Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Rfc close

People seem confused. I hope this will clarify things.

• The RfC conflated (at least) two questions, one around inline citation and one around the permissibility of users measuring running times themselves.
• One of the possible outcomes of the RfC was, therefore, impermissible by foundational policy (WP:NOR).
• Thus, the RfC had to be procedurally closed.

The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable. It also has nothing to say about whether running times should be in the infobox or not. I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time, and this is sufficiently clear that in my view it needed to be removed form the agenda before too many hares were set running.

A word of caution: IMDB is not a reliable source for this kind of trivium, as such details are user-edited.

Vendor pages for box sets are admissible, though discouraged if they have direct sales links. The best solution is the original production company's data, which will normally link to one or more third parties for actual sales. This, however, is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard or (again) a separate RfC.

Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have purposely avoided answering my question at your talk page by posting this (tangentially-related and almost entirely unhelpful) message here instead. That's very unbecoming of an administrator. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have purposely avoided assuming good faith. Feel free to ask question I can understand (as one who is profoundly uninterested in TV shows and their running times) and answer in terms you find satisfactory. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation and I'm sorry for the amount of time that you had to spend on this. For those reading this, I think extra note needs to be taken of the request that readers Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have to reply that no one is "read[ing] anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind." That's precisely what the closing admin reiterated in his clarification: "third-party sourcing is required". He says again here, "[N]o RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind." That is all that the embedded note says: "third-party sourcing required". That is not "reading into" anything. I don't know what the objection can possibly be to following this core Wikipedia policy.

No one is talking about including inline cites, so editors who continue to bring up inline cites are deliberately smokescreening. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

cite episode and cite serial

{{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}} are the last two of twenty-two Citation Style 1 templates to migrate from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1. I've started a discussion about the migration at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite episode and cite serial. Your contribution to that discussion is encouraged be it wishes, desires, bitches, or complaints, now is the time to speak.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Presenters' years in infobox

The description at {Infobox television} gives no advice about years for presenters. Should years be shown there, or only be described in the text? And if years are given, should the format be "(2002-)" or "(2002-present)"? Furthermore, is it fair to assume that presenters for whom no dates are shown have been there from the start to the present? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole, Cyphoidbomb, Favre1fan93, Geraldo Perez, and REVUpminster: (and everyone else) Martinevans123 is well aware of my opinions, which I've stated at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#Years in info box, so I thought I'd ping some other editors who have posted here recently. Apologies to anyone I've missed, or anyone who wanted to be missed. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions"? I thought you were talking about "standard practice". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "standard" or an identified criteria. Typically, we don't include years or seasons for cast members in the infobox (no reason to bog it down with lines of data when it's meant for bulleted items). I don't think we need to do that with presenters. It should be detailed in prose form later. Otherwise, we'd have to do that with editors, producers, etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My opinions are based on standard practice. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes have become repositories for crammed-in content. It's like people are trying to turn the infobox into those emergency food bars—dense, calorie-laden survival food that doesn't taste good. I'm of the opinion that anything we can do to avoid that, is best. So I'd probably lean against including dates. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Even for those presenters who appeared in only only one series/ year? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because they still appeared. You can use prose to explain why they weren't there for more a year. Otherwise, there is no context for the information and it just looks like a reason to put info into the box. The infobox isn't meant to include everything, nor be so detailed that it requires explanation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Presenters for reality-esque shows are pretty much the "starring" or "main" equivalents to a scripted series. Since we don't include season info for them, I don't see why we should for presenters. I do understand the "concern" for someone who only did one season, but the same could be said for a scripted show and a character only credited in one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet another unsourced list article of questionable utility.

List of international Winx Club voice actors Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb: PROD-ed. 23W 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Video game review template being used on Television articles

I've noticed many television episode articles using {{Template:Video game reviews}} to display critic reviews. I've been removing this template from these articles and would like to recommend not using it in for television episode ratings in the future. Its use in articles unrelated to video games is making it difficult to track which missing articles need to be added to WikiProject Video games. – The1337gamer (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used period in TV articles. It isn't recommended anywhere, especially not at WP:MOSTV. Just like it isn't recommended or used in film articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The template shows a quick overview of the scores for the episode and effectively communicates how an episode did with reviewers at a glance. This type of format is widely used in websites such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to show this same information, but here we remove the superfluous text to only include the name of the publication and review. It is not obtrusive and it does no harm to the decor/flow of television magazines. I think it should stay. If people are objecting that the video game part is showing up TV articles, perhaps we should create a new template to convey the same? - Drywater2k (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

I would also like to add one more thing if I may. Often times, I see how reviews for the article are not displayed or mentioned in the article but this template shows the reviews. So it may also be the only thing that conveys these scores or these particular reviews. Thank you. - Drywater2k (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you use a wikitable or create a dedicated template to show TV rating if that's what the project guidelines agree with. Using the video game template on unrelated articles is causing issues and wasted time on filtering and cleanup. It isn't a tv review template or a general review templates, it is a video game review template specifically for displaying video game scores. – The1337gamer (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I currently have no skill with creating tables to display the same information, other than use video game templates. I believe the name of the template should not prevent it from being used in other places if its utility is very effective, as it is. Please expand on what type of issues you are encountering. Perhaps we can take these into account when we edit. - Drywater2k (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's pretty simple. When I'm filtering for articles containing this template, I expect all video game articles to show up because it is called {{Template:Video game reviews}}, not {{Template:TV reviews}} or {{Template:Reviews}}. Instead I get dozens of TV episode articles. It's illogical and I then have to check each article individually to see where the template is being used properly. The name of the template is critically important in describing its purpose and the template documentation doesn't say anywhere that it is designed or suitable for use on non-video game articles. Album articles have there own template for contained review scores, which serves the same purpose as video game reviews template. I assume TV episodes don't have a template because the guidelines don't recommend having a table with scores. If you think that TV episode articles should include a table for scores then you should be making suggestions for a new template, not using the wrong one. – The1337gamer (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not understanding your issue. Why are you filtering using this template? Pardon me being forthright, but it appears you are trying to unedit this template (despite its utility) because of your own issue. There are no guidelines preventing its use. You seem to be ignoring that distinction. As I have stated prior to this, I have neither found an equivalent template with TV reviews, nor do I have the competency to create one. Until there is another template that is effective at displaying the same information, and until we are told we cannot use them through a specific guideline, I must ask you to refrain from removing this template in all articles. Thank you. - Drywater2k (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I explained in my first post why I was filtering using the video game review template. I added over 300 missing video game articles to WikiProject Video games using template filtering yesterday. I removed the template from all TV articles once I noticed it being used incorrectly. You're short term solution for presenting scores is creating a larger unseen issue. It's the wrong template which is why I have suggested that people stop using it. You keep saying there are no guidelines disallowing it but there are also no guidelines recommending it. In this case, use common sense, the template documentation is pretty clear about its purpose, here's the very first line on the page: "{{Video game reviews}} is a template which presents review aggregator and individual publication review scores in a video game article." – The1337gamer (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree the template doesn't belong on TV episodes. Video games remain a beast that is judged financially by review scores to a fault, thus necessitating a table to help list scores, while TV episodes may be graded but they live and die by Neilsen. Grades can be called out in prose, they don't need a table. I definitely don't recommend taking the VG table to use for this, though if the project wants, it can be duplicated to a different template for their purposes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The (mis)use of this template for TV series articles doesn't make sense, I agree. I mean, look at how the template is written, and the parameters it takes: IGN scores, GameSpot ratings, Metacritic aggregations. This template clearly does not have the intended function of being a catch-all template, and thus it should not be used as one, even if some editors might find its (mis)use as a quick and easy way to cut corners. Why not create a separate template for TV/film with its own unique set of parameters implemented, such as Rotten Tomatoes/etc? --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you want to box out reviews for TV shows, Template:Album ratings is a lot simpler to implement and clone for TV, contains none of the video game platform overheads and none of the ridiculous uncommented lua. - hahnchen 19:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a box period. Most TV show ratings are not measured in the same way across the board. They don't do "9.5 out of 10" as often as video games are. Additionally, film and TV articles typically have an aggregrate website (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc.) that already creates an average approval rating. It's inappropriate to selectively pick what reviews to put in the table, just as much as it's inappropriate to indiscriminately list every one. This is why we don't have these tables in Film and TV articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Bignole, the dynamic has certainly changed in the television and movie industry to where lettered and scored reviews have a lot more influence. Look at sites such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes and you will see that the scores are used as a statistic. It would make sense, therefore, to include a table of reviews. Otherwise, you will be listing them in the body paragraph of ratings, hoping for a table to exist. It is also economical to show the reviews from reputable sources. - Drywater2k (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This might be true for films to some degree (RT having weight there), but television episodes, no. It's all about the Nielsen. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Masem is correct in this. TV is still influenced by Nielsen Ratings, and Film is influenced by box office figures. Given that you cannot arbitrarily pick what reviews to put in the table, and it's inappropriate to put them all, there doesn't need nor should there be any form of ratings table. Especially not with IMDb ratings, which we explicitly ban.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

From the discussion above, the consensus seems to support the removal of the template. Now I'd like to get closure on this topic and restore my edits without User:Drywater2k nagging at me and starting an edit war. So let's round this up and reach a decision. Remove for removing the video game review template, Keep for keeping it. Any discussion can be continued above.

• Remove per the points I raised above. The1337gamer (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Remove and no creation of a TV specific table - The template has no purpose on TV (or film) related articles. As stated, we have the aggregate sites to convey reception. Additionally, all those reviews you are putting into the (inappropriate) template? Just change the info to prose! It probably would be the same amount of time to do both, and prose is the preferred method of conveying this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Remove and Favre1fan93 puts it best. Prose is preferable. MarnetteD|Talk 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Remove and use prose instead. We don't need such a template in TV articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very unprofessional and childish for you to invite me to a discussion and then say I'm "nagging" at you after I have expressed my view, gamer. This is supposed to be an open forum where others can express their minds in a civil manner. Throwing a tantrum when someone disagrees with you seems to be your signature apparently. And no, I'm not starting an edit war with you on these television pages. Don't think I'll sink down to your level. I'm not bothered by the way this was decided but on its foundation. There are some pure online shows now where this form of ratings would benefit. - Drywater2k (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Episode number 13

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" refers to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for anything challenged. Even if material is never challenged, a source must exist. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I don't see any reason why the above would not apply to episode numbers. If an episode has no episode number, don't add one to the article. If a source does not exist for an episode number, don't add one to the article. If someone challenges the episode number, an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided. If an episode number lacks a reliable source directly supporting it, it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

This brings us to Talk:List of American Dad! episodes#"A Star is Reborn" Episode Number and my related edit that was reverted by User:AussieLegend. I challenged the verifiability of an episode number and one week later I removed the episode number. My edit was unusual but an improvement of Wikipedia. Don't make stuff up.

Consensus is the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, but a "long discussion" that resulted in episode number "13" does not override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Even if someone would claim that the column header "No. in season" does not refer to an "episode number", everything I just wrote is still true. Where's the reliable source that supports the claim that it is number 13 in the season. I challenged it, I removed it, and AussieLegend ignored Wikipedia policy and restored the material.

I would like feedback. I will continue to pursue this matter until a reliable source has been provided or the number has been removed. In my opinion AussieLegend should not have reverted my edit. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with him, and if he has no reliable source he should respect Wikipedia policy and my choice to remove the material. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The numbers are purely the original broadcast order in the tables. The reliable sources we depend on are the first airing dates for the episodes and the order is purely an order in sequence for the table entries. There is no need to verify an ordering that is obvious from the dates and it is not WP:OR to do trivial calculations such as adding 1 to the previous ordinal in the table. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Routine calculations are not OR provided there is consensus that the result of the calculation is obvious and a reflection of the sources, which is not the case here. The broadcast order is not the subject of discussion here. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

All I can find is that it's number 10. I don't understand why you don't understand the impact of me writing that I challenge the number. Maybe it's just that you are so used to making up numbers yourself that you all forgot about Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the table in order? Is the table complete to date? Is there agreement that the broadcast order is correct? If so, the sequence number is obvious and should not be contentious. The sequence number is an attribute of the table position, it is not intrinsic to the episode itself. Only if there is no agreement on the order would numbering be undetermined. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

When all sources I can find write "10", what do you think they mean? This is not a rhetorical question. I personally think they mean that it is the 10th episode in the season. This would mean that "No. in season" is "10" and not "13". Where are the sources that write "13". You mention the order again, but as I wrote the broadcast order is not the subject of discussion here. This is not a routine calculations, because the current calculation is not obvious and is not a reflection of the sources. What you appear to claim now is that "No. in season" is in fact "No. in table"; is that what you are saying? If you want to rename it to "No. in table", that's a solution I can live with. But you and I both know that "No. in season" means that it is an episode number, because it is the number ("No.") the episode has in ("in") the season ("season"). This really is starting to become ridiculous. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a mismatch somewhere. If the episode is the 13th in our numbered set of episodes and 10th in some other numbered set of episodes then there are 3 episodes missing from one source that are included in the article here. Find out where the mismatch in what is counted is and the issue should resolve itself. Is one source combining episodes and considering them as single when we count them as separate. There may be a problem to be fixed but forcing the wrong sequence number is not the solution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is a waste of time

The resolution to 82.136.210.153's problem has already been proposed and given tentative agreement, but 82.136.210.153 just seems interested in arguing and not reading replies to his posts. What happened was that the final 3 episodes of American Dad broadcast on Fox were aired as the first 3 episodes of season 11. The series then moved to TBS which aired its episodes also as season 11, creating some confusion and a big discussion at Talk:American Dad!. TBS has since decided to call its episodes season 12. Another editor suggested nine days ago that the article should be split but 82.136.210.153 decided to ignore this and instead waited several days and then deleted a single episode number from American Dad! (season 11), ignoring 11 episodes in the same position.[1] After I reverted that I returned to the discussion at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes and wrote 2602:306:CE29:B50:4894:2E3B:D0B5:3642 has suggested a possible resolution, which would require splitting the article, not just deleting a single episode number, and would have to be completed in accordance with WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW. That was five days ago. The last comment in that discussion was by that IP who said, If the last couple of posts are an indication of progress towards a split of the 11th season, I'm all for it.. There has been nothing further since, until this discussion and a terse comment at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes by 82.136.210.153. So there, the resolution is simply to split the article in accordance with WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW, which will fix everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my job to split Wikipedia articles. I can choose what I work on here at Wikipedia. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Writing that splitting is done in accordance with WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW - which is a general statement, and ignoring "A 3-episode 11th season model, maybe?" in reply to your post here and "Can we agree to change to a 3-episode 11th season model?" here, is not reaching a "tentative agreement". You (also) ignored "Is your opinion that all the sources are unreliable?", by the way. Feel free to split the article; it seems like a good solution to the problem. The option to split does not invalidate my choice to remove unsourced material that I challenged. No reliable source was provided and "there has been nothing further since" to fix the problem. I did not add or restore the episode numbers. I don't need to split anything. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems I need to be very specific in my responses so:

"It's not my job to split Wikipedia articles. I can choose what I work on here at Wikipedia" - It's not anyone elses job either. Since you're the one complaining, with the resolution in front of you it's really up to you to do it, or stop complaining.

"Writing that splitting is done in accordance with WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW - which is a general statement," - Actually, no, it was a specific statement about the resolution to your problem

"You (also) ignored "Is your opinion that all the sources are unreliable?"" - It was a pointless question that had already been answered and I don't intend addressing it again on this page.

"ignoring "A 3-episode 11th season model, maybe?"" - The question has been answered at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes.

"The option to split does not invalidate my choice to remove unsourced material that I challenged." - Yes it does. It has been explained to you, both here and at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes how we number episodes but you have ignored that.

"I don't need to split anything." - If you aren't willing to do the work then you have no reason to continue complaining. Don't expect somebody else to do something that you're not willing to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it looks like we're on the same page here, it was done. Sorry if I overstepped. Cleanup appreciated. 2602:306:CE29:B50:A930:9391:A241:418 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 2602:306:CE29:B50:A930:9391:A241:418. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Top Gear broadcasters and video releases

The article List of Top Gear broadcasters and video releases has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:TVINTL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Which director? Supervising or post-production?

In episode lists, which director should be used? Supervising, post-production, other? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The one listed in the "Directed by" slot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The show (Star vs. the Forces of Evil) does not list a specific one like that.

Follow up question: the episode list on that same page ways "written by". The credits have "story by" and "written and storyboarded by". Go with the latter? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre revisited

Thoughts on this anyone: [2][3] Editor adds genres as he sees them (he's had some trouble with the concept of sourcing genres), and eventually finds success by finding a source that describes Uncle Grandpa as having surreal humor. My question, is the source sufficient to establish that "surreal comedy" as a genre? I've not seen the series, but it shouldn't really matter. A problem I've seen numerous times is the inclusion of these subgenre without a real regard for what a genre is: an overall shape of the work. All comedy contains drama. Some drama contains humor. Is the overall shape of the work surreal comedy? Is that a television genre? He also added "pastiche" as a genre to Codename: Kids Next Door, which I'm having trouble with as a genre. I'd appreciate a reality check. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The source that he's used doesn't add "surreal comedy" as anything. Ignoring the reader comments for obvious reasons, the only mention of "surreal" in the article is "Surrealist visual humor, the type of which was practiced by".[4] Using that to justify inclusion of "surreal comedy" as a genre is classic WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's synth in this case, but I honestly would put Uncle Grandpa under surreal/absurdist (just my opinion from the little bit of the show I regrettably watched). I think half the problem is that so few sources go beyond the big genres when discussing cartoons. They just slap "kids, comedy, action" on it and leave it be. Few cartoons get the in-depth analyses that Korra got. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I did add fantasy and comedy as genres per Amazon Instant Video (my go-to source for cartoon genres) in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated all. Thanks EvergreenFir. My hackles go up when these sorts of genres get added, particularly when we start seeing crap like "gross-out humor" and "toilet humor", as if that ever appeared as a genre in Encyclopedia Britannica. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody really needs to get stuck into List of genres#Film and television genres, stripping all of the formats out and possibly moving them to Television program#Formats, so that we can link it from |genre= in {{Infobox television}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

100% agree with you there AussieLegend. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for articles on upcoming TV shows

Hello. I've been looking around for guidelines on making articles for upcoming TV shows. Every new TV show gets announced in some reliable source, so what's to keep every single upcoming TV show from getting a new article before it begins to even air? Can someone point me toward the relevant guidelines or such, because I'm getting pretty sick of one-line articles about upcoming shows that have little chance of becoming notable and certainly aren't now. But since they've been announced in RS (just like every other TV show ever), editors argue they can't be deleted. Thank you for any guidance. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: I think it depends on the amount of significant coverage regarding it. If there's at least enough coverage about it to fulfill Start-class status (besides the plot) then it's okay. Otherwise, redirect it to a List of programs broadcast by x, where x corresponds to the network it belongs to. 23W 21:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@23W:, thanks for the super-fast response! It seems as though the article in question definitely falls far short of what you've said. It's one line and four names. No plot (it's a reality show, but still), and actually no significant coverage in anything, just run-of-the-mill "this show is going to come on" announcements. Many thanks, and this gives me some good benchmarks to compare other new articles to, as well. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: You can always begin crafting an article for the show in your sandbox or the WP:DRAFTS space. That way, when you do have the significant coverage, it is all set and ready to go! Or you can come to realize that the coverage doesn't exist, so you would have to find other existing articles to add the info to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:, oh no no, not me. I'm not creating it, I'm AFDing it. Korean pop music fans create articles for everything conceivable before it even exists, including every pop-music-related reality show. I want that garbage gone! :D Shinyang-i (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Then yes, pretty much everything 23W said should be sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi, I've got two issues, both pertaining to verifiability:

1. I've opened a discussion here. The short version: Do we care about rerun content? (I say no and I think many of us here don't.) But if we do, is there a way that this rerun content can be included to satisfy WP:V? How exactly does one verify that within the rerun block The 90s Are All That that Doug aired (2011–2013; 2014; 2015–present)? What are we supposed to do, get a stack of TVGuides from 2011-present and log this information ourselves? Obviously not since we can't use stopwatches to time episodes. (Topical!) I am generally proposing that this sort of rerun cruft (specifically the date ranges) be purged from TV articles. How would any of you propose that we verify whether or not Doug or Drake & Josh aired in "The 90s Are All That" block? TV listings list shows, not typically blocks. And have any of you ever looked at List of programs broadcast by Toonami, a niche article with tons of fanboys/fangirls who are logging dates, times, whether or not the thing was edited for content, with very few inline sources. Headache.
2. Disney Channel (Asia). Giant grid of data. How on Earth can I verify if Phineas and Ferb airs in Malaysia? (It doesn't, if you believe the grid) or that Perman has been airing only in Singapore, specifically from 5 May 2014-present? Discussion here.

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02...For networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. - it's OK to list shows previously aired, as those networks were the ones who originally aired them to start with, and are part of the network's history. For networks like Me TV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, Retro TV, etc - the answer is no, as these shows have already been reran 8 bazillion times already on God knows how many other channels. Regarding the "90s are All That" block, I wouldn't list the previous shows, as it's merely reruns of reruns. List what's there now, and change accordingly when the time comes. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to inspire some more comments, if possible. The issue of reruns comes up at a large number of TV network articles and lists, and I think it's something the project needs to address. At List of programs broadcast by ME-TV we're seeing recurring submission of past programming, mostly unsourced, and most of which are just reruns of series that have been around for decades. Here's another example: List of programs broadcast by TeenNick. It has one reference, but a wall of programs, many of them reruns, many of them with unsourced date ranges, which are very attractive for vandalism (which takes up much of our time) and there is zero expectation that any of that data is accurate. I proposed the removal of rerun content at TeenNick, especially all those dubious date ranges, but only got a weak oppose. If there is resistance to removing the list of reruns, I think it's probably at least reasonable to remove the date ranges, since it's far more feasible that you could verify that a rerun aired on the channel, rather than when it aired. I'm likely going to open an RfC on this if there is no steam here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with plot summary

I recently created an article for the Gravity Falls episode "Not What He Seems". It's mostly done except for the plot summary, which I find myself currently unable to write. Can someone familiar with the series help me with this? Thanks. 23W 05:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? 23W 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dcbanners

For those interested: Dcbanners was identified as a sockpuppet of Finealt. Sad day. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Finealt/Archive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna say you're a couple days late... but wow... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Must have been same IP used to give that level of certainty given the widely disparate editing focus and style. If range is what I think it is, it is highly dynamic and it is possible a chance overlap. I don't really wish to believe it as Dcbanners is a valued contributor, and Finealt—isn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I thought so too. I looked at the edit days/times of the Finealt socks listed on SPI for the past 5 weeks. There's no overlap between Dcbanner's editing and the sock editing. Clear divisions between the edit times. :-/ Sadly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I had recently nominated him for Editor of the Week for all his hard work. I know that the CheckUsers check more than just IPs. Either he's behind the whole shebang, or it's a freak inconsistency, or a combination of the two? We don't get to talk much about vandals, as it's best to not give them the attention they seek, but I can't fathom investing so much time and effort doing good, positive stuff, only to be orchestrating an equal amount of time doing pernicious stupid shit, particularly stuff that irritates people who actually liked you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Episode numbering at Henry Danger

There is a discussion about how to number episodes for Henry Danger at Talk:Henry Danger#First episode is one 46 minute special. So far with limited participation. Additional inputs would be appreciated to help resolve this issue. This may be an issue for other TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes used for timeslots

A discussion about the addition of succession boxes is currently under way at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Succession boxes used for timeslots. Input from WP:TV would be greatly appropriated as this affect articles about Japanese anime television series. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Whale Wars cast table

I'm trying to sort out the cast section at Whale Wars and need some ideas. The series doesn't have a defined cast list, with significant changes in people from year to year, much like Big Brother and similar programs. Over the years people have added virtually anyone whose name was shown on-screen; if any of the ships had cats, I'm sure they would have been included in the cast table. Yes, I said table. I first pointed out in 2012 that the cast list needed to reflect the entire history of the series, but this was completely ignored with most people being updated to show only their latest position. Yesterday, after somebody I've never heard of tried to add their own name to the table,[5] another editor deleted the table entirely,[6] but I don't think that's appropriate. For now, while battling the unknown cast member,[7][8] I've pruned the huge table down to include only the ship captains and 2 others who boarded Japanese ships (the boardings were notable events reported worldwide in multiple sources).[9] That decision was arbitrary, and I'd appreciate suggestions from anyone who cares to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is kind of funny because I started second guessing my deletion. The table looks like it could be a problem just like it did years ago. But if IMDB is a source than I'm not too worried. But then again, IMDB isn't always a great source and I question if such info is even worth being in an encyclopedia. I'm on the fence about full on deletion or removal. I don't know how to handle a middle ground. What will help the reader?Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wacky Races changes

• Talk:Wacky_Races#re_April_6_2015_edits

Looking for outside input on the changes I've made. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul - could use more eyes

Better Call Saul, a juicy high-profile series, could use more eyes. The episode summaries are rife with details (like the type of drink Jimmy pours himself) that don't advance our understanding of the plot. A few days ago I endeavored to condense some of the bloated summaries, but they've become bloated again, which I think you'll notice below.

Extended content

Before (284 words) In the present day, after the events of Breaking Bad, Saul Goodman is working at a Cinnabon in Omaha, Nebraska. At home, he watches a VCR cassette of his old television advertisements. In 2002, James Morgan "Jimmy" McGill (Saul's birth name) is a struggling defense lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jimmy comes across Mike Ehrmantraut, who is working the parking validation booth at the courthouse. Jimmy, low on money from a lack of lucrative cases, lives and works out of a small storage room in the back of a nail salon. He there receives a letter and a cheque from Hamlin Hamlin & McGill, a law firm where his brother Chuck McGill is a partner. He rips up the cheque after reading it, initially without explanation. Jimmy, trying to act in his brother's best interests, wants the firm to cash out his brother's share. At the HHM offices, Jimmy gets into a heated argument with Howard Hamilin, one of the partners. He then visits Chuck, who is revealed to be suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is unable to leave his house. Jimmy tries to convince Chuck to cash out from the firm, which Chuck opposes to. At a diner, Jimmy unsuccessfully tries to convince potential clients Craig and Betsy Kettleman, a county treasurer accused of embezzlement and his wife, to hire him to defend their case; the Kettlemans are later seen at the offices of HHM, to Jimmy's disappointment. Later, Jimmy tries to set up a scam with Lars and Cal—twin skateboarders who run scams themselves—to secure the Kettlemans as clients. The twins accidentally target someone else, and the episode ends with Jimmy taken hostage in the house of gangster Tuco Salamanca. After (215 words - still long) In the present day, after the events of Breaking Bad, Saul Goodman, now a cashier at a Cinnabon shop in Nebraska, reflects upon his life. We flashback to 2002, where James Morgan "Jimmy" McGill (Saul's birth name) is a struggling defense lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Broke, Jimmy lives and works out of a cramped storage room in the back of a nail salon, where he receives a payment from Hamlin Hamlin & McGill (HHM), a law firm where his brother Chuck is a partner. Acting in his brother's best interests, Jimmy confronts Howard Hamlin, a firm partner, and demands HHM cash out his brother's share. Jimmy then visits Chuck, who is suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is unable to leave his house. Jimmy tries to convince Chuck to cash out, but Chuck refuses. At a diner, Jimmy tries to convince Craig and Betsy Kettleman, a county treasurer accused of embezzlement and his wife, to hire him to defend their case, but the Kettlemans decide to hire HHM instead. Jimmy sets up a personal injury scam with Lars and Cal—twin skateboarders who run similar scams themselves—to secure the Kettlemans as clients. The twins accidentally target someone else, and the episode ends with Jimmy being taken hostage in the house of gangster Tuco Salamanca. Now (251 words) The first seven minutes are in black and white, with no spoken lines of dialogue. In the present day, after the events of Breaking Bad, Saul Goodman, now a Cinnabon employee with a moustache, in Nebraska, is seen toiling at his job. He comes home, makes himself a Rusty Nail (cocktail) and pops in a VHS tape of his Saul Goodman commercials. Now in color, we flashback to 2002, where Saul, birth name James Morgan McGill, is a struggling public-defender in Albuquerque, New Mexico. "Jimmy" lives and works out of a cramped storage room in the back of a nail salon, where he receives a payment from Hamlin Hamlin & McGill (HHM), a law firm where his brother Chuck is a partner. Acting in his brother's best interests, Jimmy confronts Howard Hamlin, a firm partner, and demands HHM cash out his brother's $17 million share. Jimmy then visits Chuck, who is suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is unable to leave his house. Jimmy tries to convince Chuck to cash-out, but Chuck refuses. At a diner, Jimmy tries to convince Craig and Betsy Kettleman, a county treasurer accused of embezzlement and his wife, to hire him to defend their case, but the Kettlemans decide to hire HHM instead. Jimmy sets up a personal injury scam with Lars and Cal—twin skateboarders who run similar scams themselves—to secure the Kettlemans as clients. The twins accidentally target someone else, and Jimmy ends up being taken hostage in the house of gangster Tuco Salamanca.

I really don't think we need to know that we're going from black and white to color; or that Jimmy is "toiling" at his job; or that he has a moustache; or that Jimmy pours a drink before reminiscing, or what that drink is; or that the tape format is VHS; etc etc etc. Anyhow, TL;DR: it would be nice to have experienced eyes at Better Call Saul. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates discussion at Village Pump

I have started a discussion about verifiability of future air dates at the Village Pump. Comments are welcomed. —Farix (t | c) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Disney Afternoon/Disney-Kellogg Alliance

There is a dispute at The Disney Afternoon about including the industry name of the block, Disney-Kellogg Alliance, from 1997 to 1999. Disputing editor claims "dubious information" and "Not notable" despite sources. He wants a general consensus. Please centralize comments to the talk page thread there as requests will be made on other Wikiprojects. --Spshu (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This request for comments is still open as no one has commented. --Spshu (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we add a final air date to the infobox before it has aired?

OK, so on the Downton Abbey page, people are adding the final air date even though this has not yet aired.

I'm looking for some guidance on this. I always thought that we didn't add the final air date until the final episode had been aired? However I keep getting reverted on the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is sourcable that the finale will be on such-and-such a date, and definitely known as the finale of the show, there's no issue in including that date as long as the source about it being the finale date is in the article. Yes, something might happen that cause a delay to change it but that's rare, and it can be fixed after it has happened. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

For the infobox or the episode table? If it's the infobox, I would actually say "no", because we don't update the episode counts before they air, or update season counts before the season starts. I don't know why we would do that just for the series finale date. The episode table does typically have that in there for future dates, but that's a different situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: it is for the infobox.

@Masem: The lead in the article says it is expected to be Christmas Day, but that is unsourced and I can find nothing on Google to back this up. I'd expect that most channels do not know their Christmas schedule yet so this date may changed.--5 albert square (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking what Bignole says into account, if you can't find a source at all, that's OR (likely episode counting) and Crystal-balling. One thing I do see in counter to Bignole's point is that some pages will have, for episode counte "X (Y aired)" where X is all planned episodes from reliable sources, Y is what has passed. I do not see the issue with necessarily putting a sources show finale date in the infobox as long as that source for it is right there, but the other logic also follows too. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

*slaps everyone around the head* Templates have instruction pages. {{Infobox television}} is no different. The instructions reflect the MOS and/or current consensus. For the last_aired parameter, which is what we're talking about, the relevant portion is Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. In case you're wondering, the instructions for {{Infobox television season}} are similar. Downton Abbey editors don't seem to have ever read the infobox instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"related" parameter in Infobox television

I think we need to be more specific about the related parameter in {{Infobox television}} so I've proposed changing the label for the parameter to make its purpose more clear. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox television#"related". Come one, come all. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Really, everyone is welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Video vixen. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing Race Episode title quotes sections violate WP:TRIVIA

I have recently resumed watching The Amazing Race after abandoning the show for several years (due CBS's dick move of putting it up against the Simpsons), and thus I have started looking at its articles as of recent. It seems to me that sections indicating who said the title quotes are unambiguously trivia. During the last Survivor season, someone proposed to add them to Survivor articles, but it was flatly rejected there per WP:TRIVIA. I was wondering is anyone else interesting in removing them? I brought it up at Talk:The_Amazing_Race_25#Episode_title_quotes_section_is_trivia, but other than Ryulong (in agreement) no one else responded. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I previously posted this same exact message on the TAR task force talk page, but then realized that that page is too infrequently used to serve as good place for discussion

Template:Episode list

I realise that most editors don't really get into the actual mechanics of templates, but there's a disturbing trend that affects us all so you need to know about it. I'll try to dumb it down as much as possible so everyone understands. All templates used to consist of many lines of code but many are changing over to use "Lua" "modules". In the past, when you wanted to get a template changed you went to the template's talk page and somebody would then change the template's code directly. This does not happen now. Instead, the code has been replaced by a simple call to a Lua module. For example, {{Episode list}} was changed like this to call Module:Episode list. {{Episode list/sublist}}, which is used in season articles, used to contain different code to {{Episode list}} but both now use the same module and, even if {{Episode list}} is on your watchlist, changes to Module:Episode list won't be seen, meaning that the template can change without any of us realising. This happened in January, when a WP:REFPUNCT violation was introduced and now a proposal to make episode titles optional (which does have problems) has been made based on a single request by a new editor unfamiliar with the template at the teahouse. I have left a request that editors working on Module:Episode list leave notification at Template talk:Episode list or here, but I encourage all editors, if you see something strange going on with {{Episode list}} raise it here so we can all work out what is going on. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And now somebody has modified {{Infobox television}} without any discussion,[10] despite there being two current discussions on the talk page regarding potential changes. ("related" and New "header" wording parameter). --AussieLegend (✉) 16:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

GAR

Ocean's Three and a Half, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus

I've started an RfC at ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes that would be of interest to this project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

N. B. the subject is creating a general rule to support deleting templates at Category:Film producer navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes, Category:Television producer templates, Category:Television creator templates, and Category:Television writer templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of new infobox parameter

Hi all. Just want you to be aware that I have implemented a new parameter to {{Infobox television}}. It is release, which will change the heading "Broadcast" to "Release". To use the field, simply put 'y' / 'Y' / 'yes' / 'Yes' to trigger it. Its intent is to be used on series released on streaming media sites such as Netflix, where all (or eventually all) episodes are released at once. The change was made because "Broadcast" is not the correct term for these series. I've personally updated many of these articles, but feel free to add it to any new ones that are created, and be on the look out for traditional broadcasted series that attempt to use this incorrectly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Rat Patrol" TV Series Started in 1966

The Rat Patrol debut Monday September 12, 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.199.97 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reason for posting this? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is the date used in the article The Rat Patrol. AL's question is a good one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC - years in the infobox

As a result of a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20#Presenters' years in infobox I have removed years from the infobox at Top Gear (2002 TV series). However, another editor believes more discussion is needed so I have opened an RfC at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#RfC: Should years be included in the infobox. Opinions from other editors would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television film nominated for merge

{{Infobox television film}} and {{Infobox film}} have been nominated for merge. Anyone who wishes to comment can find the discussion here. You do not need knowledge of the intricacies of templates to participate in these discussions, just some common sense, so there's no need to be scared to get involved. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

One of the alternatives proposed at the above discussion is that {{Infobox television film}} and {{Infobox television}} could be merged as they have a very similar set of parameters and are both within this project. This is true although they do look different. I've been bold and added code to Infobox television's sandbox that merges both templates.[11] A comparison of the two infoboxes can be seen here. Merging the templates would have the benefits of requiring only one template for all main TV articles, and providing a consistent look and feel in all of those articles. Since it's a fairly simple modification (the code is already written) and doesn't seem to affect existing articles, does anyone see any reason why we shouldn't merge the two? I'll have to bring this up at the template talk page but thought I'd gauge the response here first. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

FYI. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television

Using "released"
Original release
Release	January 1, 2014 (2014-01-01) – December 31, 2015 (2015-12-31)

Using "first_aired"
Original release
Release	January 1, 2014 (2014-01-01) – December 31, 2015 (2015-12-31)

{{Infobox television film}} has been nominated for merging with {{Infobox television}}. This will result in us only having one infobox for all TV articles. I've been working on the code for Infobox television to effect a merge in the best way possible but I need some more opinions. |release= was recently added to the infobox as a switch for shows that were released through online or other methods. i.e. media that did not involve airing/traditional broadcast. |released= is a parameter used in {{Infobox television film}} but adding it to Infobox television means we'll have both "release" and "released". To avoid redundancy and kill two birds with one stone, I've removed |release= from the new code and made |released= an alias for |first_aired=. When "released" is used in place of "first_aired" it changes the section heading from "Broadcast" to "Release", and the "Original run/Original airing" label to "Original release". For online series that are released on two or more nights, "last_aired" can still be used and the label will still be "Original release". However, I don't see why we need "Original run", "Original airing" and "Original release" as labels, since "Original release" covers all three. Nor do we need both "Broadcast" and "Release" as section headings. My proposal is to change the section heading to "Release" and the label to "Original release". Does anyone see a problem with this? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would it merge with us, and not with Film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It was nominated but there was a single support and 20 opposes so a new nomination was made. The parameters in Infobox television & {{Infobox television film}} are very similar. Only 3 parameters don't exist in Infobox television and 7 others have different names but serve the same purpose, so they can be made aliases. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Comedy Collective cat additions

Anyone have any thoughts on this? this guy has been adding the category Category:Comedy collectives to tons of articles, including the television programs Mr. Bean, All That, and so on. Some of the additions make sense, but some are just tangential. Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!: comedy collective, or a TV series featuring a comedy collective? Am I over-scrutizing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Kino's Storytime

Hi, An editor who has made some random, incorrect edits to a couple of child lit articles has also made some edits to the above tv article. i have not reverted them as i do not know about this subject and agf they could be ok. Is there an editor here who could check on them? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coolabahapple, I've saved you the trouble of reverting them by reverting them myself. I don't know anything about the series, but unsourced changes to already unsourced content isn't much of an improvement, in my opinion. I believe one of the IPs added an incorrect Executive Producer to the infobox, so I've fixed that. I've also made a few other tweaks and supported the content with references. Just took a little Google Fu. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, thanks for that Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

International network articles

Hey all, I'm dealing with a lot of funky international network articles and I'm trying to get a sense for what the community's attitude is toward them.

• List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic - Unsourced, likely doesn't meet WP:V. How does one verify that Regular Show premiered July 31, 2011 or that only the first season of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic was broadcast? Was nommed for AfD, but that didn't pass.
• Disney Channel (Asia) - Three references. Giant list of channels in infobox. It seems like the prose could be merged elsewhere, like a general article on all the international feeds.
• Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa) - Four references, at least two dead. A lot of words on the page, but not much to support it. Article was originally about Cartoon Network Europe, but in these Nov 2014 edits had the focus shifted inexplicably, and then the article was moved by someone who may or may not be Finealt.

This is just the tip of the iceberg—I'm sure we have hundreds of these things. So I guess my general question is: What notability standards justify the creation and existence of these sub-articles? Is Disney Channel Asia notable on its own, or does its existence rely on the assumption of inherent or inherited notability? Would it be better to merge the existing content into a worldwide parent article like Disney Channels Worldwide? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cyphoidbomb: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia). Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Interesting arguments. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Television infoboxes fields

Hey,

I was looking over the television infoboxes and noticed something that I wanted to bring up. As each Wikipedia page should be self containing, all the relevant information should be listed in that page.

Regarding this issue.

• In the top level template - Infobox television among other fields we have "Country of origin", "Original language(s)" and "Original channel".
• In the second level template - Infobox television season the "Original language(s)" field is gone.
• In the third level template - Infobox television episode in addition to not having the "Original language(s)" field, "Country of origin" and "Original channel" are also gone.

I believe these entries should be added (or added back if they were removed at some point), as those fields are of important information. This can be seen in the leads of episode articles where the channel and country are written (for example: Afterlife (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)). Language, while not specifically written in most articles, is still an important field (as can be seen from its place in the top-level template).

Additionally, linking between the templates and the articles is not consistent or complete.

• Infobox television episode has a "Series" field which links it to the series article page. This is missing from Infobox television season, which leaves the template without any link back to the series article page.
• The "Season" field in the episode template does not link back to the season article page (which most shows have) which leaves the template with a link back to the series article page but none to the season article page.

If there was a discussion regarding these issues, sorry to bring it up again (and would like to know the reasons for them being left out). If there wasn't, I'd like to propose adding these. --Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ping AussieLegend because they are currently working in the sandbox for the top level template in preparation for a potential merge with Infobox television film. Maybe they can include some of these requests (which I personally don't see issue with). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying him Favre1fan93. I've got an additional issue I noticed while we are already here.

• In Infobox television The "show_name" field is for the English official title while "show_name_2" will give an "Also known as" name. However, if a show is from a non-English language, having the name under "Also known as" does not faithfully represent that name and it also doesn't make it clear if it should be written in its native form or translated into English (as can be seen in The Arbitrator where the native name was translated into English). I believe that a new field should be added - "native_name" (or "native_title"), which is present in other infoboxes (such as Infobox language and Infobox television Amazing Race), for official non-English names (placed either above or under "show_name2").
• The other templates - Infobox television season and Infobox television episode have "season_name" and "title" respectively and should also get a "native_name" field. --Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Film articles can use Template:Infobox name module to add native names.--Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: There's a discussion happening over at Template talk:Infobox television season about possibly revamping the whole layout of that infobox. Your input (along with the suggestions you had here) would be greatly appreciated if we are to move foward with doing that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Gonnym for raising this issue. I noticed this while merging other season templates into {{Infobox television season}} and during TfD discussions related to {{Infobox television episode}}. As well as the noted inconsistencies, we've had instances of editors adding parameters,[12][13] and otherwise modifying templates without discussion.[14] We've even got a current discussion where one editor is forcing documentation changes that weren't supported at the recent RfC.[15][16] Where possible I've been trying to ensure consistency in the instructions for the various templates, and minimise the number that we have, but I really think we need to look at all of the templates we use and make them consistent with each other. We also need to strengthen the documentation, while removing redundancy. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments required

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Cyberchase episodes#Season 10 that clearly needs comment from more editors, particularly regarding WP:TVUPCOMING and WP:TVOVERVIEW. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Executive producers vs producers

{{Infobox Paris by Night}} has been nominated for deletion and the issue of the difference between producers and executive producers is under discussion at TfD. Since this is an issue that affects more than 8,500 articles using {{Infobox television episode}}, and ultimately would affect the 32,553 articles using {{Infobox television}}, some opinions from those more familiar with the differences between producers and executive producers would be appreciated. The TfD discussion is here should anyone wish to make comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific

I have no idea what I'm looking at (I never edit television-related articles), but surely there's some kind of limit to the level of intricate detail an article should have regarding subsidiaries and lists of companies, right? --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television channel parameter change

I think this should be a quicky. I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel. For consistency with Template:Infobox television I think |web= should be changed to |website= and formatted similarly. Please comment if you get a hay-second. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television instructions

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television/doc#Change of wording on May 6 regarding the inclusion/exclusion of certain text. Additional comments would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic

Hey all, problem article: List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic. Constant updates, never any sources, never any discussion, multiple IPs, frequent hops. Based on some random poking through the article and some WikiBlame searches [17] it looks like it's been unsourced since the dawn of time. I've requested page protection, but MusikAnimal is understandably concerned about locking a bad version of the article. The question then is, what does a good version of the article look like? I'm very concerned that much of what we see in the article (like the 2011 start/end dates for The Smurfs, or the claim that S2 of The Looney Tunes Show aired before S1 in Oct 2014) will never meet WP:V, especially as long as the people who presumably have access to that information (the native Arabic speakers who watch the network and contribute constantly) refuse to add sources. Thoughts? I've floated a query by the Ref Desk asking any Arabic speakers to help with supporting the current lineup maybe. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Television infobox revamps

As the result of a discussion further up this page, we have started a revamp of television infoboxes, mainly to remove redundant fields and make all of the TV infoboxes that we use more consistent with each other. The discussion has started here and will proceed to other templates as necessary. If there are some things you'd like added to templates, or think should be removed, please join the discussion. You do NOT need to know anything about the mechanics of templates, the discussion is all about what content you think the infoboxes should contain. On a related matter, Template:Infobox Paris by Night has been nominated for deletion with a suggestion that parameters be merged into {{Infobox television episode}}, or even {{Infobox television}}. Since this is directly relevant to the revamps, comments by interested parties are necessary. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 6#Template:Infobox Paris by Night. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Futurama

Does "The Simpsons" belong in the |related= parameter of Futurama? Please comment at Talk:Futurama. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons

Short story:

• IPv6 editor adds My Life as a Teenage Robot to the Repeats section at List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons. They submit an unsourced date range: October 4, 2008 – May 5, 2015.
• I remove the date range but leave the title, and ask for a reference.
• Electricburst1996 reverts, commenting, "IMO, this would be a tad confusing. Do seek consensus before deciding."
• I re-revert on the basis that WP:BURDEN is consensus. I then opened a discussion at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons#Perfunctory discussion.

Comments solicited there, please. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:VeggieTales

Hi, I'm trying to establish consensus for how cast list should be presented across various VeggieTales articles. "Larry the Cucumber as himself" vs. "Phil Vischer voices: Larry the Cucumber as himself". Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

PBS logos merger

A discussion about a proposal to merge PBS logos to PBS is active. Comments about this proposal are welcome. TheGGoose (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Joker (comics) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Joker (comics) to be moved to The Joker (character). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Chip Esten listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chip Esten to be moved to Charles Esten. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Armstrong & Miller Show listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Armstrong & Miller Show to be moved to The Armstrong & Miller Show (2007 TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ALVINNN!!! and the Chipmunks listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ALVINNN!!! and the Chipmunks to be moved to Alvinnn!!! and the Chipmunks. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Superstar (Brazil TV series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Superstar (Brazil TV series) to be moved to Superstar (Brazilian TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nathan West (character) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nathan West (character) to be moved to Nathan West (General Hospital). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Play Movies listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Google Play Movies to be moved to Google Play Movies & TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcers

Do we need |announcer= added to {{Infobox television}}? Please add your thoughts to the discussion here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Viewing figures query

I wondered if someone could give me some help with viewing figures. I'm working on "The 12 Days of Christine", and I'm getting conflicting information about viewership. Broadcast says: "The second series of BBC2's comedy Inside No. 9 launched on Thursday 26 March at 10pm. After 587,000 recorded and watched, it achieved 1.7 million/8%, the programme's highest rating yet. Series one averaged 1.1 million/5% on Wednesdays at 10pm in the winter of 2014, with the launch episode's 1.5 million/7% the best of that run. Series two's opener achieved 1 million/9% for ABC1's, compared with series one's average of 671,000/7%." Meanwhile, Digital Spy says "On BBC Two, Coast Australia was seen by 1.35m (6.1%), before Banished continued with 1.72m (7.7%) at 9pm, and Inside No. 9 entertained 1.10m (5.7%) at 10pm." They aren't referring to different episodes, and I don't see a reason to assume one is just wrong- I'm assuming there are different kinds of numbers here (especially as the Broadcast numbers don't correspond with the numbers they've given in other articles). Could anyone help me decipher this? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well to me, it seems the first source (which I can't view because it is behind a subscription wall), is referring to the first episode of Series 2, while the Digital Spy one is referring to the episode you are working on. That should be the one you use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No- the title of the piece clarifies that it's talking about the week in which the second episode of series 2 was shown. Look again at the quote I've posted- after talking about numbers for "The 12 Days of Christine", it says "Series two's opener achieved 1 million/9% for ABC1's". Now, I don't know what "ABC1's" means, but that number roughly (though not precisely) corresponds with the number given in a different article Broadcast published. Does anyone have any experience working with these different kinds of numbers? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But based on what I'm seeing, The 12 Days of Christine is not the series 2 opener, La Couchette is. What you quoted is info on La Couchette. And again, I can't help you with the article because it is behind a subscription wall and I can't view it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The title of the Broadcast piece is "Top 15 consolidated shows: 23 - 30 Mar 2015 Top 15 consolidated shows: 30 Mar - 5 Apr 2015", so I was running on the assumption that the numbers I bolded referred to "Christine", as "La Couchette" was not broadcast in that time (though, I assumed, some info about "La Couchette" was provided for context). I may be wrong, though- like I say, I'm pretty mystified by the whole thing. (FWIW, everything about Inside No. 9 from the article has been copied above.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm now finding that Nexis, through which I was accessing the Broadcast piece, is giving different article content from the Broadcast website. I'm really not doing well, here... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How do we identify cast members

Traditionally we identify cast members as they are credited, but Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner and an editor is running around changing all instances of "Bruce" to "Caitlyn" citing MOS:IDENTITY (see example). This is going to be confusing as "Bruce", not "Caitlyn", is credited on-screen. Are there any thoughts on this? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We should identify cast as they show in the credits and pipe to the correct article. To conform to MOS:IDENTITY, which seems to override all other wiki policies, we should probably state Caitlyn Jenner (credited as Bruce Jenner) in the articles to reduce confusion to the readers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have any real choice in this with a superpolicy overriding everything we normally do with name changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that MOS:IDENTITY does not override other guidelines. As indicated, it's only a guideline, it's certainly not a policy, and even has {{MoS-guideline}} at the top of the page to reinforce that. The person who appeared in CHiPS was Bruce Jenner who was credited as Bruce Jenner but the guideline is being applied as if is superior to other guidelines and even policy. There's a discussion on this at the village pump and I think the editor in question needs to back off until there is some resolution. Wikipedia isn't working to a deadline and there may be some cleaning up to do as a result of the village pump discussion. I certainly don't see the need for notes about something that happened this year appearing in an article about 34-year-old episodes. It's like going through the articles on the moon landings saying that American astronauts planted six international flags of surrender on the moon simply because the stars and stripes have now faded. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

HaMerotz LaMillion

HaMerotz LaMillion 1, HaMerotz LaMillion 2, HaMerotz LaMillion 3, and HaMerotz LaMillion 4 all appear to be individual season article for the same Israeli TV series. Should these be disambiguated using "(season 1)", "(season 2), etc. per WP:TVSEASON or are the names distinctive enough to leave as is? This ynet article uses "season 4" and not "HaMerotz LaMillion 4" and this Jerusalem post article refers to "season 3" and "season 5" and not "HaMerotz LaMillion 3" or "HaMerotz LaMillion 5". Do these articles need to be moved? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon Network UK and EMEA

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)#Cartoon Network UK and EMEA. Thanks. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Texas Rising article

Hello, I'm a rare contributor to this website, I just wanted to point out there is a lack of references on the "Texas Rising" article, particularly the "Historical inaccuracies" section. It could use some work and a disclaimer at the top. That's all.

-Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsosirius (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding page disambiguation

Just wanted to drop a line for any interested editors to a discussion regarding the disambiguation of the article Vixen (Animated web series). The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Suits

Hi, another editor and I have had some disagreement about the structure of the Suits (TV series) article, but there doesn't seem to be many other active editors there. If anyone else has time to have a look and could give some advice that might be helpful. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image composites

Hey, anybody have any thoughts about the use of multiple images in the infobox to create a composite image? I've noticed this a few times, for instance in this edit where you'll note the Turner logo above an image of the Turner building. Similar deal at American Dad!, where you'll see the series logo above an image of the family. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC for online series disambiguation

Hi all. I've started an RfC on the naming conventions talk page about online series articles with an unambiguous title like Daredevil (TV series) or Viral (web series) probably needing a universal disambiguator. Please feel free to comment and give suggestions. Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Better solution needed for "list of episodes" articles of TV series running many seasons

Software transclusion limits have been exceeded by List of The Simpsons episodes, which has been extended to a 27th season. See the discussion at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes § Time for a split?. Ideas for creative solutions appreciated. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked Wbm1058 to post here because this is an issue likely to affect other programs. We regularly transclude season articles to the list of episodes page but, in the case of List of The Simpsons episodes, so many pages are being transcluded that when the article is loaded in a browser, the expanded page size is over 2MB. The "fix" that is being used at List of The Simpsons episodes is to copy the episode tables from (so far) seasons 1-4 back to the LoE page. All of the tables are being copied including the episode summaries, which aren't displayed, and the "{{Episode list/sublist|List of The Simpsons episodes" code in each episode entry. This results in List of The Simpsons episodes being extremely large. I removed the episode summaries and "/sublist|List of The Simpsons episodes" code,[18] which reduced the page size by 39kB. Unfortunately, every time the LoE page is synced with the season articles this code is restored, blowing out the article size again. This doesn't stop the problems that we have when we have two copies of an episode list, making it a non-ideal solution. It also will get worse. As each new season is added, another season will have to be copied. As I understand it, Wbm1058 and others have tried alternatives but these have met with some resistance. Since this is an issue that is likely to affect other articles, we need to look at a better solution that we may have to document in the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that to keep transclusion (a desired feature), you split the list of episodes into two lists. Redirect the current list page List of The Simpsons episodes to List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 1-20), which should be below the safe transclusion limit, create the second page, and then make sure to hatnote both pages to say "Due to technical limitations of the Wikimedia software, this list is split into two parts". Maybe even limit it to 10 seasons, to value page delivered size to content. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along those lines although I wouldn't necessarily redirect List of The Simpsons episodes. Rather, I feel we could just move the episode lists into two sub-articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like we won't need to split until October or later, as I was able to transclude all of the content again. Someone must have made some of the underlying transcluded sub-pages or templates more byte-efficient, though I don't know specifically what was done. Maybe more Lua conversions? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The redirect would be necessary as "List of The Simpsons episodes" is a potential search/previously linked term, and even if one ends up on the first page of many, it should be very easy to navigate to others. Taking account this doesn't have to be done now, an example in another area that we've done is Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, which you'll notice the infobox is a quick nav box to the by-year lists (we didn't have a transclusion issue, but a page size issue so we could still have the complete list), a similar nav structure could be set for split episode lists when that time comes. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Would, instead of a redirect, treating it like a disambiguation page work at all? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If we use a page title like List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 1-20), where are seasons 21-27 going to sit? List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 21-27)? List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 21-40)? List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 21-present)? We need to future-proof the pages. In any case we shouldn't be daisy-chaining pages. If we redirect List of The Simpsons episodes somebody looking for a season 27 episode list would find themselves at List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 1-20) and then have to go to List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 21-27). Much of the content in List of The Simpsons episodes is relevant to all episodes and we shouldn't duplicate it on sub-pages. It would make far more sense to setup a tree system with List of The Simpsons episodes looking something along the lines of this, which retains the structure of the existing article. Sub-lists would be named "List of The Simpsons episodes (part x)". By naming them "part x" we future proof them by making them independent of the season number. Sublists would only need a brief lead, the portion of the series overview table relevant to that list (and there are ways of transcluding that - See this example), the transcluded episode lists and the normal "footer" information (refs, navboxes, categories etc). --AussieLegend (✉) 10:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 10 § Japanese episode list templates. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of spam blacklist request discussion

This is a notice that a frequently used source by this project, http://www.screenrant.com, has been requested (and added) to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The request can be found here, and the request for removal can be found here. Editors are invited to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific

This article is listed as being within the scope of this Wikiproject. Does anybody have experience working with these kinds of articles? It's somewhat readable up until Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific#The Top 10 Super Conglomerates where in turns in long lists and tables of information seemingly unrelated at all to the subject of the article. It's almost as if multiple unrelated articles have been mashed together. Does anyone have any suggestions on how this might be improved? - Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"1989-2002: Beginning of the Broadcast & 1990s Anger of Terrors",

CNN International began transmissions in August 1989. Cartoon Network's was founded in the 1990s as well to the 21st Century Broadcasting in the Asia Pacific. On 26 July 1993, Asiana Airlines Flight 733 Flight 733 had the highest death toll of any aviation accident in South Korea at that time. 8 months later, On 26 April 1994, China Airlines Flight 140, an Airbus A300, crashed just as it was about to land at Nagoya Airfield, Japan, killing 264 and leaving only 7 survivors. On October 6, 1994 Cartoon Network Asia was founded about the Southeast Asian networking.

Yeah, looks like bollox to me. There was a lot of editing from Indonesian IPs in February-March 2015. This is what the article looked like before they started meddling. I'd probably just revert it to that point (assuming it's even worth keeping). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Cyphoidbomb. Do you need to have rollback rights to make such a big revert to a version from a few monts back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC+9)

Edit and save without changes the version you want from the edit history will make it the current version (or use WP:Twinkle). Explain what you did in the edit history. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the article as suggested above. Please let me know if I screwed the pooch or if there is more that needs to be done. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with updates to First Ladies: Influence & Image

I am posting here to ask for help with some updates I'm suggesting for the entry about the C-SPAN series First Ladies: Influence & Image. First, let me introduce myself: I'm Jeremy Art, Digital & Social Media Specialist at C-SPAN. I recently started an account to suggest occasional updates to C-SPAN-related articles. Since I am C-SPAN's representative on Wikipedia, I will not edit the article myself. Could someone take a look at a message I posted on the First Ladies Talk page about expanding the article? I'm offering a draft with additional information on the show's background, production and other media for editors to review and use to develop the article.

Thanks!

C-SPAN Jeremy (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles

I've started an RfC over at Template:Infobox television regarding adding or removing late-night talk show related information from the infobox. Please feel free to comment and weigh in. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I highly recommend participation at this RfC, given the impact it would have on our navboxes. :( --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Article tense for deceased characters

I'm not too familar with the MOS for articles of individual characters from TV shows. In the case of Gus Fring, as he was killed in the show, should the article be written in the past-tense? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The present tense should be used, even though he dies. Fictional events and characters continue to "live on"—even if they die in the work, they're "still" "alive" in the earlier portions of it—and that's a terribly worded way to explain literary present, but present tense. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Years

Should years be included for anything (besides air dates). I am referring to production companies, locations, networks, original channel ect. or is it just the cast/presenters we do not include it for? -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 17:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP Life on Mars

FYI, I've proposed to convert WP:WikiProject Life on Mars into a taskforce of WPTV, for the discussion, see WT:WikiProject Life on Mars -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Wikiproject Proposal

I have just proposed a YouTube Wikiproject that would cover any Articles relevant to YouTube People, Culture, Organisations and Business

I would love to get lots of support for this --- :D Derry Adama (talk)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Moved Permanently

I am new here, why was I getting this error? HTTP 301 Moved Permanently? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.236.88 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What were you trying to do when you got that error?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just ignore this, it was produced by a spambot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

TV series categories

I originally posted this on the talk page for MOS:TV, but was told it'd be better posting it here.

I've noticed this for a long time, and that's categories for TV series' are not consistent and use different wording, ex. series, show(s), and program(s). One naming style should be used across all categories for consistency, and ease of finding/adding categories. Using "series" seems to be make the most sense since that's how they're usually referred to. There's tons of other inconsistencies, such as, Television shows filmed in California, Television series shot in Los Angeles‎, Television series produced in Toronto, which all are categories having to do with filming, but all use different wording (filmed, shot, produced). Filming, which is the most dominant usage for most of the naming, should be used across all similar categories. I'm just wondering how to go about this. Anyone have any input/comments on this? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I favor "series" or "shows" over "programs", but I'm not sure I have a preference between the first two. They should definitely be consistent though. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We've previously discussed "series" and "shows" and the preference was for series. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the terms don't all have clear, mutually exclusive definitions. All "series" are both "programs" and "shows" as well, but both of the latter terms also encompass things that aren't "series", such as miniseries, films, specials, televised live ceremonies, and on and so forth. Commercials and public service announcements, further, wouldn't be encompassed by any of those three terms, but would be covered by "programming". And there's also the WP:ENGVAR problem, whereby the British and North American usages of "series" don't correspond neatly — what we Turtle Islanders call a "series" the Brits call a "programme", while what they call a "series" we call a "season". And many other countries follow British usage rather than North American, though some of them spell it "program" instead of "programme". If there are any inconsistencies within any single country's own internal country-specific branch, then those should certainly be corrected — but there's no easy "one size fits all" answer that can be applied right across the entire tree. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Project related RfC

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs#RFC: Bella and the Bulldogs controversy; valid for brief sub-topic within the article or not?. This may be of interest to the project as it involved sourcing standards for a TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, a second request to please consider commenting at this RfC as it does involve potentially controversial content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Cartoonito

In this edit I removed an unsourced list of programs from Cartoonito. This is likely to ruffle some feathers. I'm under the impression that many of us don't care much for the inclusion of these large List of programming sections in articles. I don't mind being wrong, though, so if anyone has any input or castigations, please visit the article's talk page where I have opened a discussion. If as a community we don't care for these lists, we might want to talk more about them, because they're everywhere. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of two discussion at WT:ANIME

This is a notice about ongoing discussion relating to this Wikiproject. The first discussion is about whether to use the "media date" published by primary sources (ex Saturday, July 18 at 25:00) or converted the actual date (ex Sunday, July 19 at 1:00 am) as used by most secondary sources such as the Media Arts Database from Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs. The second discussion involves the need for sourcing for future air dates and whether only the first episode needs to be sourced with all other future dates calculated from it or whether all future episodes must be sourced explicitly. —Farix (t | c) 13:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Relations?

Are David Feige and Kevin Feige related?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of colour from Infobox television season

In case anybody is wondering what's happening, Alakzi is edit-warring at {{Infobox television season}}, removing the colour parameters used in thousands of articles. He has manually removed |bgcolor= from a number of articles but I have reverted these changes and I've left an edit-warring warning on his talk page about the edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the related discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Questions_to_move_color-contrast_issues_forward_to_resolution to reach consensus on how to handle the pages tracked at Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding WP:NOTPLOT

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that {{Series overview}}, a template within the scope of this project, should be moved. The discussion is at Template talk:Series overview#Requested move 27 July 2015. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Production codes and A/B carts

Hi friends, in this edit a well-meaning editor reformatted an entire season of Rocko's Modern Life. In doing so, they added A/B cart IDs to the production codes, which effectively creates new production codes that didn't exist before. For instance, S1E2 should comprise "Leap Frogs" and "Bedfellows". Previously this finished episode with two segments bore a production code of 006. Now they bear production codes 006a and 006b. I don't think it's wise for us to create new production coding. For all we know, each cart had an entirely different production coding system in use for internal billing that would not reflect 006a and 006b. I'm trying to think of a workaround for this. Is there any way to do a colspan so that both eps share one whole production code? Alternatively, would adding the carts in parens help at all, i.e. 006 (a) and 006 (b)? Any other ideas? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Todd Manning#Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago.. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion over Logo's

I am directing those who are currently active as part of this project to this discussion over whether a logo without a background or with a background is preferred, more specifically for an ibox. Your input is greatly appreciated. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Color compliance at certain articles

While we happen to be on color compliance at the moment, in combing through the tracking category, I came across Prisoner (season 1), which further got me to List of Prisoner episodes and I saw the complete color and table formatting mess that was happening there (at least by our standards). Just wanted to pop the pages here if anyone was feeling adventurous to tackle some of the LoE page for reformatting. I may also use this section to add some other big time offenders if I find them, that might warrant the project's attention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed for the most part. Lead needs to be trimmed and the special feature and parental rating information in the home video section need to be nixed or reduced as well. 23W 02:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow. Thanks for all that. Was hoping to maybe chip a bit here or there. I can look into the other stuff to fix as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Katy Perry videography

This is currently an FL candidate, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Katy Perry videography/archive1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cartoon Network programming

There's been some back and forth about whether or not Sonic Boom, a property broadcast on CN, but not owned by them, should be included at Template:Cartoon Network programming. "Cartoon Network programming" seems awfully broad to me, and it seems to invite every program that was aired on this network. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The page was actually fully protected a while back because the inclusion of Sonic Boom was the subject of a major edit war between registered users. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does this template even exist? Navboxes are supposed to facilitate navigation between related articles and the only thing linking these is that they air on Cartoon Network. The navbox doesn't really serve any useful purpose. It shoud really be replaced by Category:Cartoon Network programming or something similar. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Aussie has a point... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already a Category:Cartoon Network original programs cat. I believe it was swapped to "original" because of the same crap--people adding the cat to any series that had aired on CN. Although I might be confusing this cat for a similar one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Is nuking the template out of the question? If so, perhaps rename the template just as the category was renamed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems like Cyphoidbomb implied that the template should be renamed. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You know what they say about inferring. It makes an ass out of you and me. That was much funnier in my head... but yeah, I think that's not a bad idea... probably would need to be done with a move request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pssst...I think you meant "assume", not "infer". --AussieLegend (✉) 01:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If everyone is fine with renaming the template, it may as well be deleted. We don't need both. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for the outcome, except that whatever we decide for this template, we should do for similar templates. This is why I think we need to hash it out in a bigger forum, like WT:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We actually tried to stop this when the 'network templates' began to be created with the broadcast networks years back; all of the against arguments involving duplication of content were refuted with the 'it's pretty' and 'useful' crowd (Discussions archived here (nom 1) and here (nom 2). Then we got all the templates down to the kid's networks because those noms were bogged down to 'no consensus' decisions and now we have more useless templates easily replaced by cats and nothing but fantasy TV vandal targets. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the main issues being raised, my opinion overall of this template I don't see it serving any constructive purpose. Its really just a compiling of every single series ever aired on a TV network for which this purpose can be served by a list article or category. I don't doubt whomever made the template wanted to make easier to navigate between Cartoon Network series articles. In reality it doesn't. So the contrary the fact that there's so many articles on the template ones of inactive no longer airing series actually makes harder to navigate between the articles because you have to get through a hoard of articles listing every single ever aired series just to get to the page you want. Templates are for page to page navigation of articles, not a compilation to maintain a list of all articles within a subject for the mere sake of doing so. Nonetheless I'm even sure there is even a constructive purpose to TV network templates in regards to show listings. Even if you leave out the past series from the templates you have to painstakingly keep updating the templates parallel to the current schedule where that purpose can already be served by a current programming section and the past programming section already be in a separate "List of programs broadcast by (TV network)" article. There's really no purpose to a current/past programming template other than a compilation of series broadcast by that network as being a duplicate list superfluous to the already existing current programming sections and separate past programming articles. —Mythdon 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Colors, table headers, and MOS:TV

There is a question about colors in season infoboxes with respect to references in the table headers. Also a suggestion to edit the MOS:TV. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Color_and_refs_in_episode_list_headers for the discussion. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast section for List of American Horror Story characters

Please voice your opinions on how to layout the cast section for this anthology series here (bottom section). Sock (tock talk) 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources to establish TV "notability" question

Over at WP:FILM (specifically at WP:NFSOURCES), they say the following:

"...Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." (emphasis mine)

My question is this: Does this thinking extend to: Tim Brooks; Earle Marsh (2003). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present (Eight ed.). Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45542-8. – i.e. that inclusion in Brooks & Marsh on its own isn't enough to establish TV series "notability"? Or is inclusion in Brooks & Marsh's Directory good enough to establish TV show notability? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability is defined as significant coverage in third party sources. Being included in a directory of shows would not be considered "significant".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting how this goes – several months back, I learned that WP:POLOUTCOMES would basically be satisfied for state legislators if they were included in a directory of state legislative office holders (as per this discussion)... So how "notability" is defined actually seems to very from subject matter to subject matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The project has decided that holding certain political positions is notable in of itself and overrides all other WP:GNG considerations. Generally major politicians will have significant coverage if you look for it. A reliable directory just allows completeness and is not what establishes notability, notability is intrinsic to the position. Just like IMDb is a convenience directory we use for released project credits with the actual implied reference being the credits as listed in the film or TV episodes themselves. We could, perhaps, do something similar and declare a film notable just because it exists, but have chosen not to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So, bringing this back on point for WP:TELEVISION – Brooks & Marsh is to be treated like Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, and being included in Brooks & Marsh is, in and of itself, not enough to establish TV series "notability", correct? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, films and television series are not exactly identical things — the distribution methods are different, so the standards for determining notability are different. As explained at WP:NMEDIA, the basic principle for a television series is that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article if it aired on a television network of regional or national scope, and might not be if it was produced by and aired on only a single television station in a single local market — so while it's not exactly "every television series is automatically notable just because it exists", it is quite a bit closer to that than the standard for films is. I'm not familiar with the Brooks & Marsh book personally, but if it says that the show aired on NBC or CBS or ABC then it would be an acceptable source — given that it explicitly verifies a piece of information that constitutes a notability claim in its own right. You'd still be best off trying as much as possible to find more than just that one source alone, but if it includes the airdate details, then Brooks & Marsh would boost a television series in a way that a mere plot summary in a Leonard Maltin guide would not do for a film. If it doesn't include airdate details, however, then it wouldn't help the case much. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

link to IMDB Season X Ep List of a show

I've noticed that the Wikipedia page for a specific season of a TV show rarely ever links to the IMDB page for that specific season, but instead links to the general IMDB episode-list page for that show.

I've also noticed that there's a template for linking to the general IMDB episode lists, but I don't see a template for linking to season-specific IMDB episode lists.

I'd like to, as I see them, update the Wikipedia pages for specific seasons to link to the IMDB pages for specific seasons.

Should I interpret the lack of a template and the fact that it's rarely done as meaning that it shouldn't be done, or just that noone's gotten around to it yet?

Bsammon (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Is "Template:IMDb episodes" really (still) in scope of WikiProject Film

Template talk:IMDb episodes says that it is in the scope of WikiProject Film. Seems like it would be a better fit for WikiProject Television.

What's the story?

Bsammon (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone copied the template from the one for film articles but failed to change the banner and category to TV? It seems simple enough to correct if so.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI. The banner has been changed to reflect that the template is part of the TV project. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation for series distributed online

An RfC was recently closed following some minimal discussion and a new one has been opened to perhaps obtain a broader consensus on the matter. Please feel free to participate here (below the closed RfC). Thank you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have subsectioned the new discussion so you can go direct to it here. And I invite the wider TV project to join, because as I brought up, in possibly creating these new disambigs, it may hinge on the question of "What does the "TV" disambiguation mean to you?" (more in depth explanation into that in the discussion). Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A more neutral notice than the above: Just FYI, this non-neutrally set up reductio ad absurdum RfC has actually moved on to a more serious discussion about whether MoS should advise rewording to avoid particularly confusing uses of "who[m]" and "[s]he" when writing about fictional characters in an out-of-universe way (e.g. as intellectual property). Further input from projects that actually write encyclopedically about fictional characters a lot would be useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper style for numbering television seasons

Hello! I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, so pardon me if this issue has been addressed here previously. Is there a correct or preferred style for numbering seasons of a television series? Should it be “Season One”, “Season 1”, “season one”, or “season 1”?

I have seen it different ways. An argument could be made for any style. Whichever way, consistency would be nice. Vivatheviva (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vivatheviva: Article titles use the following format: Series Name (season #) where # is a numeral and season is lowercase since it is not a proper noun. See WP:TVSEASON. When referring to a season in prose, you can use "season one" (which is encouraged by MOS:NUMERAL). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What Evergreen said. I've gotten confused on this point too because of MOS:NUM but using the numeral makes more sense because it would look weird if we suddenly shifted from Season nine to Season 10. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the quick responses. I was cleaning up the Scrubs (TV series) entry recently and noticed that the style was inconsistent throughout. Thanks again! Vivatheviva (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be summarising this at WP:TVFAQ. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely forgot we made that FAQ. Maybe that needs a good long look at to update, and maybe we can put our COLOR wording there... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's "season 1" ("series 1" in British usage).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on unusual prepositions in titles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quickie - merge proposal at Talk:Nickelodeon_(international)

Hi, Proposal here to merge Nickelodeon (Africa) into Nickelodeon (international). Going forward I think we need some community guidelines how how to treat all the various international channels that pop up for something like Nickelodeon or Disney. Are they inherently notable? Usually what we see are brief blurbs about the channel, then a giant list of reruns broadcast on the channel. In some cases we see copy/pastes of the corporate history, as opposed to the local channel's history. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Drama (genre)"

The usage and purpose of Drama (genre) is under discussion, see talk:Drama -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The project's continuing war on COLOR!

Hi all, just wanted to drop the note here, that as of this posting, the category for all articles using the season infobox that had non-compliant colors has been cleared out. But that's not the end my friends! The battle may be won, but the war continues! (I don't know why all the battle/war comments, just go with them.) If you'd like to help a bit in doing so, AlexTheWhovian created a very helpful script to make replacing the color really easy, here. (That was for the season infobox, so we may have a new one... sit tight comrades!). Here are all categories to keep an eye on that have to eventually be cleared out:

• Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination
• Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors
• Category:Articles using Template:Episode table with invalid colour combination
• Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A clean up project

If anyone is looking for one, here's an article. Came across it when fixing colors (so those are good for anyone who wants to work on this). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Future-class?

I think this project should allow articles to be assessed as "Future-class", as some other projects do. pbp 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are the merits of having a Future-class assessment? I'm hesitant about the idea because the classification doesn't really tell me much about the current state or quality of the article other than, assuming from the name of the category, the subject of the article is something that is to be released in the future, something that could be determined by a look at an infobox or a lead sentence. I'm not sure what the classification offers to an editor beyond that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a pretty important distinction. It also indicates that an article can't achieve a certain level of completeness (good luck getting an unaired show to GA), and that, when the show airs, the air should change substantially. Let me use an example The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which I wanted to assess as Future-class for this project, but couldn't, thus bringing me here (I assessed it as C). We know Colbert's hosting, we know why he's hosting, but for the next eight days there's a lot more we're in the dark on. pbp 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A GA nominated article at the time of nomination should not be any lower than a B class. The B class has criteria that has to be met to achieve it, including if the article is inclusive and not missing vital information. So there's no real reason to have a "Future" class, as any future television program will be a Start class, and in some rarer cases, potentially a C, given how much info is released on it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS a bad idea all around. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of fictional characters

Apologies but I'm new to this Wiki Project. What would make fictional characters notable enough to have articles? I have created articles for Alex Vause, Nicky Nichols and Pennsatucky and am hoping that they don't get deleted. However, it seems strange that most of the OITNB characters don't have articles and am wondering how many of them are notable enough to warrant an article on their own rather than being merged with the main article? For example, major Big Bang characters like Amy Farrah Fowler and Bernadette Rostenkowski do not have articles of their own and I suspect they would just get merged with the main article if anyone tried to create one?

tl;dr Where is the line drawn between what's notable and what isn't? Spiderone 19:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable fictional characters should have sources that meet the general notability guidelines, in that there are secondary sources that discuss the character in detail. This should be for TV show characters a combination of the development of the character (including any details on the actor selected to play them), and reception specifically about the character rather than just the work they appeared in. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I guess this is why Fowler and Rostenkowski don't have articles actually; I can't find as many articles solely dedicated to them on the internet as I thought I would (most articles are about Big Bang as a whole). Spiderone 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do note that the external articles don't need to be solely dedicated to the characters, but that they some in depth discussion of them. That might, for example, come from a compilation of the top X characters for a television season that give a paragraph or two about each, or from a review of the series as a whole where the character is discussed for some time, or from an interview with the actor that covers that person's roles including the character. The key word is "significant" - it should be more than a passing mention and the more discussion the better. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Heated Disagreements about Future Programming

It seems as though there have been a serious of disjointed, disparate, heated arguments and edit warring on the pages for various television networks regarding the validity of 'Future Programming' sections in general. I'm not seeing much in the way of consensus building, and am unsure of how to get the ball rolling on that. Should this discussion be centralised somewhere? It seems odd to engage in the same conversation in so many different places (edit logs, user pages and now ANI), but I am unfamiliar with the process of building consensus on an issue that impacts several pages. My apologies if I'm writing this in the wrong place or am going about this the wrong way. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to others, I'm not sure what specific conversations Sunny Sundae Smile is referring to, but one of the ones I've seen lately was at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi, and TheRedPenOfDoom's feeling that upcoming programs sections constitute WP:UNDUE and are inherently promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists including "future programs" are in violation of WP:UNDUE: giving equal weight to something that hasnt even broadcast yet WP:CRYSTAL, and in violation of WP:NOTADVERT: in a list without any other context, the name of a not yet broadcast show presents no encyclopedic content/value, but merely hijacks Wikipedia to serve as a promotional vector for "Look what's coming!!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to say that TheRedPenOfDoom is refusing to help us reach a consensus, instead choosing to sputter the same viewpoint over and over again. If we could get everyone involved in WikiProject Television to weigh in, that would be great. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaving off the continuation of your personal attacks, and the fact that you expressly stated that you wanted to move the discussion here, what exactly is the basis for your position? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The basis for my position is that your poisition is poorly supported – I mean, WP:CRYSTAL only applies to unsourced future events, for one. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:CRYSTAL - for example the Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. and Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF).  ???? No where does it say "This only applies to unsourced content" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

1) How the hell is it considered "Prediction, speculation, forecasts, and theories" and "advertising and unverified claims" if it's coming from a reliable source, which it is? [User:Electricburst1996|Electric]]Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

you are joking, right? how does a footnote make a future event not a future event or make promotional claims and presentation not promotional? it just means that it is footnoted future event or footnoted promotional claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a Request for Comment here? Mrschimpf, Andy Dingley, Liz? Anybody? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved here. I'll start an RfC based on what I read as that locus of the dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that "upcoming/future" programming should be allowed to exist on the "List of programs broadcast by <network name>". I don't believe that any rules are violated if any entry supported by verifiable sources, is listed. I do realize that sometimes the broadcast dates can change. In that event, we can easily remove or update the entry. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, so it allows us to do just that. We have a specific wiki page for the movies and television series that have not released yet (Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens and Quantico_(TV_series)) to name a few. We also have wiki pages for series that were never broadcast publicly (Rex_Is_Not_Your_Lawyer). The "list of programs broadcast by network" has a very simple template, consisting of current programming, past programming and future programming. This template is used across all the wikipages of type "list of programs broadcast by network". You can not have it any simpler than that. I don't see why this should be a problem. I vote that the section for "upcoming programs" should be allowed to exist. Contest any entries if you think that they are not properly sourced, by all means, but the section should be allowed to exist. Manoflogan (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What kind of sources are considered reputable? Does a tweet by a verified Twitter account or a post on a verified Facebook post by an admin or a YouTube trailer upload to a verified YouTube channel count as a reputable source? I do understand that other reputable media organization are considered preferable sourced publications, but never the less, I wanted to confirm. Any elaboration would be gratefully appreciated. Manoflogan (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the relevant guideline section is WP:SOCIALMEDIA. In my experience, it's generally considered good form to support a social media source with a secondary one. Generally, considering the context of this discussion, notable future broadcasts will be covered by secondary sources. In the past, I've only really had to use a tweet from an associated Twitter account to verify when the (coincidentally upcoming) Con Man webseries passed a particular fundraising landmark and when they wrapped filming. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Should TV network pages include future programming lists?

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

---

Should television network articles include lists of upcoming/future programming (assuming they are sourced per WP:CRYSTAL)? Are such lists inherently undue or promotional and, if not, is there a point where they would become so? Please see the above discussion and discussion on Talk:List of programmes broadcast by Zindagi TV for background information of this debate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC responses

• Y There is no apparent reason to exclude this, so long as it passes the basic guideline of having references in WP:RS and not be written in any kind of gushing (non-NPOV) style (goes without saying). Please see my longer logic below. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Y, but with restrictions - I have no issues with them being in articles, as long as we have a premiere date, an article for it, and the source is neutral, along with the section not violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I continually remove the future sections on kid's network articles because only press releases, Twitter, Tumblr and sites which only exist to glorify the networks their owners are fans of are used as sources and all the warnings in the world aren't stopping our cadre of IP fantasy TV and network fans. We have much less of a problem with it on general interest networks, which have their premiere dates easily sourced by neutral sources. Foreign networks like the ones mentioned above definitely need more scrutiny because of how ironclad even fan sources are beholden to or owned by their airing networks. Nate • (chatter) 18:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: I'm a bit confused on your removal of these sections - can you clarify if you look for additional info? I agree Twitter and Tumblr are unacceptable, but almost every single show that announces a new season or new host/cast etc will get coverage in the trade pubs or online, ie Variety, EW, deadline.com. They make their stars do press for them, so RS often get exclusive content for anything even remotely high profile. Probably even shows on like, the Fishing Channel (that's a thing right?) would get coverage in their niche industry media. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying the general shows are good; it's the kids shows we have a major problem with getting sourcing on and we get fights to retain and remove information on. Very few people care about the premiere of SpongeBob episodes from day to day, for instance, but the way the show is marketed where average episodes are premiered as special events, Variety and THR are usually not writing about that, along with niche networks (yes, like World Fishing Network) where only social sites can be used as they're the only places that actually care about their shows. Nate • (chatter) 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y Yes, they should; no, they aren't, given the entries cite secondary sources. The idea that a neutral, summary listing of shows verified by a reliable source for eventual release is somehow marketing said shows is absurd. 23W 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close as the nominator has not provided any arguments for exclusion, nor do I see a relevant discussion on the linked page. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: As mentioned already, relevant reason for exclusion would be WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO. I created this RfC because of a protracted disagreement between other editors and attempted to summarize their positions. You can clearly see their comments in the level-2 header above this RfC. An example of relevant discussion on the linked page would be here and here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion as long as the programs are reliably sourced and have a scheduled broadcast date.

I find this an interesting comparison to Film where I believe that movie credits are only supposed to be listed if the film is in post-production. But I have seen movies listed that are filming or the actor has just signed a contract to do the project. Here it is 2015, and I've seen some actors have film credits for movies to be released in 2018! I think if a TV program is due to start broadcasting a month from now, it is not premature to list it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think there's sufficient grounds to include them per Wikimadia, though I do echo Mrschimpf's concerns and support the caution expressed there. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would support inclusion as long as concrete criteria are met to ensure that vapor shows are not included. For example, WP:NFF specifies that films that have not commenced principal photography cannot generally be included. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose inclusion there is no apparent reason to include this trivia WP:IINFO as it has not happened yet WP:CRYSTAL / WP:NFF and, lacking any textual context, such content merely serves to promote the item in violation of WP:NOTADVERT. Merely having a source is not an absolute madate that content must be included Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion nor is sourcing somehow a talisman that guarantees future event will occur or that content is somehow not advertorial . Also the complete lack of context in lists means that we are presenting stuff that has not happened yet in the exact same value as actual content that has been broadcast giving not yet happened WP:UNDUE weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind you're the reason we're having this discussion in the first place. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any policy behind your comment, other than yet another violation of WP:NPA. Care to strike that so that there is still reason to assume that you are here about improving the encyclopedia ?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as long as entries are reliably sourced. Also, as for TRPoD, I would like a permanent vacation for him, on grounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Again Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria: "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y, as long as it can be handled smoothly without intruding on the rest of the page. MQoS (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Duh. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits speculation, not reliably sourced content. Banning all mentions of anything upcoming was never its purpose and is an extreme reading of the policy. We maintain episode lists with future episodes as well as articles containing future film dates, and merely listing upcoming programs is not controversial. --Wikipedical (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is not solely about prohibiting speculation. As clearly seen by reading it " In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". While it may be possible to verify plans to broadcast a show, in a list article or section it is hard to identify anything encyclopedic that is created by the inclusion of not yet happened events, but it is clearly promotional "HEY - look whats coming!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You could say that about literally any article though. Would you argue writing about current TV shows is promotional? ("HEY - look what's on now!") You have a flawed reading of CRYSTAL . --Wikipedical (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles at least have textual context that have potential to provide something encyclopedic in addition to the promotional content. The appearance in a list has no encyclopedic content, merely promotional. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've just gotten to the heart of the matter. "The appearance in a list has no encyclopedic content, merely promotional." Specifically what policy or guideline are you citing there? -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am citing the multiple policies listed over and over above, particularly WP:NOT and WP:LIST. No one has been able to articulate what encyclopedic content is present in the inclusion of a not yet broadcast show name particularly any encyclopedic content that outweighs the manifestly present promotional aspect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Or even former programming ("HEY - look what was on in the past!") - that could be a stretch, but still. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". The guideline doesn't state that a mention of a future event qualifies as advertising. It warns to avoid advertising when we are dealing with future events. We include articles about films months before they are released, so long as they have started principal photography. The project has never considered that to be advertising even though by your explanation, TRPOD, it would be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, what OTHER than promotion is a the "Coming soon to our channel!" does the appearance in the list provide? (and the articles about unreleased films are generally not in compliance with WP:NFF which requires something other than WP:ROUTINE promotional coverage. Most of those articles shouldn't exist in live article space either.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I take a risk of suggesting that you might be focusing on a specific situation (maybe Zee Zindagi?) that does not necessarily represent the entirety of our considerations in WikiProject Television. Notable series creators tend to produce notable works that are part of an artistic body of work that our culture cares about. (Not saying that notability is inherited, though.) Notable actors, notable writers, notable networks are presumably producing notable content, and if the content is adequately sourced and receives the requisite significant coverage, then I don't think it's sound to argue that talking about this notable content is "promotional". It's like saying that when we talk about programs that aired in the past, that's "nostalgia" and should be avoided as emotional bias. The body of television work is vast and needs to be covered one way or another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

While the presentation in that specific article is the poster child for why the content is unambiguously promotional in nature, it does not change the fact that the "upcoming" "soon to be broadcast" or whatever other terms are used, are carrying on the exact same function and providing no encyclopedic merit in the presence in any list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the "artistic body", without any textual context for an item that no one has seen, there is nothing present about an "artistic body". it is merely stuff without relevance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"And again, what OTHER than promotion is a the [sic?] "Coming soon to our channel!" does the appearance in the list provide?" I don't know, maybe, uh, reality? Because your comment "The appearance in a list has no encyclopedic content, merely promotional" has no basis in Wikipedia's guidelines or policy. You've cited WP:NOT or WP:LIST to make an original argument, since nothing at either of those places make that specific claim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the policies and guidelines do not explicitly list everything that is prohibited and every potential application. That would be silly. But the policies DO explicitly state "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.". They DO state "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." They DO state "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ". They DO state " Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." They DO state "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." Given what they DO state and the fact that a not-yet-broadcast program is NOT a "reality" as you claim, the multitude of policies taken individually AND particularly as they all meet on this topic, clearly provide a solid argument that Wikipedia can wait until a show is actually broadcast to include it in a list of programs that are broadcast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my initial question- are you also proposing prohibiting reliably sourced upcoming episodes on List of episodes pages? What about reliably sourced articles about upcoming films or television series that have finished production? It still appears to me (and all of the other editors commenting here) that you are misreading the policies/guidelines you're quoting above, combining certain areas of them to create an argument that any information about the future is inherently promotional. Not explicitly stated and not implicitly implied either. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - if the item is reliably sourced then it should be included. Further, an air date also seems unnecessary to me as long as the item is strongly supported by reliable sources. The existence of an article of a future release violates WP:PROMO as much as an article about a program already released. If the article is written WP:NPOV and "free of puffery" then it isn't violating WP:PROMO. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT INCLUSION: If any upcoming event is verifiably sourced and has attributable references (not necessarily restricted to TV broadcasts, but also events such as United_States_presidential_election,_2016 or Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2016 Super_Bowl_50), they should be allowed to exist as an entry on any wiki page. In the examples listed by me, many of these events will happen in the future, it does not mean that it is promotion. We are a digital encyclopedia. If there is a reliable, verifiable and attributable information that some event is going to be telecast in the future, then it ought to be listed as any digital encyclopedia should. "TRPOD", by your logic, any program that is currently being broadcast is promotional because we are highlighting what is on TV right now or that we are promoting past broadcasts. We are doing nothing of the sort. We are simply stating with verifiable sourcing that certain event will be broadcast in the future. This is not a promotional content, so therefore it should be allowed to exist. Manoflogan (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have not read my previous comments as your questions have been answered above. see particularly [19] and [20] and [21]. When you have read them and if you still have questions, feel free to ping me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It may also benefit you to read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TIND - we are under no obligation to provide "up to the minute" information about topics - the article about the list of programs on a certain network will not suffer if we wait to include a program until it has actually been broadcast on that network. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tentatively Support inclusion, just as I support mentioning potential future works by artists, and so forth. It goes without saying that such information meets the criterion of notability and is based on third-party, neutral, reliable sources. This is the Wikipedia simply being informative; advertising is a mere possibility. Yes, I'm fairly certain that various editors will try and use the section about "upcoming programs" for promotional purposes. It is up to other Wikipedia editors to prevent that. Αs Thomas Jefferson might or might not have said, "The price for avoiding advertising in Wikipedia is eternal vigilance."  :-) -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is actually free and easy to achieve: Don't include the item on the list when the only actual function is promotion of future event. Wait until the show has broadcast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion as long as it is a reliable source either of the network that is set to broadcast the show, or a reliable third party, and that we are talking on the upcoming television season as opposed to one that is two year away. For example, in the US we are about a month from the onset of the 2015-16 TV season, and it makes no sense to not include those shows that have been slated - for several months now - to be aired at the start of this season as this has been in the news for a while, especially that once they actually air, we'd normally retain this information. Keeping it to the immediate next season (or mid-season replacement) avoids the crystal ball factor here, as generally what happens in the next next season (2016-17) is so much up in the air that we are unsure of anything there so populating that list now would be crystal-balling. (Contrast this to the fact we know there is an Olympics scheduled in 2020 and 2022 and 2024 and can start building on that information). The promotional angle is where recognizing that the mere act of documenting what shows are set to be broadcast on a network is a standard list of information that happens to deal with a commercial venue so it can be seen as being promotional, but not really. Arguable, any normal list that we host that is a list of commercial works (filmograph, discography, bibliography, etc.) could be seen as the same type of promotional material, but these have their place on WP just as what shows a television station is broadcasting has. The concerns towards WP:NOT that are raises don't really apply in the manner described here. But that said, I'm all for avoiding the frequent use of Twitter/Facebook and other social media from tangential entities related to the show or network to fill these schedules out in a excessive manner. If it is an affirmed twitter from the broadcast station, that might be acceptable, but if it is an affirmed twitter from a show-runner, we probably can wait. --MASEM (t)
• Support inclusion as long as there is a reliable source stating something is in development for the network, and will air in the future. The hope is that these announced shows are not "upcoming" indefinitely (with very few issues regarding this), but if one should come up as being in developmental hell, then that warrants a separate discussion. But your general, run of the mill, shows for upcoming seasons (as Masem pointed) out are fine to be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are many countries and many cable channels that do not have a "season" when shows typically begin. And even where there is, how far in advance would you set the cut off line? How is the cut off line not arbitrary? How about "mid season replacements"? There is an easy and objective alternative appropriate for all places and occassions: the show is identified as being broadcast on the station at the time it is actually broadcast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y The way I see it, WP:CRYSTAL has this covered, and it makes no difference (as far as this question) whether the shows are listed in a *list or in a paragraph. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• N ({{neigh}}). I can't say I'm happy with including future films, but, for inclusion, we need, at the least, an independent WP:RS for actual existence and for WP:NOTABILITY. The first means more than that there is an independent reliable source that the press release exists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn’t CRYSTAL require this? (“… notable and almost certain to take place.”) The question assumes that CRYSTAL has been satisfied. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion

• There are entire categories of upcoming products that have the same basic guidelines. For the most relevant topic, see Category:Upcoming films that are well patrolled and meet WP's guidelines as far as promotion (and some of these, in the case of animation, are several years away from being released). Info on an upcoming television season (especially ones like reality shows that have frequent host/presenter/cast changes) are perfectly acceptable. But there are also many things on other unreleased products, such as books, cars, cell phones or software that have entire segments on their respective parent article, and including these sections is not considered "promotion." —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to verify if a show has commenced principal photography? We could use the same guideline as for WP:NFF on future shows. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Like the absurd ANI issue right now where Bollywood editors want to edit box office figures to the hour, that's too soon and even if photography has begun, a show or episode might not air because of some external issue. Only when an episode or series has been scheduled should it merit inclusion here. Nate • (chatter) 03:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23 I don't think we usually see the same announcements for TV series as we do for film. Doubt "principal photography" comes up much. Also, not all TV series are filmed. Some are animated, some are live, and so on. (I say, having run out of examples.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb amd Elizium23 Yes, it's actually not that hard to find out TV production has begun. Often it is mentioned that they are back on set in RS in articles or in interviews with cast or producers/directors, or articles showing filming. Or, for some shows that shoot on location, photos pop up online proving filming has begun, especially for popular shows [22].

...However, please keep in mind that this requirement for photography to have begun only concerns WP:NOTABILITY for films to have their own article. It is not a requirement at all for planned films to be mentioned elsewhere, especially as sequels. For example, Fast & Furious 8 and Toy Story 4 redirect to sections in the articles on their respective franchises. You can see this content is typically a concise summary of what has been reported in RS, and its only requirement is basic WP notability and RS.

I cannot see for the life of me why television should not follow this same standard for sections on the next season. Yes, there is always a lot of gossip about upcoming movies and shows, and WP should not be a collection of these rumors, but WP should have reliably sourced information containing relevant facts. It's relevant that there will be a Fast & Furious 8 and Toy Story 4. These are blockbuster film franchises that are highly notable and widely covered, and they have many RS about the basic details. It's not relevant however, that, say, there's a rumor somewhere that one of the guys from One Direction will be a judge on Britain's Got Talent next season. (I just started that rumor by the way.) For animated films, the notability requirement is that it's out of pre-production and production has begun with the final voice-over and animation. Due to the very lengthy process of animation production (South Park episodes excluded), this why you see articles on animated films available sooner.

And again, this notability requirement is only for new articles on films, not for sections. IMO, standalone articles on television seasons should not allowed unless it has already aired (or is a very notable show that is about to air in the next few days), or there is some rare reason they meet notability (for example, whenever they decide The Simpsons next season will be its last, I can see there being so much coverage about that season's content and production that it will meet notability very quickly. Wow I wrote a lot... Sorry for this essay! Anyway that is my input. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria- "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is one common selection criterion. Another is that each entry is verifiably a member of a set, such as upcoming TV series. (If the CSCs were universal requirements, they’d contradict each other.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Have we reached a consensus yet? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFCs run 30 days and are determined by policy not by number of votes -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, does anybody else think that the only reason for the Undue and Advertising tags was to get a rise out of us? I've decided that it's not worth it with TRPoD anymore. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: Please read, as you have been directed to a number of times, WP:AGF / WP:CIV / WP:NPA.

I have outlined a number of times how MANY different policies support my position. To claim that application of the policies is "to get a rise" is completely out of order. To set up "us" vs "them" is also inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: nobody except you has expressed any real problem with the future programming sections. You have already stated your point, yet you keep forcing it down other editors' throats. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

When people (keep) bringing up points that are countered by policy, it is perfectly acceptable to "push down their throats" the policies that counter their position. We do not count snouts, we weigh opinions and positions based on policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not the policies I'm talking about, it's the point you're making. You've made it numerous times. Stop being so damn pushy. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you are not talking about policies, which is generally an issue. -- TRPoD 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with TRPoD's position on the issue under RfC discussion but I strongly agree with TRPoD's position on the issue of Wikipedia rules in general. An entire posse of Wiki editors could be in agreement about something yet be in violation of some Wiki rule and if it takes one other editor to point that out, so be it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

RFC concerning Wikiproject Television

There's an RFC concerning Wikiproject Television here . Feel free to comment on it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 13:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:MundoFox network affiliates

Category:MundoFox network affiliates has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating TV shows

How should we disambiguate TV shows? For TV series, do we disambiguate by genre, such as "Another World (soap opera)" instead of "Another World (TV series)"? There's an ongoing RM at Talk:MariMar (Philippines TV series)#Requested move 20 August 2015 that discusses about this. (The original RM was on removing the CamelCase which is unanimously supported by everyone, until I pointed out that the disambiguation isn't the typical "TV series" that we all use.) –HTD 19:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost every disamb. tv show that I see uses "(TV series)", and if further disambiguation is needed, pre-pending the year ( eg Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series)) or the country of origin (The Apprentice (UK TV series) ) to the term. I'd think avoiding terms like "soap opera" or other genre-classifications would be wise as these may not be as well understood as "TV show" is. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... apparently, a great majority of Latin American telenovelas are disambiguated as "Foo (telenovela)", and not as "Foo (TV series)". Even non-Latin American "telenovelas" are slowly being moved to the "(telenovela)" disambiguator. See, for example, MariMar (2015 TV series) to MariMar (2015 telenovela) (just earlier this month). Is this a problem? Should we standardize to "(TV series)" or what? –HTD 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The RM discussion at Talk:MariMar (Philippines TV series) proposes moving MariMar (Philippines TV series) to Marimar (Philippine telenovela), when it should be MariMar (2007 TV series) per WP:NCTV. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this is what I've pointed out. In the first place it got weird when the disambiguator used "(telenovela)" which turned to be the preference of the one that started the RM. –HTD 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"TV series", or "TV programme" if it's from a country where that would be the more dialectically expected term, should always be the first choice of disambiguator whenever possible. Other criteria — such as year, country of origin and/or genre — are available as followup options if "TV series/programme" alone isn't sufficient because there's more than one distinct TV series in the dabmix, but the default should always be "TV series/programme" first, with the other options restricted to backup. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Lady Gaga videography

This is currently an FL candidate, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lady Gaga videography/archive1 20:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR for Apple TV

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --sst^flyer 14:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Music of Heroes

I proposed a merger of two articles. Comment there. --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Trivia in Strictly Come Dancing (series 13)

Apparently these articles just have to have a list of trivia--the celebrity participants must have a section outlining what they're known for. Besides trivial, it's also unverified--it's actually original research, in many cases, to say "person X is known for this or that" since we're talking about people who've done lots of things. The editor who edit-warred to keep that content in, Kiwi_Jaden, had little more to offer than a. the other articles have it and b. no it's not unsourced, we got it from their Wikipedia articles! There's some of that on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 13). I don't think other articles have this kind of redundant trivia. Your interest is appreciated! Drmies (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

the overwhelming fancruft in a lot of reality shows is widespread. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not use what the celebrities are known for as listed on the official strictly website? Each celebrity has a profession listed on their individual page. Here is the main celebrity page from the official website. It's a way to source the information and to avoid trivia. I think it's informative to have a brief (few word) explanation of who each celebrity is on the main page. Knope7 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about programming sources

If you guys lurk around the "list of programs broadcast by X" pages covered by the project, you may notice that sources for future programming are removed once they are moved to the "currently broadcast" section of the list. I am personally annoyed by this practice, because I feel that even though the sources say the program is upcoming, I believe that they should be kept just to prove the shows' premiere date. Does anybody else agree with my sentiments? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 10:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If the info is for the original network, referenced info about plans should be replaced by referenced info about what actually happened as things often don't go as planned. Generally the linked-to article about the show should have that info and it shouldn't be necessary to include references for it in a list article. If there is no linked article, it should have a reference. If it is not the original network... I am unhappy about the lack of references in general for reruns and syndication and it is very hard to verify. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I recently found out that you can archive web pages yourself via the Internet Archive's WayBack Machine. If the upcoming show is a re-run, one can just save a TV schedule page on the Archive and then use that as a reference. I honestly wish I had thought of that months ago. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Wow, I never actually noticed that! I've been using WebCitation, but it sometimes messes with the layout of a page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Land of Gorch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Land of Gorch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land of Gorch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead heading at the Emily Kinney article and other actor articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emily Kinney#The Walking Dead heading. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television being phased out?

An IP (47.54.210.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is moving all TV series articles out of various subcategories and up into Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television. Is there consensus to recategorize this way? —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No, looks like an individual decided to recategorize on own volition. Serves no purpose. Also some of those subcategories being emptied appropriately belong to other supercategories and moving them up to just the one removes them from the others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting a birth name parameter?

I think a birth name parameter for the {{Infobox character}} template would be very helpful. There are a lot of characters who have changed their names from Quinn Perkins on Scandal, to Lucious Lyon on Empire. There has been come confusion with the full name parameter with editors using it for birth names. However, just like the alias parameter, a birth name would not be considered a full name because one's legal full name would be whatever name they have legally chosen. Another solution might be to just change the alias parameter to "other names" which was done for the {{Infobox soap character}} template a while ago to clear up the confusion about what names could be included. With "other names", the birth names can be included, but if one wants to be more specific, a "birth name" parameter would work very well.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Doc McStuffins

Thoughts solicited at Talk:Doc McStuffins. Discussion about whether or not we should use the parenthetical phrasing "(thought by some to be named Dottie)" in the premise intro sentence: "The series chronicles an African-American girl named "Doc" McStuffins (thought by some to be named Dottie)" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Starlog on Archive.org

I noticed recently that Starlog has most of its print backissues on Archive.org, found under a creator search for "The Starlog Group". I'm not sure if this is already known information, but I thought perhaps it'd be useful to those editing science fiction related articles and perhaps had difficulty securing a copy of an issue for an article. Anyway, just noting. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings archive

Does anyone have anything which lists the rankings for overall Nielsen ratings in the United States for the 2003/4 season? Sadly while I have the answers I need, I can't cite them as ABC Medianet died and sadly the url wasn't archived anywhere. Miyagawa (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Working on early 90s TV shows like Twin Peaks or Millennium, I found that there tended to be Associated Press stories in a lot of smaller newspapers which carried them week to week, but we're talking the 1991–1997 kind of range. But I would be surprised if the trend had stopped entirely. If you have Highbeam access, that was where I turned up quite a lot; if not, maybe WP:RX could help with it. GRAPPLE ^X 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I got lucky on Highbeam with the following season, and found an earlier one on USA Today. It just seems that the 2003/4 one eludes me. I'll keep looking. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming this year range is too early for TV By The Numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly the overall ranking for the year on TV By the Numbers doesn't go up high enough - it only does the top 100 from what I recall. I'm working on overhauling the Star Trek: Enterprise article in userspace at the moment (located here if anyone wants to throw some feedback at me on my talk page!) and from the old ABC Medianet numbers, it was ranked a rather dreadful #178 in 2003/4. Miyagawa (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

SD/480i in infobox...is it needed any longer?

We've pretty much reached the point where only a few new shows (mostly infomercials and religious shows, along with public access programming and series purposefully doing so) are fully aired in standard definition, and at this point, filling in a new series article in 2015 and having to add "*480i (SDTV)" to the "picture_format" field in Infobox:television seems like an artifact we don't really need any longer. Don't get me wrong; there are still people watching in standard def with some kind of converter hardware hooked up to an analog set, be it over-the-air or with a paid service. But now that Mexico is completing their transition by the end of the year and eventually networks forcing 16:9 framing, it just feels like a line that's no longer needed with North American shows. Anyone else agree, or should it remain for consistency? Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The instructions for |picture_format= state that the field should be populated with the video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast, and 480i should therefore remain in the field where it was "the video or film format in which the show was originally recorded or broadcast". Anyone adding "*480i (SDTV)" should be directed to the infobox instructions, because they specifically say Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)