (in Season 8 specifically the highest voted male and female of each semi-final group would automatically make the final 13). So I believe the gender of the contestants should be retained on the charts for season 4-14, but 1-3 and now 15-21 the gender of the contestant doesn't have any impact on the results. Edwyth (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Is it not sufficient to explain in prose in the semi-final breakdown or elimination structure and rules in the relevant section? As is, the gender column in these seasons does not really clearly / immediately communicate that due to the alphabetization. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure INUNIVERSE applies to a competition between real people. It's not a scripted fictional program. The use of color coding (so long as it is also accompanied with other indicators to comply with WP:ACCESS) is akin to the use of color to indicate playoff/continental tournament qualifiers in sports league season articles. oknazevad (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it wouldn't. The bottom line is, if you wrote up a "prose episode summary" for these shows, it would not impart the information contained in these dang "results" tables – it would just tell you who won the week and/or who was "eliminated". The bottom line is that most of these tables, at a minimum, go well beyond WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and, as I contend, are basically WP:INUNIVERSE violations as well) – they belong at the Wikia/Fandom site, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
IJBall you keep promoting a minority view for which there is no consensus. There was a 2021 RfC which received extensive participation in which a consensus was established that "in articles about elimination-style reality television programs, by default progress of contestants should be presented in a table but there are circumstances that may justify excluding a table and that such tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." So no, most of these tables should not only belong on Fandom—there is a consensus that they belong on Wikipedia. Heartfox (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not demanding that, and nowhere have I said that (I even said I have not gotten traction on this view). But, FTR: "Consensus can be wrong." We, as an encyclopedia, should not be concerning ourselves with the trivial level of detail of elimination tables, in most cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
There is room for these tables. It's a fundamental part of being comprehensive about the subject. That being said, they should follow MOS:ACCESS. These tables should be filled with as little WP:CRUFT as possible, and explain the raw details of how the competition went - similar to how sport events have tables to show results.
There is, however, not a requirement to keep something failing a MOS, no matter how long that has been around for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do we have two sets of tables for this, one in the prose, and then one for all of the weeks that duplicates the info? Just one or the other. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Back at this article again, BrickMaster02 is using edit summaries of just "stop", very similar to the one shared some days ago. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that other reality show articles with dedicated articles for seasons have those listed. By now, those would've been removed if people supported it. BrickMaster02 (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. Please don't revert against the MOS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor argument on Wikipedia. Special:Diff/1153740185 is particularly bad. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Hzh has now also reverted against policy; reality shows really do have their own cult following. I would like to direct everyone's attention to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Update to NOTTVGUIDE, to fix this issue. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Really bizarre to insult other editors when it is you who misunderstood/misapply NOTTVGUIDE. Hzh (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
NOTTVGUIDE was not misapplied. We are not a TV guide. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
So you think you know what NOTTVGUIDE says when it doesn't say it? Your know better than what it says? Hzh (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I already commented it in the NOTTVGUIDE discussion but I'll say it again here: Alex, I'm not sure why you're claiming these hatnotes are going against that, when in fact, they currently are not. You were involved in a previous discussion on this, in which there was no consensus, but multiple editors still disagreed with you then (and clearly still do). It is incorrect to claim that NOTTVGUIDE is a 'direct policy against' these hatnotes. Magitroopa (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Please respond to one discussion at a time instead of duplicate responses. Many thanks. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 TALK 08:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I have now finished editing the American Idol articles up through season 8. In addition to removing the totally inappropriate gender column, I brought all of the tables into compliance with MOS:ACCESS, made the colors uniform across all tables and seasons (for example, two different shades of blue were used to indicate bottom two/three in the individual episode tables v. the elimination chart), removed a lot of excessive WP:FANCRUFT, and so on. Please check the articles out and let me know what you think so far.
The only push-back I have received concerns the American Idol (season 1)#Elimination chart... The cells for the first three semifinal episodes list the contestants who advanced as 1st/2nd/3rd, indicating the order that their advancement was announced on the results show. I removed those because they seemed WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the contestants weren't revealed by who had the most votes, but just based on - I'm assuming - whatever production decided would evoke the most drama. Additionally, none of the other seasons used this notation despite having the same semifinal format. I've now been reverted twice and I'm not looking to get into an edit war. If anyone would like to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @User:Aspects. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This. The mess at DWTS is just awful. – Callmemirela 🍁 04:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi. I'm entirely new here, and I'm starting on a project I haven't done before. I'm drafting an expansion/rewrite of Galidor: Defenders of the Outer Dimension in my sandbox currently. While I've found a surprising number of citations for its production and the multimedia stuff, and sufficient info for its broadcast time and NA and UK channels, I can't find anything specific about its reception. I'm not used to searching for reviews of television series (I've mostly done VGs and sometimes anime), let alone kids TV from the early 2000s. Any places that might have reviews for Galidor? I keep hearing the reaction was lukewarm at best, but if possible I'd want some concrete reviews. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

For a show like this, you're not likely to find any – children's shows, esp. children's show that were so clearly created for marketing purposes, are not going to draw meaningful critical reviews: it's exactly the kind of show that "serious reviewers" will ignore. On my end, I checked – the only stories in Variety and Los Angeles Times were stories on the productions or marketing, and I found nothing in the New York Times or Entertainment Weekly. That tells me you're going to find little-to-nothing on the "critical response" end... Your only play left is to check Newspapers.com if you have an account and see what you can find there (and hope the results aren't paywalled behind the "Publishers Extra" tier.
Honestly, the best thing you could do for that article is convert the episodes list into a proper {{Episode list}} within an {{Episode table}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall: Thank you for the advice, and the look. I don't have a Newspapers.com account, but I managed to find one newspaper review through Google Books, plus an article on the toyline. I think, for such an obscure series, I've found all I can about reception. I still can't find any sources on the airing dates for episodes, so a table will be tricky, but I was expecting that. I found some sites hosting airing dates, but I wasn't sure about how reliable/admissable they were, so I didn't gather them. Also, thanks for the page edits. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: {{Epguides}}, which can only be used as an 'External link', has the air dates for this TV series. In general, Epguides' reported air dates are accurate. Beyond that, you would likely have to hit either back issues of TV Guide, or search through TV programming guides in Newspapers.com, to get a bona fide "WP:RS" for the air dates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake, The Wikipedia Library offers access to both Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com as part of its Database access. You should be able to use them that way without needing your own account for either source. You might also check ProQuest, which is another part of the database collection. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall and Teblick: Thank you both for the help, managed by a miracle to find ratings information on the first series. I've managed to find more than suitable sources now for an article of this obscurity. I'm vaguely toying with the idea of taking this article to GAN eventually. For the moment, I'm focusing on getting the article in shape. Once again, thank you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sopranos episode articles need major editing

I noticed today that The Sopranos (The Sopranos episode) was bloated with unencyclopaedic trivia. There were sections entitled "Deceased" (listing the characters killed in the episode); "Cultural references"; "Connections to future episodes"; "Music"; and "Filming locations". I removed all of these, because while they might be found interesting on a fan site, they are trivial and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. They also contained a great deal of original research. No other articles about TV programme episodes that I have read contain material like this. The article was also poorly laid out, with cast listed before the plot section.

I removed all of these sections, but I see that in fact, many more of the episode articles - in fact, all the ones I've looked at - are similarly flawed. So I would like to draw attention to this, and I hope that some other editors will also feel like cleaning up some of these articles. Sunsoutno (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Willow (TV series)

There's a discussion regarding the cancelation of the Disney+ TV series Willow. It can be found at Talk:Willow (TV series)#Canceled?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Fox Netball

I'm unsure as to if this article is factually correct thus I've added a discussion here: Talk:Fox Netball it would be helpful to have input from project television members. Thanks Otchiman (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Entering syndication in two consecutive years

Last Man Standing is listed in the "Entering syndication" section of both 2015 in American television and 2016 in American television. So when did it enter syndication? 2015 or 2016? 100.7.44.80 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a possibility that both dates are correct, if one year is for when the series entered syndication on cable TV, and the other is for when the show entered "back-end syndication" on local TV stations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It might be a possibility. I wish there were sources that could prove that, but the 2015 entry does not have a source and the Media Life Magazine source in the 2016 entry no longer works. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The 2015 syndication (to cable) is sourced (though can maybe be sourced better...). I found a Deadline source that talks about the 2016 syndication to local TV stations – I have added that to the Last Man Standing (American TV series) article. I also reworked the article to more closely follow MOS:TV, but it still likely needs some work (and some trimming). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Jud Birza and Maryanne Oketch nominated for deletion

Individual articles about Jud Birza (AFD) and Maryanne Oketch (AFD) have been nominated for deletion. Your inputs there are welcome. George Ho (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Great North episodes § For Whom the Smell Tolls

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Great North episodes § For Whom the Smell Tolls. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

information Note: Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever(talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) at FAR

I have nominated Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Infobox character

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Propose removal of the Color parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for NBN (TV station)

NBN (TV station) has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for DuMont Television Network

DuMont Television Network has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Toonzai and Vortexx

The opinions of the members of this WikiProject would be much appreciated at the discussion here on whether to merge Toonzai and Vortexx. Felix QW (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Friends#Requested move 2 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Friends#Requested move 2 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominating SportsChannel Cincinnati

I have nominated SportsChannel Cincinnati for deletion for being redundant with Bally Sports Ohio. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, first I have reverted you at SportsChannel Cincinnati because you did not properly follow the WP:AfD process – IOW, you did not create a valid WP:AfD discussion.
Second, if what you say is true, a WP:MERGE-and-convert-to-redirect proposal would seem to make a lot more sense than an actual deletion. I would advise changing your request to a WP:MERGE request – just make sure you properly follow the process laid out at WP:MERGEPROP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't create an AfD discussion because IP editors cannot do that. Tho I do admit a merge proposal makes more sense, so I'll take this to WP:PROPMERGE. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, to be frank, I am completely surprised you didn't know IP editors cannot create AfD discussions because it literally says just that at the bottom of the AfD1 template. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion it looks like you have to put it in the form of a request, which I think you didn't formally do... But if you do decide to go the merge route, you may want to go back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and make clear you're going to request a merge instead. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
A merge discussion has been opened at talk:Bally Sports Ohio, in which everybody is welcome to participate. Felix QW (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Astro_(television) from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television

Requesting to remove Astro_(television) from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television as it is not a television program and an incorrect classification of Astro, it is a broadcast and streaming service provider. Tobythefriendlywriter (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It probably belongs under WP:TV as a TV service provider (DirecTV, which is similar, is under WP:TV), but the article is mis-disambiguated – it should likely be moved to Astro (company). Pinging Gonnym here for another opinion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It would seem that "(company)" can work here. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate the input. How can a move be made? Tobythefriendlywriter (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done Astro (company). Now doing the clean-up- X201 (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Tobythefriendlywriter (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Source title

Please comment at Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 20)#Source titles). Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Earl Cole nominated for deletion

The article about Earl Cole is nominated for deletion. I welcome you to input your comments there. George Ho (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pikachu

Pikachu has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Character sorting at List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons is currently a featured list candidate, but there's disagreement about how the characters should be organized in the article. Currently, characters with their own articles have subsections. Feedback would be appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Attribution of streaming simulcasts

Since 2020, it is now standard practice for U.S. network television promos in the United States to attribute programs as being available on both a linear television channel, as well live or on-demand on its respective subscription video on-demand (SVOD) platform. (i.e. Hulu, Paramount+, or Peacock (streaming service)). With the current ubiquity of streaming, should a particular broadcaster's streaming platform be co-attributed as the "network" of a program if its first-run airings are simultaneously available on that platform?

i.e. Any HBO series premiering since mid-2020 being attributed as both an HBO and Max (streaming service) program, all NBC series being attributed as both an NBC and Peacock program, etc.

Or is this just insistent PR and advertising that Wikipedia should avoid? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It depends, IMO – if it's a "same day" release on the TV broadcaster and on the "streaming service" for the TV program in question, then they should probably both be listed as, say, the broadcasting "network" (e.g. in the infobox).
However, a lot of these situations are "released on [TV network], and available next day on [streamer]!!" (i.e. it's just a marketing-type gimmick) – in that case, the (broadcast or cable) TV network is clearly the "primary broadcaster", and the "next day" release on the streamer would only merit of sentence of prose in the 'Broadcast' or 'Release' section of the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. If an event is shown live on a streaming service alongside the network broadcast, both should be listed (I know this is becoming common for awards shows), but other programs added to streaming after the network broadcast should be omitted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
An alternate situation to also consider is when episodes are released early on streaming, then later on their broadcast channel. For example, episodes of The Walking Dead: Dead City are released online on AMC+ three days before their AMC broadcast, though all details of "original release" are related to their AMC broadcast. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That has to be done if the article is going to track ratings for "linear television" (e.g. in the episodes table). If you don't care about linear TV viewership, then the streaming release dates should probably be considered the "primary" ones in a case like this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone good at finding a TV listing for a special?

This TV special Sinatra in Concert, filmed and broadcast by the BBC under the title Night of Nights in 1970, was supposedly broadcast in the U.S. in 1971 under the title Frank Sinatra: In Concert at the Royal Festival Hall, but I can't find any substantiation of that on any actual contemporary U.S. TV listing anywhere -- not in Newspapers.com or GoogleBooks or etc. In fact this TV listing aggregate [1] (are those things reliable?) shows it wasn't broadcast the date specified in this book about specials [2], at least not in primetime. Can anyone verify this U.S. TV broadcast somewhere, on any date, on any channel? Because that book doesn't seem very reliable to be honest. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can't find it at all in Newspapers.com, I would be very skeptical that it actually aired (in the U.S.). I would perhaps do a wider search, though – from 1970 through perhaps even 1975, to see if the article/book has the year it aired in the U.S. wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have done as wide a search as I personally know how to do. I'm asking if anyone has any special skills in finding specific U.S. TV listings. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Erika Casupanan nominated for deletion

The article about Erika Casupanan is nominated for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Technical issues with an article's display title

I moved the article Me², an episode of Red Dwarf, to the title Me2 (Red Dwarf) due to MOS:SUPERSCRIPT and WP:TSC. However, I need help correcting the displaytitle for this article to Me2 (Red Dwarf), as Template:Infobox television episode does not support special formatting of the episode title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Amazing World of Gumball has an RFC

The Amazing World of Gumball has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The issue under discussion involves the airdates listed in {{Infobox television}} for a cancelled or ended series with a confirmed upcoming revival. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There are 38 articles for Lists_of_home_video_releases

There are 38 articles at Category:Lists_of_home_video_releases. A couple are up for deletion. I'm wondering why any of these exist. If there no reason, nominating all at once would save time. Dream Focus 18:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be an WP:OTHER argument: "these articles are nominated for deletion, so they should all be deleted". -- Alex_21 TALK 00:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"They are all the same" is not an "other" argument. I asked if there was any reason for any of them to exist. Dream Focus 01:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably not. I can't promise that one or two wouldn't actually merit a list-article, but the odds are that none of them do. Any important content should be merged back to the parent articles, under the 'Home media' section. Check for secondary sourcing first, if any of them have substantive secondary sourcing, I would advise not nominating those for deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Refnotes in transcluded episode summaries

I'm not sure if this is a recent development, but when {{efn}} is used in |ShortSummary= for {{Episode list}}, and then that episode table is transcluded to a parent/list article, the note is still transcluded even if the summary is not.

For example, Stranger Things (season 3) episode 8 uses a refnote, then when that table is transcluded to List of Stranger Things episodes, the note is still required to be listed using {{notelist}}. This is how I've gone about fixing this issue, given that the note isn't needed when the summary isn't transcluded, but I'm not sure why the note is still transcluding despite the summaries not being transcluded. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Really this is a question for Template talk:Episode list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
It could be posted there too, sure; posting it here just alerts the WikiProject as a whole as to the issue, and why the error Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page). may be appearing on episode articles without notes, of which there seem to be quite a few. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I've raised a thread at Template talk:Episode list#References in ShortSummary get transcluded even when the text isn't displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The template discussion has identified the issue but it would be helpful if there were a couple of unfixed examples where the problem can be seen. That allows solutions to be tested. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
A live example can be seen at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes, caused by Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4). -- Alex_21 TALK 05:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not seeing any notelist issues on that page? This parallel discussion seems to have located the problem, but the above post was made after the last post there so it might not have yet been fixed... Primefac (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The error was there and the problem might have been fixed, see Template talk:Episode list#References in ShortSummary get transcluded even when the text isn't displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Video Game

The Video Game does not seem to be a notable show. Nobody associated with it has their own article (host, announcer, model, director, creator, production company), and it aired in syndication, so there's no network to retarget it to. Newspapers.com, GBooks, and similar archives turned up not even the faintest of mentions. It's not even in the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. I'm throwing this one out there to see what others think of its possible notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely unsourced now. If Newspapers.com and a search of Los Angeles Times turns up nothing, then it doesn't pass WP:NTV and should be taken to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Video Game. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Vecepia Towery nominated for deletion

The article about Vecepia Towery is nominated for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus#Requested move 27 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of programs aired by AksyonTV/5 Plus#Requested move 27 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Television episode ratings

Uses of {{Television episode ratings}} really need to stop being used where the only new information is the rating (as the episode title, airdate and viewers are already included in the episode tables), where no DVR information is available. Examples include The Flash (season 9)#Ratings and Fear the Walking Dead (season 8)#Ratings, both of which show that the rating stayed at exactly the same value for the entire season, and List of Riverdale episodes#Season 7, where some episode report a rating of 0.0. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely, as the ratings table becomes redundant of the episode table, and the 18-49 demo numbers are so extremely low (literally 0.1 for most cable shows) that it becomes meaningless. Sources for DVR numbers seem to be more scarce nowadays and are generally only available for the network shows and the most popular cable shows. But yes, we need to stop automatically adding these tables when usually they just end with tons of "N/A" rows. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. We could maybe consider adding a rating parameter to {{Episode table}} so we can completely stop using {{Television episode ratings}} going forward since DVD info for individual episodes is now no longer widely available. Many unscripted shows like The Bachelor and Survivor do this already. But again since the 18–49 rating has become so meaningless, should we even bother having it included on the page at all particularly for new shows. - Brojam (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the empty DVR rows for a number of series ([3][4][5][6][7]); just noting it here in case it becomes a contentious issue. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Veo cómo cantas#Requested move 21 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Veo cómo cantas#Requested move 21 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Adventures of Superboy

Shouldn't The Adventures of Superboy be moved to The Adventures of Superboy (TV Pilot)? There's also The Adventures of Superboy (TV series), which was a released series unlike the subject of the first article. 176.201.40.207 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Patched I've created this redirect page The Adventures of Superboy (TV Pilot). ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Which is pointing at the wrong thing. It's pointing to the animated series, not the actual tv pilot. You messed up. Please fix it. oknazevad (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that the pilot should be titled The Adventures of Superboy (TV Pilot), as it isn't the main topic with this name imo 176.201.40.207 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, 1) it would be "(TV pilot)" not "(TV Pilot)", and 2) a lot of us in WP:NCTV think that "(TV pilot)" should not be used for disambiguation. So I'd oppose doing "TV pilot". Best way to disambiguate here is likely "by year" – e.g. The Adventures of Superboy (1966 TV series), etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
TV pilot should be consistent with Aquaman (TV pilot) 176.201.40.207 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The fact that some articles use that doesn't mean it is not still controversial. In general, if use of "(TV pilot)" can be avoided then it should not be used. The only exception is if that is the result of a WP:RM discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, the important thing is that the page will be moved to an appropriate title 151.73.4.206 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Also the 1988 live action series was renamed "Adventures of Superboy" for its third season. I'd argue that the article for an unaired pilot should definitely be moved, as it is hardly likely to be the proper primary use of the title. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Primos (TV series)

You are invited to join a discussion at Talk:Primos (TV series)#Controversy section about how much emphasis to put onto the "controversy" surrounding the series' following release of its opening sequence on social media and YouTube. This WikiProject received this message because Primos is an animated series, airing on a streaming television service, Disney+ and on Disney Channel. Comments would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Regarding the template {{Infobox television}}, I started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Number of episodes about changing the criteria for that parameter. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Characters

This WikiProject has quite the problem with fictional character articles that are entirely plot, with no notability. A good comparison here would be with WP:VG, which has mostly dealt with the problem by now. Does anyone here have an opinion on what to do about it? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I know there have been some discussions at WP:FILM about this topic which probably apply here as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding them. If you don't mind, could you give me a couple links? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this is the main discussion I was thinking of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Useless superhero character articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over studios credited in Nimona (film)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Nimona (film)#Studio dispute over the studios credited for this animated film. Some want to credit only Annapurna Pictures (who produced it after it was revived), while others wish to credit Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Studios, and Vertigo Entertainment, with the latter three producing it before it was cancelled, along with Annapurna. Comments from members of this WikiProject would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Todd Herzog nominated for deletion

The article about Todd Herzog, the Survivor: China, has been nominated for deletion. Please send your inputs there at the nomination page. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

List of Toon In with Me episodes

The page List of Toon In with Me episodes is not rendering completely. The size of the page is too large after template expansion. My suggestion is to split the page into separate pages for each year of the show. DCEdwards1966 03:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I have performed a standard edit (specifically introducing the use of |dontclose=y) to cut the PEIS to 1,125,810/2,097,152 bytes (53% of the maximum limit). The splits created by Kilmonger2 have been reverted by Deauthorized (and later, myself), as the pages were previous deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Toon In with Me episodes (2022), and thus should not have been recreated. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Also for anyone watching this, the best solution to this sort of situation is to replace:
{{Episode table ... |episodes=
{{Episode list
...
}}
}}
with:
{{Episode table ... |dontclose=y}}
{{Episode list
...
}}
{{End|html=y|Episode table}}
This means that all {{Episode list}} declarations are outside of the {{Episode table}} declaration tables, thus avoiding expanding on WP:PEIS. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't too sure on the split for 2023 as there technically wasn't a discussion on it yet, though I probably could've boldly done it either way. Thanks for your help. Deauthorized. (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft for article on teen drama

Hi everyone, I've created a draft for an article about the teen drama genre. There are no sources at the moment but those will be added later. I have a bit of a dilemma in regards to the origins of the genre; a quick look at Google Books has some authors claiming Beverly Hills, 90210 to have pioneered the genre while other authors posit Degrassi Junior High instead, usually while arguing against the US-centric nature of discussion about the genre. There's no clear consensus. How do I go about this? Do I add the fact there are multiple perspectives on this matter, or does that statement need to be sourced in itself? ToQ100gou (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? ToQ100gou (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I think if reliable sources disagree about the origins of the genre then it should be as simple as noting that there's disagreement regarding the origins of the genre: "Some sources claim X, while others claim Y." DonIago (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

ESPN 8: The Ocho

I've proposed that ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from the film article Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as it is a real TV programming segment on the real ESPN, and not just something in a fiction film. You may be interested in the discussion. For the discussion , see talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story#Split off ESPN 8 -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story § Split off ESPN 8

67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

ShowBuzzDaily closing for good

Per their website, ShowBuzzDaily is no longer providing TV ratings with their last report being June 29. TV by the Numbers went and now ShowBuzzDaily; so the question begs what source do we use for our TV ratings? Though if you read their article, it does speak of the larger issue of the importance (or lack of) of linear TV viewership, and I think it's a good idea if we (Wikipedia) should have a larger discussion of whether we should even continue to add live viewership ratings to episode tables and completely eliminate reporting on 18-49 demo numbers. Here's a blurb from the article they posted: ..."the bottom has dropped out of linear viewership, and the ratings have had increasingly less utility. (Last Thursday’s cable ratings in the 18-49 demo included 25 shows clustered between 0.09-0.12, basically molecules of difference.) The balance of home viewing, for better or worse, has swung toward streaming, and the proprietors of those companies have chosen to be opaque with their information, providing data that’s incomplete and unverified when it’s available at all." Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Considering so many shows are on streaming services now, is it even worth adding live viewership ratings? Historyday01 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any merit anymore to viewership being added. However, here's where the problem comes it: there still is a benefit to series pre-201X (2010? 2012?) when live and DVR ratings were still large, to have that information listed. So we shouldn't, say, remove the columns from the episode table. But what we should do, is determine maybe TV season as "caps" for when featuring rating data should or shouldn't be featured. So definitely I think starting with the 2023–24 United States network television schedule, no new or returning series should feature ratings data. Then it's a matter of what that "middle" range is for when it could maybe be featured still or could outright removed (is that 2016-17? 2018-19? Definitely somewhere in that range I feel. Or maybe the year TVByTheNumbers went down?). And finally, stating anything pre that middle range of questionability likely should feature ratings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
If linear ratings are identified as such then I don’t have an issue with including them going forward. The problem is that these ratings are often just identified as “viewers” with no indication to the reader that they represent only same-day linear viewership. Fix that, and I still think something is better than nothing. Heartfox (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Could TV Series Finale serve as a replacement source? They seem to do a good job of covering at least network ratings. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Programming Insider is still here. — YoungForever(talk) 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm probably guilty myself of claiming from personal opinion that linear ratings are a poor measure of success or wide audience (and even historically there's huge sampling issues). However: do we actually have reliable sources that say that linear ratings are no longer used in the industry? If it's still the case that execs (however out of touch) are recommissioning shows based on these ratings then I wouldn't like to abandon them altogether.
I agree with Favre1fan93 that, even if we conclude ratings are no longer a good metric, they were in the past and so it will be important to preserve the historical record. — Bilorv (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
What has unfortunately now resulted are newer editors edit-warring and forcing ratings into episode tables. Do we agree to these sorts of additions, or do they remain out of the episode tables as per normal? -- Alex_21 TALK 10:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New WikiProject idea

I am interested in starting WikiProject Singing talent shows. This would encompass all competitions broadcast on television where the focus is singing. This project would help to bring uniformity to all pages that will fall under its care, as well as curate the history of such contests. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ktkvtsh: most WikiProjects fail to attract a community around them. The main points of a WikiProject are to encourage information sharing and collaborative editing. Have you found other editors who are interested in collaborating on your project? — Bilorv (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
A few from the Eurovision project Ktkvtsh (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ktkvtsh: excellent! Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals? — Bilorv (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ratings in the episodes table

Hello there everyone. While this dispute started on House of the Dragon, I thought it would be more appropriate to get it addressed here, so as to seek a general solution and guideline on how to proceed with inclusion of Nielsen ratings in the episode table in the future and set a general guideline for it.

As you all know, the normal same day Nielsen ratings used to be included in the "Ratings" table which also included DVR+total seven-day viewership and ratings. But since all sources have ceased publishing DVR data, the tables have started becoming empty. As a result, they have also started getting removed. Which is why some users (including me) have started using the "Episodes" table for the same day ratings instead. Just because we didn't usually do it before, doesn't mean we can't do it now. There's no rule against it.

User:Alex 21 however reverted my edit adding the same-day Nielsen ratings in the House of the Dragon "Episodes" table, claiming they clog up the table and it has been disputed that they're informative.

However, I don't believe that a box smaller than other boxes and located at the end in the table clogs up anything or obstructs the view of anyone. Also the viewership data of Nielsen is actually only based on a sample of viewers, with Nielsen extrapolating their audience through an estimate. While the rating is based on the actual total TV sets in US and viewers on a daily night. Therefore I believe it's informative to include.

Like I said earlier, I would like to know the opinion of other users so we can set a guideline on what to do with ratings in the "Episodes" table in future, especially those regularly editing the TV show-articles like @YoungForever:, @Adamstom.97:, @Bilorv:, @Masem:, @Lonniemitchell22:, @Nisf:, @BrickMaster02:, @Magitroopa:, @Drovethrughosts:, @Favre1fan93:, @Heartfox:. Thank you. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My instinct is to oppose this additional 18-49 rating column unless there's some evidence that House of the Dragon (or 2022 TV shows in general) are commissioned/reviewed/judged by execs with this metric as a highly weighted factor. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bilorv: It's actually more important than the total viewership. [8]
It’s simple: Overall popularity is often less important business-wise than demographic popularity. The television business is driven by the desires of advertisers, and advertisers crave younger viewers on the assumption that they are less brand-loyal and more willing to try something new.
There are many different demographics measured, but a key consideration is the 18-49 age demo. On that score, “Body of Proof” and “Vegas” were tied at No. 72 in the 18-49 demo in live-plus-same-day ratings (Live + 7 ratings were not available) and “Golden Boy” was No. 97, according to Nielsen. Linkin Prankster (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, this was the case in 2013. Since then streaming television has gone from almost non-existent to dominant, and as such the entire economics of the industry has changed. Hence the current SAG-AFTRA strike from the changing nature of residuals. I want to know how execs today make these financial decisions about programmes. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Aren't ratings aside from overall viewership included in a separate table towards the end of the article? That's where I would put 18-49 ratings (if they aren't there already). RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Many users have started removing the overall viewership table due to the lack of DVR and overall data (no reliable sources publishes them any longer). House of the Dragon is one such article where it happened. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I oppose the addition of demo numbers into episode tables. I feel demo numbers fall into WP:NOTSTATS mostly because it's not explicitly clear what the demo number even means. Is it thousands, millions, a percentage? Demo numbers are fine when they're explained in text in a viewership/ratings subsection, but not in an episode table. 18-49 numbers may be notable for ad-based networks, but not-so-much for subscription-based networks such as HBO which doesn't have any advertising, especially since we're using House of the Dragon as an example here. This article from Deadline from 2019 talking about Games of Thrones, mentions "In the 18-49 demographic, which isn't really that important to the subscriber-based premium cabler". Strictly speaking about cable shows, 18-49 demo numbers have been so extremely small, that basically every show has a number between 0.1-0.5, that the number becomes meaningless. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: That all depends on whether they're focusing on streaming or TV of course. So if 18-49 demographics ratings is unimportant to include, then there's no point in adding TV viewership too as it's a fraction of the actual.

As for the ratings, they're still important regarding TV broadcast although executives are trying to (unsuccessfully for now) move away from it to total audiences that include streaming [9]:

The networks love this promised adjustment. Because so many younger TV viewers are rejecting linear television in favor of streaming alternatives, it has become increasingly difficult for networks to deliver promised impressions among the most popular demographic cohorts (adults 18 to 49 primarily). Consequently, publishers are pushing to base their guarantees on total audience delivery instead, with narrower targeting possible (at a significant premium) only through their big data solutions. In essence, they’re saying: If you want more precise targeting, you can have it; but you’ll have to pay for it.

So far, advertisers have successfully pushed back against this total-audience gambit, but it seems unlikely that they will be able to resist forever. For now, the networks are insisting that the conversion to total-audience measurement and delivery will be implemented as part of the ‘24/’25 upfronts. Also looming on the horizon: a push to move away from impressions to “impact ratings”—but that might be a topic for another time. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: The episodes table only includes TV viewership, and TV ratings decide whether a TV-focused show is cancelled or not. [10]

That hasn’t always been the case. In the ’80s and ’90s, when I first started paying attention to TV ratings, it was much more common to report the overall rating, which is the percentage of everybody who’s watching (or, at least, of everybody who also owns a TV). And yet networks increasingly began making their decisions based almost entirely on those younger, 18- to 49-year-old viewers. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also this 2022 article by THR provides valuable insight [11]:

Nielsen ratings are, however, still the foundation for the public-facing component of TV measurement on network and cable outlets, along with occasional in-house supplemental data about streaming. From those numbers and what streaming data is out there, it’s possible to come to a decent understanding of how and when people choose to watch.

Someone focused on ad sales might still be looking at key demographic groups, whether adults 18-49 or 25-54. For Will Somers, executive vp and head of research at Fox Entertainment, it’s a mix of old and new: “We also want to know what’s happening on the many other screens that people have within reach,” he says. “So [in addition to Nielsen ratings] we look at streaming metrics, which we also get on an overnight basis … and try to provide a holistic measure of total audience in real time for our stakeholders.” Linkin Prankster (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be wary of putting too much emphasis on ratings for a series that is also on a streaming service like this one. Seems to me that if there is not enough data for an additional ratings table it could make sense to have no ratings data in the episode table and put all of it in the ratings section where discussion about it can be combined with discussion of streaming viewership. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but then we should also discuss the importance of continuing to use the TV viewership for shows like HotD as they can be misleading for readers who'll only check Episodes table or not understand why there are multiple viewership data for TV and overall. Linkin Prankster (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
As per the previous discussion on this topic above, there's some slight agreement (not a clear consensus, duly noted) that TV viewership is just as outdated. To combine my opinions for this discussion and that one into one response, I agree in keeping the ratings data for past series, as it's historical information and no templates should be deleted, but there's less need to include this sort of data in tabular format for series that are released in the newer age of streaming (ratings and viewers). If viewership data is truly important to a series and has had a notable effect on its continued existance, it can and should be included via prose, just as it is at House of the Dragon § Viewership. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope we can agree to removing the TV viewership from the "Episodes" table of House of the Dragon too then. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Denise Stapley re-nominated for deletion

The article about Denise Stapley has been re-nominated for deletion. I invite you for your input there. Cheers. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Series Status

If there is no information on whether a series has been cancelled or renewed for another season, should the series be considered as ongoing or completed? And should the "last" field in the infobox for such a series be entered as "present" or the release date of the last episode that aired? - Rajan51 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rajan51: see Template:Infobox television. Under documentation for last_aired: In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using {{End date}}. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. — Bilorv (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks -Rajan51 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Tables on reality dance competition shows

I am writing in regards to a number of reality dance competition shows, such as Dancing with the Stars (American TV series), Strictly Come Dancing, and Dancing with the Stars (Australian TV series). Before I began editing the individual season articles for some of these seasons, they each contained a number of highly dubious tables of what I considered INDISCRIMINATE statistics, all unsourced, and filled with ORIGINALRESEARCH / Synthesis, and ultimately Fancruft that could maybe fit in on a fansite, but not an encyclopedia. These are the tables that I am talking about, and I just grabbed a season at random (Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 16)):

  • Averages – Someone has calculated the average score for each contestant. This is not something the series does, nor does an average score have any impact on the competition. Additionally, there are all sorts of provisions, such as excluding X, or "adjusting" Y because there was a guest judge or whatever. This has absolutely no place here.
  • Highest and lowest scoring performances – Do you want to know who had the highest and lowest scoring tango? This is the place to find it. Again, this is not something that the series tracks or notates in any way, nor do these have any impact on the competition.
  • Couples' highest and lowest scoring dances – Do you want to know what dance style earned Jack & Jill their highest and lowest scores? Again, this is the place to find out. Same as above.
  • Dance chart – I am actually fine with a chart that shows who performed what dance style each week. My complaint here is with the use of color to notate which dance was the highest scoring, lowest scoring, etc. The only score that counts on DWTS is the final score at the end of the night, and it is already listed on a table toward the top of the page. About halfway through each season, couples begin doing two performances each night, and DWTS only features the total score. They do not care who had the highest scoring dance in the first round, or whatever. This, to me, is synthesis/original research.

Now, I have already finished editing the individual seasons of Dancing with the Stars (American TV series), and while I have received some pushback, I am sure there will be more once the new season starts. My next project is to tackle the individual seasons of Strictly Come Dancing, and I have been already called a "bloody American" who has "no business editing British articles". In addition to the superfluous tables I've mentioned, these articles feature rampant MOS violations, including MOS:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS. Here is an example of a completed article. Again, I just picked one at random (Dancing with the Stars (American season 25)). Please let me know if you have any feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Infobox television

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Remove "Picture format" and "audio format" , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Gonnym (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Tables of cast overview

Does this project have a standard for tables of cast members? I'm specifically interested in learning the various colors of cells and symbols used in tables like the one here: List_of_The_Fall_characters#Cast_overview. The two cell background colors are not described in the article, nor is the meaning on the em dash in some cells. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Tables should be avoided. They're not WP:ACCESSIBILITY compliant and usually add very little to the article overall EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
That table needs accessibility help indeed. My guess is regular is blue, recurring red, and gray none at all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed Comparing the previous version compared to the version I've updated, this conforms more with TVCAST and accessibility guidelines. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Tables are not inherently accessibility-uncompliant: any accessibility issues with tables are an effect of misuse. For example, omitting a caption; using styled data cells where a header cell should be used; using <br /> tags to simulate rows; relying on background colours to convey information. More at MOS:DTAB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! --76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:WMTV (College of William & Mary)#Requested move 15 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WMTV (College of William & Mary)#Requested move 15 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 05:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Allspark (company)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#What exactly happened on October 9, 2020, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fox Kids (Australia)#Requested move 14 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Kids (Australia)#Requested move 14 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wendell Holland nominated for deletion

I have nominated the article about Wendell Holland for deletion. You may input your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Holland. Thanks! George Ho (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures

I don't really know where to put this, so I'll just leave it here. Feel free to drop it some other place.

So there is an article for Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures. For the unfamiliar, BTAS aired two seasons with 85 episodes on Fox Kids from 1992 to 1995 and then TNBA aired a season with 24 episodes on Kids' WB from 1997 to 1999. The two shows are not that different overall (TNBA is a "sequel", but outside of some art changes and some focus on different characters, it might as well be the same show). The problem arises in the BTAS article. Editors regularly war over whether TNBA is a BTAS season, and there seems to be no consistency or consensus for what the article should say. There are a handful of comments on the talk page about it, but nothing you'd really call a discussion.

Right now, you can see the BTAS article says in the lead "it originally aired on Fox Kids from September 5, 1992 to September 15, 1995 with a total of 85 episodes" but the infobox says it aired three seasons with 109 episodes from 1992 to 1999. Sometimes the infobox says two seasons with 85 episodes, before someone inevitably changes it again. The List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes article also contains a list of TNBA episodes that is also on The New Batman Adventures. This is seemingly a pretty recent change, because it used to be that the BTAS list only contained BTAS episodes and TNBA was kept on its own (since-merged) list, but if the BTAS article is going to say TNBA is BTAS, there is really no reason for it not to be on the list. But then you get into the fact that if TNBA is BTAS, that means we have an entire article for one season of a show, which seems pretty redundant, if you ask me.

So, what should be done about this? At any rate, it seems obvious to me that the current setup, which is just editors battling and the article saying whatever happened not to be changed most recently, is not viable. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan Would a formal RfC be worth holding? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Not my area of expertise, but if that's a better venue for this type of discussion, no opposition from me. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scheana Shay#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scheana Shay#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (American TV series)

Additional eyes are requested over at Dancing with the Stars (American TV series). There are disagreements as to what constitutes Fancruft and what is considered encyclopedic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Examples of what I've been dealing with:

Another user deleted information with the edit summary: [It's] trival info and completely unnecessary. The response received when it was reverted: It is necessary so stop turning this page into garbage.

I deleted information with the edit summary No sources provided, or any explanation as to why any of this is notable. Their response when they reverted it: Nobody cares about that.

I reformatted part of a table to bring it into compliance with the MOS. My edit summary: The current table is absolutely unacceptable in its current form; it is entirely too long to display on any screen, plus it violates MOS:COLOR. Their response: Who ever started the MOS:COLOR is a fool.

I'm at my wit's end here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:That Girl Lay Lay#Requested move 27 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:That Girl Lay Lay#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 23:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fantasy Football League#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fantasy Football League#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Cartoonito: rebranding or transitioning?

Hello everyone, today Boomerang Nordic, Turkey and EMEA feeds had been replaced/rebranded as Cartoonito. In March the same thing happened with Boomerang CEE, Portugal and Africa, and this July even Boomerang Asia did so. But I want to know, is it a transition or a replacement? I want you to remember that in UK, France and Italy they have both Boomerang and Cartoonito as two separate channels who broadcast together in the same country. As someone proposed to split in two pages Cartoonito Asia and Boomerang Asia and made that split, the same thing hasn't been done on other feeds mentioned, affirming that Boomerang changed name to Cartoonito (check out this difference and this discussion), making other people understand that Cartoonito is still the same channel as Boomerang, just with another name. Too bad in UK, France and Italy it isn't like so: Cartoonito coexists alongside Boomerang as the two brands are broadcasting two separate channels, both of which are broadcasting with different shows: Boomerang broadcasts some shows which Cartoonito doesn't. I'm proposing to split Cartoonito/Boomerang CEE, Portugal, EMEA, Nordic and Turkey in two pages for each feed, for avoiding confusion between the two brands, which are completely different. BOOMERANG IS A KIDS CHANNEL, CARTOONITO IS A PRE-SCHHOL CHANNEL, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME CHANNEL. What do you think it's better: splitting Boomerang and Cartoonito in two pages or merging them in one page? 79.21.5.118 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

For Boomerang/Cartoonito EMEA I'm also reporting this difference/discussion which involved @EvergreenFir, which proposed a new Cartoonito page - splitted from Boomerang - and an anonymous IP which replies that the one from Boomerang to Cartoonito is a transition, not a relaunch/rebraning. 79.21.5.118 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:KDLT-TV § Footnote or prose text?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:KDLT-TV § Footnote or prose text?. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with After Dark (TV programme) ?

Might I ask for some practical help? Perhaps from UK-based editors with knowledge of British television? I would like to collaborate with an experienced Wikipedia editor on an article about an interesting tv show.

To explain why I am asking for help rather than just editing, I have a COI (as detailed on my User page since I started editing over 15 years ago): User:AnOpenMedium

To be clear, I am not paid to do any kind of social media for the company (I am basically now business affairs, copyrights, licences, contracts, that sort of thing, as well as looking after the company archive). My Wikipedia editing has always taken the form of adding material from our archives in my spare time. Over the years this has expanded a little as I learned how to get permission for, and then to add, photos from the archives.

Of course I have made missteps along the way, misunderstood things, withdrawn ideas I have proposed, but my time with Wikipedia has been relatively peaceful. And of course some of my contributions are no doubt more useful than others (but I don’t think it is my place to make editorial judgements, as per my COI).

The results of my editing have left some of the articles I have contributed to peppered with extracts from books, journal articles, newspaper pieces and so on. I took the view - and hope my User page makes this clear - that my COI does not allow me to write sections of articles in my own words, but it seems legitimate to add the words of others as quotations. These quotations can then be considered by other editors (to use as they are, write summaries if that is better, and so on). My archival sources are probably better than can be found by the average user of the internet or a library: I am somewhat over-informed about the tv programmes our company has made so know where useful material is to be found.

Coming to why I am requesting help, a few weeks ago an article to which I have contributed, and which has been more or less stable for more than ten years, has been dramatically reduced in length: After_Dark_(TV_programme)

The bulk of this article has now gone - over 126,000 bytes removed – along with much true, useful, verifiable and properly sourced information, including everything about individual episodes, as well as over 30 images of the many celebrities who made guest appearances on the series. By comparison, when I look at other good articles about specific tv shows, they tend to resemble the inclusive approach I was following, rather than the extreme minimalism/exclusion approach just taken.

I had hoped that the many quotations I presented would be a useful resource for further editing. So is there perhaps someone in this group who might like to take a look at this and then work on moving things forward?

Very happy to help but I am conscious of being constrained by virtue of my COI. Apologies if I don’t always react quickly but working on Wikipedia is necessarily something I have to fit in around my paid work.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone looking for context, it looks like Hippo43 has significantly trimmed the article to remove excessive quotations, as the edit summaries note. Looking at the last version before Hippo43's edits (link), I support the changes; the majority of the article was paragraph-long direct quotes.
AnOpenMedium: I would suggest reviewing WP:QUOTE and especially WP:OVERQUOTING. Aside from being poor writing style, excessive quotes might also pose copyright issues (see WP:COPYQUOTE). If you want to add some of the removed content back, you should summarize only the most relevant details (with a few brief direct quotes if specific wording is particularly relevant). Better citations would also help; instead of attributing text to only, say, "The Listener, 21 December 1989", include the article, author, and page number as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! My concern is that my editing in that way could be problematic because of my role with the organization (see my WP:COI as detailed on User:AnOpenMedium).
I'm really hoping somebody might want to work with me or look at the material themselves to see what is useful. AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge

There is a merge under discussion at Talk:Pictionary_(2022_game_show)#Merge. Please feel free to comment there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ben Driebergen nominated for deletion

The Ben Driebergen article is nominated for deletion. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Driebergen. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this draft?

After the creation of 2023 CW affiliation realignment, I thought a broader subject might make more sense. Is it too broad? It's Draft:2023 sports related U.S. television changes. Thanks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Paulie Calafiore

New stub: Paulie Calafiore. Has been tagged for notability if others want to weigh in or help expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've requested a filmography table at Talk:Paulie Calafiore, if anyone's able to help. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

AfDs for three episodes of Steven Universe

Recently, a user has nominated the articles The Answer (Steven Universe), Cry for Help (Steven Universe), and Mindful Education, claiming they are nominating it per WP:BRV, "especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5." I would like these discussions to get more attention, so they don't fall under the radar. To leave your comment, please go to:

These deletion discussions may be of interest to members of this project. Historyday01 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice regarding 2 RfCs at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series

This is a notice that 2 RfCs are currently happening at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.

  1. The first is at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series in regards to how, if at all, the I Am Groot shorts should be represented on the page.
  2. The second is at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear in regards to how the Adventure into Fear (franchise) should be represented on the page.

Additional editors in both discussions would be highly appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be hugely appreciated. We have a dire lack of outside voices that can objectively assess. That's what we need for a long-running content dispute. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The Adventure into Fear one is especially lacking anybody who has not already been involved in this discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
We still need more people, particularly at Adventure into Fear. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Jeremy Collins nominated for deletion

I have nominated the article Jeremy Collins for deletion. You're welcome to input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Shutdown of ShowBuzz

The website announced that it will cease operations due to declining ratings of TV shows. With this website gone, are there any other reliable alternatives for viewership ratings?

Shutdown Announcement: https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/some-unfortunate-news.html BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, we just need to move on from providing linear ratings, it's now becoming oudated information, which is exactly what Showbuzz is saying in their announcement you linked. That's not to say we should start removing data or remove the parameter entirely, past records should definitely be kept for historical data, but I see no requirement to keep providing the information, especially when we've already started removing ratings tables when there's almost zero notable information provided. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
If linear ratings are becoming outdated, what is the next big thing for viewership data then? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
TV Series Finale seems to be pretty reliable for ratings info, at least for live ratings (the ones that typically get listed in episode tables). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
FYI, this past discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources said otherwise about TV Series Finale. — YoungForever(talk) 00:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Programming Insider and Associated Press are reliable sources to use for U.S. TV ratings. — YoungForever(talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Murphy collaborators list article draft

Hi all, a few years ago I noticed that the Ryan Murphy (producer)#Frequent collaborators section is basically impossible to use. I copied the table over to Draft:List of frequent collaborators of Ryan Murphy, made some sub-tables, tried to add some prose about the collaborators as well as about the typical style of Murphy shows. It still needs a lot of work, as well as updating with recent projects. Some of the heftier tables could be removed, and there probably doesn't need to be prose about every actor/co-producer, just the really notable ones. Seeing the updates to articles about Murphy TV shows, I imagine there's a lot of fans of his work who would be interested in working on this draft, so I wanted to bring it to public attention. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

NCIS: Sydney: Countries for dates and viewers

There seems to be a disagreement betwene myself and Happily888 at NCIS: Sydney as to what countries should be included for airdates and viewers in the {{Episode table}}. The series is an Australian spin-off from an American franchise; I believe only the Australian viewers and dates should be included (table), whereas Happily888 believes it should be both countries for both columns (table). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is tricky on the surface. While there are ties to the American-based franchise, this appears to be wholly Australian from a production standpoint, and CBS licensing the series for broadcast in America. As with any other series in a similar situation, only the country of origin should be listed, so Alex's intentions were correct - only the Australia release date in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The American series should be included per MOS:TVAUDIENCE, which states that:

Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced.

This series will have very high significance and notability for its American broadcast; it is already part of an established American franchise and will be broadcast in a primetime timeslot. I think that it is quite unlikely that a comparable similar situation to this exists, clearly in this case the American broadcast information is just a relevant and highly notable as the Australian information, for reception it doesn't particularly matter where the production location is. Happily888 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It is a spin-off from an American franchise, yes, but it is not in any format an American production; in concerns for the US, it will be an imported international production. All and any US ratings can easily be included in a template such as {{Television episode ratings}} in the "International broadcast", which already exists for this purpose. Is there any reason as to why it should be included in the episode table, and can you show any other stable articles where this such situation exists? -- Alex_21 TALK 04:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
No, it is unlikely that there is many or any other article where this situation exists, because it is extremely rare or unlikely that a franchise would have a spin-off set in and produced in another country, which is notable in both the country of origin and the original franchises' origin. That the series is not an American production doesn't matter as it is not a prerequisite for ascertaining whether it is particularly notable for another territory and therefore being able to be included. I can't see any benefit of adding information to {{Television episode ratings}} as opposed to {{Episode table}}, the same information would still be provided in both tables and MOS never specifically states that any particular table must be used. Additionally, it would mean the unnecessary duplication of information across both tables, where information for both series could and should be included in just one. Happily888 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Exactly: the MOS never specifically states that any particular table must be used, so it is best to stick to standard practice in such a unique case, instead of making one separate article different to every other article covered by the WikiProject Television. That is, the country of origin in the episode table, and any further countries in their own respective section. The fact that the series will be broadcast in a primetime timeslot in the US is also irrelevant, many series receive this. Do you have any sources stating that the viewing data will be particularly notable to the continued production of the series? Added: there would be no such duplication, and would spread the data more appropriately instead of attempting to cram too much irrelevant data into one space. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no 'standard practice' for which particular table template a series must use, the MOS guideline just says that a season article "could use" {{Television episode ratings}} although this is not exhaustive and there are multiple templates which can be used. Also, particularly notable does not refer necessarily to "continued production of the series", in fact from the section it is in, it more likely refers to its relevance and importance to the other territory and the large amount of reception from there. Happily888 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
So, other than the franchise name and potential future reception, there's nothing else tying the show to America? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
@Happily888: MOS:TVAUDIENCE is in regards to viewership, not episodes table, so while it can be (and probably is) notable to mention the viewership of its US broadcasts, those airdates are irrelevant for the actual episode table since it is wholly an Australian production. Perhaps maybe the closest past example I can think of would be Law & Order: UK, and its episode tables only include the UK airdates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Although the reason why Law and Order: UK doesn't have US ratings is because it is not comparable: the series wasn't particularly notable for the US, it wasn't broadcast on a major network and it got poor ratings: The premiere episode which aired on 12 August 2009, only rated 775,000 viewers, and was outside the top 15 rated shows for that period.[1] If the series was broadcast on a major network in primetime, which it wasn't, it would have been comparable and would have been included in tables. Happily888 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no guideline or part of the MoS that supports the concept of including international ratings in an episode table solely on how well it did in that country or where/when it aired in that country. There's also evidently more support to remove the columns as I initially suggested; I've seen no further support to include them. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Higher visibility, viewership and amount of reception coverage do support that viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced. Happily888 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
And yet, there is no American reception nor viewership for a series that has not even premiered yet, so none of those currently stand as valid reasons. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of Happily's reasoning comes down to WP:CRYSTALBALL, unfortunately, and therefore doesn't really hold up. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I feel like we're talking about two different things. American release dates and viewership should not be included in the episodes table. The American viewership maybe can be ultimately included in a reception section, but as noted, it's too early to tell if it will be notable to do so given it hasn't premiered yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I see where oknazevad is coming from, Happily is saying we should include them given the prominence of those details, but given that it hasn't even aired yet and as such there is no actual prominence, this would constitute CRYSTALBALL. Given the support to remove them, I've gone ahead and done so. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Seven - Daily Ratings Report[permanent dead link‍], eNews eBroadcast.com.au, 13 August 2009.

Requested move at Talk:Fox Showcase#Requested move 27 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Showcase#Requested move 27 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

New script: moving references to {reflist}

I'm aware of how many television articles covered under WP:TV list all of their declared references under {{reflist}}, to tidy the article and be able to see the readable prose more easily while editing. For this purpose, I've created a new script to do this automatically; here is a live edit using the script. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Erik, I just saw your edit to Percy Jackson and the Olympians (TV series). Please note that per WP:CITEVAR, an article should not be changed unilaterally to or from LDRs unless there is explicit consensus to do so on the talk page (or implicit consensus among a specific set of articles). This should be noted on the script's documentation, as well as when editors attempt to use the script. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, FYI, User:PleaseStand/References segregator and User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer have similar functions, though I don't know the specifics. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for citing this guideline; if it had been a policy that the script violated, I would take action for it, and if it were forbidden, then I would assume that help pages would not exist on how to do exactly that. I find moving references to the reference list tidies the article for the regular reader, and will leave the script usage up to editor discretion. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and the other scripts do seem similar, I simply prefer using my own code. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not prohibited to convert an article to LDRs; it is, however, prohibited to convert an article to LDRs without consensus. WP:CITEVAR specifically lists the following as an example: changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Guidelines don't prohibit, only policies do, but I do get where you're coming from. Thank you for letting me know. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian Idol#Requested move 26 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Idol#Requested move 26 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Stub or not

This Petscan link should give you a list of all the television-related articles that are in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs page. At the moment, there are 65 in the list tagged by WP:TV. Some of them might still be stubs (this happens, e.g., if there are long lists of sources). Please take a quick look at update the Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings this week. The bot updates the report once a week. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Great Reality TV Swindle#Requested move 4 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Great Reality TV Swindle#Requested move 4 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Tina Wesson re-nominated for deletion

The article Tina Wesson has been re-nominated for deletion. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Wesson (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for additional input at Template talk:Infobox television

You are welcome to join a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox television#Revival series dates in infobox and give input on the request. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Robot Chicken: Star Wars

Are Robot Chicken: Star Wars and Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II (and the others) episodes or films? The article text, content, style and categories are all over the place. Usage of {{Infobox television}} and not {{Infobox television episode}}; Use quotes and not italics for the title in the lead, but mix usage in other parts of the article; Call them "episodes" in the lead; Listed in Category:Robot Chicken episodes. Gonnym (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pyramid (game show)#Requested move 26 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pyramid (game show)#Requested move 26 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Kim Spradlin re-nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Spradlin (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TVRI Sulawesi Selatan#Requested move 3 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TVRI Sulawesi Selatan#Requested move 3 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lightoil (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Final Four (Survivor: Borneo) nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Four (Survivor: Borneo). George Ho (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shaw Media#Requested move 5 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shaw Media#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Help requested on Talk:El maleficio (2023 TV series)

Hi all--can someone help out on this talk page? See the recent history of the article for some background; there's more information at User talk:An4K1nR. In short, we need to get the names of the composers right, with verification. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Naming convention for TV series season articles

A proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation may be of interest to watchers of this page and additional input is welcome to generate consensus. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this is a major change that could affect hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Please consider adding your !vote if you haven't already. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

200 new episode articles today

User:Bobbylonardo has created around 200 new episode articles today. Most, if not all, are in the same state as Life Expectancy (B Positive), which is basically the same information as the episode entry in the list of episodes with a longer plot. All of these should probably be redirected to the episode entry or moved to draft space. If these were a only a few articles I'd handle it myself, but there are just too many of these. Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Would an administrator be able to redirect all of them at once to save everyone the time and hassle? Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Bgsu98 should do it. Bobbylonardo (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bobbylonardo: can you please describe where you were getting the text for these articles from and (having read the messages on your talk page) what changes you need to make in your editing going forwards? — Bilorv (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This article also appears to be a copy/paste job from https://bpositive.fandom.com/wiki/Life_Expectancy. If they are all copy/paste jobs, they all need to be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Rick and Morty characters § Family tree on character pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Rick and Morty characters § Family tree on character pages. — Bilorv (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish to create List of programmes broadcast by CITV

I wish to create List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I can find third person sources to prove shows like Chris Cross and Your Mother Wouldn't Like It were broadcast on CITV. BBC - Comedy Guide - Chris Cross (archive.org) and BBC - Comedy - Guide - Your Mother Wouldn't Like It (archive.org) . What do others think? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest, be bold. Start the list in your sandbox or a draftspace. When you start the list is in draftspace, it has to be reviewed. But when you work on the list in your sandbox, you can still ask for it to be reviewed. But you want it in mainspace straight away, make sure it's up to standard before publishing it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Please be aware that a previous version of List of programmes broadcast by CITV was deleted only 5 hours before this discussion began, as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by CITV.  Dr Greg  talk  00:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I won't speak for others but I supported the previous page's deletion not for notability reasons but per WP:TNT – the list included all programs broadcast on CITV when it probably should only list first-run programming. But looking into other lists, it seems that they've included reruns as well. Personally, I think WP:NOTTVGUIDE or another policy/guideline should be clarified or expanded to cover these types of lists. A show's original network is important and likely merits inclusion; every other network that reruns it years later, not so much. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Can Draft:Stranger Things (season 5) be moved to mainspace?

I think a move of Draft:Stranger Things (season 5) to mainspace would be justified as the subject of the article has had significant coverage in the media making it meet GNG- The show is one of most-viewed series on Netflix. The 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike delayed filming which should be starting in the next few weeks or less. Thriley (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley: this isn't really the place to discuss this moving (that should be the draft talk or the main Stranger Things talk), but please see WP:NFTV. Future series or seasons can move to the mainspace once reliable sources confirm filming has begun. Season 5 has yet to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (television) as it is yet to begin filming. — YoungForever(talk) 18:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Notable guests on The Neighborhood

Updating the filmography in the Russell Peters article and he made an appearance on The Neighborhood. Checked out the article for the series and I see it has a list of notable guests. It's quite a long list. The Good Doctor had a list of notable guests removed based on WP:Fancruft. The same would apply here unless there is good reason to keep it. I'm all for adding them to the episode summaries in loo of that list. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support removing the notable guests list on The Neighborhood article. — YoungForever(talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Requested move 2 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Requested move 2 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"This is a list?" No, MOS:THIS IS NOT A LIST!

Per MOS policy at MOS:THISISALIST, I've begun reformatting a bunch of list articles which lead with The following is a list of.... So far, I've made it back about 3 decades on List of years in American television and then I realized there are so, so many of these. So I thought I'd ping it for your attention in the project, or if anyone had any problem with the de facto opening I've been using, adjusted for what already exists in the article. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 17:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Or if anyone felt like helping out on any of the ones I listed on the American page or others in the category... microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Tyson Apostol re-nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

One World (TV series) nominated for deletion

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One World (TV series). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

'The Crown (season x)' deletion discussion

I have opened a deletion discussion about the following articles:

All editors are invited to participate should they wish. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. Galeeger (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note

I have added Turkish television drama to needing expert attention because it needs a very hard clean-up and more references. Ideally it should end up in a good format like Korean drama article. --Galeeger (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Television series by JTBC Studios

We need a clear consensus regarding this category for discussion. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Relevance

In the summary season 2 episode of Brotherly Love, it's noted that Joey Lawrence and Nell Carter were on Gimme Me a Break!. Is that relevant? That would be like noting that Johnathan Taylor Thomas and Tim Allen co-starred on "Home Improvement" when Thomas guest starred on "Last Man Standing." Unless there is connection between the two series, it's not. I'm thinking about removing it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA all the way. Remove it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Help in rule interpretation

Hello. Could you please help me in here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#List of Call the Midwife characters, because there is no one to answer there. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Revealed", date proseline, unnecessary dating, and misuse of dates making our material itself unencyclopedic

We really need an organized cleanup effort to go through our film and TV articles and fix some recurrent and related problems, and address these matters directly in the style guide. In summary, nearly every time someone writes "On 2 December 2023, Smith revealed that the second teaser trailer would be released in January 2024", they are making a mistake.

  • Infotainment news bits are not "revelations". This not a religion. Stop saying that, especially multiple times per article and about unimportant trivia.
  • Not every trivial announcement or bit of detail confirmation needs a date attached to it in our prose. This just bloats our material, writes a timeline instead of an article, and is redundant with the dates in the citations in the first place.
  • Dates are generally not relevant at all for when things were announced after they have already happened, except perhaps for major casting and other production decisions, and even then a month and year are almost always sufficient. E.g. it does not matter, after the show is already out, when so-and-so was confirmed in the press as having been chosen as the composer; what is enclopedically relevant is that they were the composer (and perhaps when the composing took place might be of interest to someone; but not the date of first E! magazine mention). And some of these awful constructions are pure WP:OR and probably wrong. If news comes out on April 10 that I. P. Frehley is confirmed to be playing a role in the show, it is not correct to write "Frehley joined the cast on April 10"; that decision was almost certainly made before it was announced in the entertainment press.

There are lots of other issues like this, but I want to just focus on a narrow set of closely related writing faults for now. Even a couple of minutes of tweaking can markedly improve an article in this regard, e.g. [12] (yes, I already fixed the repeated-words typo).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we want to be as concise as possible with this stuff, joining together announcements made in quick succession for instance, but it at least gets secondary sources in the article. It's quite clear that a lot of sentences get added piecemeal as announcements are made and looking back on this after release there should be cohesion, concision and selectiveness.
However, a lot of money and work goes into marketing, non-disclosure agreements and news embargos. Black Mirror made a big deal in series 4 of daily posters and trailers culminating in announcement of a release date. Community had about five near- or actual cancellations followed by eight years (and counting) of speculation and announcements about a movie (so much I think it's notable even if it's never made). Doctor Who announces and releases its content in an absolutely bizarre manner, a mixture of series and holiday-themed specials and sometimes non-holiday-themed specials when there's a long gap between series. Taskmaster has a regular pattern of announcing the next cast after series finales. But even in the most run-of-the-mill production and marketing process there's still something to be said of preserving the long-term, historical view of casting/release date announcements as part of the production.
I typically link MOS:SAID when removing the word "revealed" (in almost every context where I see it). If someone wants to go through and improve all these announcement issues I'm not going to revert them (unless they take out something important due to unfamiliarity with the series), but most TV articles suffer more from lacking secondary sources that are easily findable. I'm more lenient on this content than what WikiProject Film say at MOS:TRAILER and MOS:FILMPRODUCTION. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Sopranos

The Sopranos has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Who Made Huckabee?

Who Made Huckabee? has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Community Task Force

There are a large number of Community articles, though some of them are not the best and I want to improve them, I was wondering if anyone else is intrested in improving them and a taskforce could be put together. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I'd be interested. Myself and RunningTiger123 have worked on the awards page together and some episodes separately—AD&D, Paradigms of Human Memory, Basic Lupine Urology and Remedial Chaos Theory are the articles to look to for guidance.
I've found season 1 and 6 to be the hardest to find good sources for (unsurprisingly, as season 1 took a while to become a cult classic and season 6 aired on Yahoo!). I'd be interested in whether we can access any book/academic sources that might be useful general references for many episodes. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
For resources, I wonder if the recently published book Six Seasons and a Movie (ISBN 978-1493066551) is a good source – the authors seem reasonable, would need to see the bibliography to confirm the sources are good. There's also A Sense of Community (ISBN 978-0786475902), but I recall from working on "Basic Lupine Urology" that at least some of the essays cite non-reliable sources, including Wikipedia, so that would need a closer check. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, there are DVD commentaries, which I've seen used for production details, but I generally stay away from them unless there are a few small details I want to fill in (example). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: @Bilorv: So about how many others would need to be intrested for a full task force? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: in my opinion, I think we'd need at the very minimum half a dozen of us. Otherwise work spent setting up the taskforce and tagging articles would be better spent just improving the articles. I'm happy to be pinged for now if you've got questions, want me to review something you've written, or want to work on an article together (if it'll work with my schedule). — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
If you would be intrested in colaborating on some of these pages. I have put a page together here. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Game show seasons

Hello,

This message concerns the overwhelming majority of pages in the Category:Television seasons.

Do we really need - from an encyclopedic point of view - a separate article for each season of a telecast/game show, listing endless tables of more than questionable pedagogical interest, and without perennial secondary sources? What is the encyclopedic relevance of such pages?

Thanks in advance!

-- Fourmidable (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking shows like Jeopardy or The Price is Right, there is no reason for seasonal pages for that, since there's no attempts at any type of narrative, it is more just a broadcast of what happens.
If we are talking reality television shows like Survivor, where there is some effort at production to make a cohesive narrative even though they cannot control events, those generally do get per-season pages, but I do tend to agree that the amount of tables and details within those tend to get extremely messy and should be looking more bare bones. (don't get me started on how bad they violate MOS:COLORS too)
Secondary sources are likely not to be there to fully support the table details but should absolutely be present to explain the notability of that specific season, either through production or reception aspects. Some shows like Survivor will get this, other shows, not so much, and that begs why we have a separate article for that season. Masem (t) 14:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
What Masem said. There's plenty of "game shows" that have seasons where it's a self contained narrative. They are very suitable for individual article (sourcing will talk about the season specifically), whereas there being a lot of similar episodes of the Price is Right with a gap in the middle isn't really notable for individual articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Production or reception sources can show notability of seasons. This will be true even in some game shows with no continuity (e.g. where the host changes; where there was significant threat of cancellation or a lengthy gap between seasons; where the channel changed and popularity spiked). Remember that notability is based on sources that exist, not sources currently in the article. The overwhelming majority of current Wikipedia articles are in a very poor state and this is no more or less true for television specifically. — Bilorv (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think CITV should be split

I think the list of former programming on CITV should be split into a separate article called List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I have started a debate on Talk:CITV if anyone is interested. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

I have nominated Trapped in the Closet (South Park) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Assessment feedback

I've been the dominant voice at "Requesting an assessment" since 2018, likely as most active volunteers here don't really know it exists. I greatly enjoy doing these assessments and would like to see an expanded role for this sort of low-stakes feedback about C- and B-class articles, much more accessible to newbies than the GA or featured processes.

Nonetheless I am urging someone to take the first request of 2024, if only because I might take the GA review if it gets there.

I would also like to see some other experienced volunteers contributing regularly—views in this WikiProject will differ so it's not fair for me to be the only voice of authority. Also, please encourage your mentees and promising newcomers to engage with the process! Can we at least get a double digit number of requests in 2024? — Bilorv (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic

Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?

How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria? has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 06:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image for Drag Race Thailand ?

Request: Anyone able to add promotional artwork or title card to the infobox at Drag Race Thailand? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliably sourced Episode table

Since when do we remove/hide Episode table when it is reliably sourced just because it haven't air yet? — YoungForever(talk) 00:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't. The editor is mistaken; I've reverted the edit and directed them to the talk page. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
That's what I thought. — YoungForever(talk) 01:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History (American TV network)#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History (American TV network)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. This is about co-starring actors. — YoungForever(talk) 14:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Heart of Asia Channel original programming#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Heart of Asia Channel original programming#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone can help me adding image file?

Can anyone add an official promotional poster in https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marry_My_Husband Malay page KTerjemahan (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Stations proposed for deletion

Could someone who knows something about the notability of television stations please see the WP:PRODs at:

If you disagree, then please remove the deletion template. If you agree, please making things simpler for the admin processing these pages by adding {{Proposed deletion endorsed|comment=Your comment here}}. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I have been attempting to appraise the notability of as many of these pages as possible given the high volume of AfDs and PRODs in this topic area. Notability searches on LPTVs are a unique breed and almost always require specific local newspaper, if they can even be saved. I deprodded one but do not have material to deprod any of the others. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Saturday Night Live

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saturday Night Live#First sentence of lead, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (chat!) 14:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:PEN15#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:PEN15#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the standard about the actors?

There are many contrasting examples of how we should handle actors in episode plots. In Smallville (season 1), we write Tom Welling right after Clark Kent, but in List of 13 Reasons Why episodes we never do something like that. Why? Redjedi23 (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard is consistency within the article (or set of articles). The MOS for TV doesn't police things that specifically. So, as long as it doesn't go against something and it's consistent then it should be fine. Additionally, you compared a seasonal page to a basic "List of episodes" page, which would be structured differently because of their content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hayden Moss re-nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Moss (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Trey Parker and Matt Stone

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trey Parker and Matt Stone#Merge proposal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Category:English-language television shows

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Category:English-language television shows. 2pou (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Screening to TV executives at the Edinburgh International Television Festival - Is it classed as as a public screening or a private screening?

A film was commissioned for TV.

A TV boss wasn't happy with it, and wanted the producers to change some stuff, before they would broadcast the film they commissioned on TV.

So after around 2 years of arguing and waiting, the producers decided to get it screened at the Edinburgh International Television Festival to TV executives, without the permission of the TV company who commissioned it.

Is a screening at the Edinburgh TV Festival classed as a public release?

Or is it classed as a private screening, as only TV executives were there? Danstarr69 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The general public haven't got access to it, so I'd border on it being a private screening. - X201 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit: What film BTW, I'm curious. - X201 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Not public screening but should be noted in the article. Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Max Weinberg

Max Weinberg has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 10:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Family Guy

Family Guy has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of The Simpsons

History of The Simpsons has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

E Series (web series)

It's unclear from the E Series (web series) article if the "Chapters" are separate TV series, seasons or episodes. It also doesn't help that they mix italics and quotation marks. Anyone here by any chance familiar with this? Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Crave (TV network) original programming

Please join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Neater series overview examples

At Talk:List of South Park episodes, there's a disagreement concerning series overview layout at List of South Park episodes. Two South Park specials release every year between seasons on an alternate network (seasons on Comedy Central, two annual specials on Paramount+).

  1. The current version of the series overview alternates the network every time; this is what it will look like once the 14 ordered specials have been released.
    1. There was an alternate solution to remove the network parameter and note the networks in prose for the specials vs. the regular seasons before the series overview, this was briefly considered, but disagreed with by editors who support each other.
  2. This was my proposed alternative, to provide a neater layout, and to match the fact that the specials are grouped together at the end of the episode tables, just as in the suggested overview.

Thoughts? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

My comment won't really help, but both versions look fine to me. Alex's version seems truer to the page layout seeing as the specials aren't placed between the seasons in the body of the article. Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
It should be chronological. Personally, I'm not a fan of the word "specials" at all, seems to make a more grandiose episode. But, without a different name, thats what we have. However, I don't think a table should separate them differently to numbered seasons. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
As a reader who hasn't seen the show, I would rather they be listed in chronological order so I don't need to compare the different date columns up and down the table to work out which special came out between which seasons. And I don't have a problem with the alternating networks, it is accurate and doesn't look bad imo. If editors are really against it for aesthetic reasons then I think the prose solution would be a good compromise. But from my perspective the current version is fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Move 'Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!'

(Discussion in Active on Talk:Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!)

  • The poster, and few sources like imdb, this fandom, and Crunchyroll use version with x's (however Crunchyroll source uses one with &'s also).
  • Although cbr, some other fandom, this source, and animenewsnewtrok's encyclopedia mention use the name "Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Chō Collaboration Special!!", with ann's encyclopedia mentioning one with x's as alternative title.
  • Even if the name with &'s is the English title, there is no definitive source in article to prove this, and Toei Animation's official tweet announced the release in English with name in x's. Also the page shall be about original episode, and Japanese's episode's literal translation is one with x's.
  • So what I suggest:
  1. Either move this page to 'Dream 9 Toriko x One Piece x Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!' OR
  2. Still move the page but reason shall be WP:COMMONNAME OR
  3. Mention the version with x's in English too.

Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding genre classifications for article's lead sentence

This is similar to my Saturday Night Live polling above. To keep it short, I would like to do a polling on which genre classification for the lead sentence is preferable for my Late Night with Seth Meyers rewrite project (and possibly other articles) since there doesn't seem to be a consistent genre classification for related articles.

Other options / variations are more than welcome to include. Thank you! Spinixster (chat!) 03:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would personally pitch American late-night talk and news satire television program (which is what Last Week Tonight currently uses, which I find mildly amusing because I wouldn't call that a talk show). I get the appeal of option 3 to keep things simple, but the show focuses a fair amount on scripted news comedy segments (see here, here for some evidence). Option 2 doesn't do a great job separating "political satire" and "talk show". Option 1 doesn't need "variety show" because that's mostly redundant to the other genres. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I think that implies that the show is fully news satire while only around half of it is (the A Closer Look segments and monologues take up approximately 10-15 minutes or more, also note that A Closer Look does not air every episode and there are also other news-related segments). Even with Patriot Act above, which I would argue is similar to Last Week Tonight, only uses American comedy streaming television talk show. That's why I chose Option 3 because it's hard to clarify it without making the sentence more complex. Spinixster (chat!) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this late-night talk show a television show, a radio show, an online radio show? That also needs to be conveyed in the lead. DA1 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Late-night talk shows are generally television programming. I haven’t seen any non-television shows brand itself as a late-night talk show yet. Spinixster (chat!) 13:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has been stale for a few days now. I guess I'll have to go with the third option for now until more people decide to join the discussion. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd go with Option 3, because you can always explain whether the show is a "news and political satire variety show" later in the lead. Lotsw73 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Digital terrestrial television in Australia

Digital terrestrial television in Australia has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TV5 (Telugu)#Requested move 16 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV5 (Telugu)#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors needed at WikiProject Australian television

Hi everyone, WikiProject Australian television is currently recruiting more editors to help edit the large project that is Australian TV. If you have a knowledge or interest in Australian TV, than this WikiProject is for you! If interested, please add your name to the list of active participants, view our talk page and our list of open tasks, and start editing. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:So Help Me Todd § Co-starring actors again. Editors are still needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. This is about co-starring actors. — YoungForever(talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Linking in ledes for network-owned stations

This one has been annoying me for awhile, as it is likely that the need to follow established practices are unintentionally winding up with kludge in the introductory paragraphs of articles.

It has usually been general practice in the introductory paragraph for any article about a network-owned station to say, for example, "KTVU is owned and operated by the network's Fox Television Stations division alongside San Jose-licensed independent outlet KICU-TV (channel 36)". Shouldn't it already be intuitive that the station is already network-owned when listing the network-owned station group?

This also presents a more obvious problem for duopoly partners: for example, "[WPSG] is owned by the CBS News and Stations group alongside KYW-TV (channel 3), a CBS owned-and-operated station." My most recent edit to WPSG partially restored an earlier edit by Sammi Brie that addressed this problem; it should be acceptable at the very least to say "alongside CBS outlet KYW-TV" if not more grammatically appropriate. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

James Morton (baker) nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Morton (baker). George Ho (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of Display resolution, Graphics display resolution and Computer display standard

I've started a discussion about how to handle these seemingly overlapping articles. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Michael Larson

Michael Larson has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Marvel Studios Animation#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios Animation#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes: Are average scores no longer visible?

Now with the complete redesign for Rotten Tomatoes' website, it appears the average score/rating is no longer visible for TV seasons. See here for an example. It seems the average score is still visible for films (by clicking the RT percentage), but not TV. I've looked around to see if I was missing it, but cannot find it. I'm just looking for others to verify that it is indeed gone. If so, should we start scrubbing the average scores from reception sections since they can no longer be verified? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. In the "Shogun" example you linked it shows the percentage next to the poster. I checked another. Here is "New Girl", and it shows a percentage of 95% approval. Now, I cannot access the individual reviews for "New Girl", but I can see that Shogun has 65 reviews and I can click them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Your New Girl link is for the show itself, but the Shogun link is for season 1, only the season pages have the individual reviews. The average score out of 10 is missing for TV pages now it seems, appears for films when click on the percentage, e.g. 3.4/10 here https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/madame_web. Indagate (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I've been a bit skeptical of RT's average ratings ever since "30 Rock: A One-Time Special" got a 31% score but an average rating of 7.33/10. Turns out that per their FAQs, the average rating only includes reviews that gave a specific score (stars, letter grade, etc.), as opposed to something like Metacritic where reviews without scores are rated by the site's staff. They only post average ratings if there are at least 5 reviews with scores*, but it doesn't say anything past that about how many reviews were used. I think it's slightly misleading to imply the total number of reviews were used to calculate the average rating, especially for smaller sample sizes (more common with TV seasons than films in my experience), so it may be best to discourage them. If RT is hiding the average ratings then that's just another reason to move away from them.
* ... at least, they claim this is what they do, but I'm not convinced. Example: Batman vs. Robin has 5 total reviews but only 3 reviews show scores, and yet an average rating is given. (The 30 Rock special also falls into this camp, as best as I can tell.) So I find these ratings even more dubious. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gorilla (advertisement)

Gorilla (advertisement) has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dexter (Dexter episode)

I was looking at Dexter (Dexter episode) and noticed a large amount of quotes in the Production section. Some using colored {{Quote box}} and some inside the caption of an image. While the article is at GA status, that was achieved back in 2009. Is this usage of quotes valid? Gonnym (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this goes against MOS:QUOTE, and the large amount of quotes in prose is not good either. The information should almost all be rewritten in our own words, with the odd quote that can't be rewritten in neutral encyclopedic tone used inline (like "disgustingly huge" is currently). At a very quick glance the "Reception" section actually looks better at doing this: Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is the page to consult. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_38&oldid=1216162669"