Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 39

Presidents of CBS Entertainment conflicting information

Hello. I notice that the presidents of CBS at CBS#Presidents of CBS Entertainment has conflicting information when compared to Template:Presidents of CBS Entertainment. According to the main article, Arthur Judson was president from 1927–1928, Frank Stanton from 1946–1971, Arthur R. Taylor from 1972–1976 and John Backe from 1976–1980. However, the template says Hubbell Robinson was president from 1947-1959, 1962-1963, Lee Currlin from 1975-1977 and Robert A. Daly from 1977-1980. Some names in the template do not appear in the main article and vice versa. I was wondering why there's a conflict of information between these years. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Running time in the Infobox?

I have two questions about the running time of episodes.

Question 1. The running time in the Infobox. Does it pertain to the running time with commercials, or the running time without commercials that may be indicated in sources like Amazon? I ask because an editor recently added the running time without commercials to the Infobox to two articles on hour-long episodes of South Park, and cited Amazon as their source, and removed mention from the Lead section of those articles, that they are "hour-long" episodes", and removed the two citations of secondary sources that supported that.

Question 2 If an episode is billed in marketing/advertising as a hour-long episode, and sources support this, should it not be indicate as such in the article text, as in the Lead? Or should that be removed in favor of the "without commercials" running time? Nightscream (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is without commercials. Otherwise, most runtimes would simply be half-hour or one hour. —El Millo (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hour-long is a format as opposed to half-hour. We'd need a source that actually lists the runtime as one hour. —El Millo (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: And regarding Question 2? Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Runtime is always without commercials. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: And regarding Question 2? Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the half-hour long or hour-long episode info is not on the lead. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, without commercials, but including credits at the end and any recap-type material at the beginning. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Runtime is always without commercials (so it you see "30 minutes" or "1 hour" in the Infobox, you can simply remove it) – for many series, you can get accurate runtimes by looking at the episodes on a streamer like Netflix or Hulu... In general, we have not indicated "30-minute" vs. "1-hour" episode format in the ledes, though that is maybe worth having a discussion about – in general, at least for U.S. TV, "sitcom"=30-minutes and "drama"=1-hour, so it's sort of implied, but there are exceptions, and for at least the "exceptions" "30-minute" vs. "1-hour" episode format should probably be indicated in the ledes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: And regarding Question 2? Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine to call it "hour-long" in the article if needed for whatever reason. IJBall gives a good response above about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Contributions welcome here

Since this WikiProject is featured in Template:RuPaul's Drag Race, I invite the members to partecipate in this discussion: RuPaul's Drag Race#Template edit suggestion. Thank you 92.28.190.117 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Cable Ratings

Looks like ShowbuzzDaily is back. kpgamingz (rant me) 17:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's great news! They are no longer posting preliminary broadcast network ratings as well. Preliminary broadcast network ratings are useless anyway as we only use final ratings. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though we won't get ratings from May to now, its still great to have them back. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Episode list titles

The convention for episode list titles has always been "List of <Foo> episodes". When it was necessary to split List of Casualty episodes because it was so large that it broke the post expand include size, the title of the first sub-page "List of Casualty episodes*" caused quite a deal of concern resulting in a huge RM discussion at what is now Talk:List of Casualty episodes (series 1–20). This resulted in no change to the existing convention, with sub pages now at "List of <Foo> episodes (seasons/series a-x)". I've just discovered a number of move discussions at Talk:List of Saturday Night Live episodes#Requested move 12 July 2021, Talk:List of Chopped episodes#Requested move 12 July 2021, Talk:List of Casualty episodes#Requested move 12 July 2021, Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#Requested move 11 July 2021, Talk:List of Survivor (American TV series) episodes#Requested move 12 July 2021 and Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes (there may be more) that seek to move the main LoE pages to "List of <Foo> episodes (seasons 7-present)" which is out of line with the existing convention. I have voted in the move discussions. My intention is not to convass, but to bring this to the attention of the TV community at large. I'm unable to dedicate too much time to this as I'm busy with cancer treatments. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Blubabluba9990, Gonnym, Necrothesp, IJBall, Adumbrativus, Zzyzx11, Lugnuts, Nohomersryan, Scratchu90, ApprenticeFan, and DevonteHuntley: all participants in these discussions. These RMs should probably wait until the issue is discussed here, and then this discussion could be applied to them all perhaps without even the need of an RM. —El Millo (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've left a note at each of the known RMs noting this discussion. Any close of these RMs needs to be by an anuinvolved editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they should be closed by an un-involved editor, but "this RM should be halted until the discussion [...] concludes with an appropriate outcome"? They should absolutely not be halted, regardless of it the outcome of them is what you want or not. It'll be an un-involved editor that determines if any of this is "appropriate" or not. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say, regardless of the merits of moving or not, there should at least be redirects at, for example, List of Survivor (American TV series) episodes (season 21–present) if they are not moved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if casual readers would be helped by this but why not? Redirects are cheap. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The solution that is proposed by AussieLegend is logical and makes sense - someone looking for a list of episodes (even for an older season) will likely end up on that article via the natural search and as they are structured, can easily navigate to an earlier season. It also has the property of "gracefully failing" as a show continues running and a new separate article is needed - there's no need to change that main landing article. The precision-in-title arguements against this seem to be off the mark since there's far more utility in this approach and technically is not also wrong. --Masem (t) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the RM nominator. The titles currently used are bad and should be changed. Lists of Doctor Who episodes works well as a landing page, while pages like List of The Simpsons episodes have much more info, which makes finding the link to the correct list page more time consuming. Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Gonnym and the RM nominator(s). If the "season A-B" article is disambiguated, then so should related articles, such as the "season C-present" article. An article's title should be the clearest indicator that reflects the content of the article: "List of X episodes" indicates that all episodes are listed on the article, but "List of X episodes (season C-present)" indicates that only a set number of episodes are listed on the article and that the rest are at a related article. I'll be voting to support the above RM's, with the same reasoning I've listed here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The idea of landing pages was discussed in the past and it never went anywhere because it adds a layer of complexity for readers. It works for Doctor Who because of the "unique" situation with that program and I agree with it. As it is now, regardless of the program, reader clicks link to LoE in main article. Reader wants specific season so clicks on season link in series overview table or the long bar menu that a lot of programs have (see List of The Simpsons episodes) and they're straight at the season they wanted. Overall, that's much easier on our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

To address Gonymm's point, pages like List of organisms named after famous people just have a link to both of the pages. In fact, this is not uncommon. There are several pages with "lists of x", in fact we have a page called List of lists of lists. So why not have the episode lists be something similar. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The current situation provides almost seamless navigation, which makes it very easy when jumping between seasons. The example that you've quoted does not need this. TV programs usually do. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The full splits make sense to me, but we can still use the List of episodes as more than just brief redirects, e.g. transclude the series overview tables directly there, leave their current lede paragraphs, etc. And we shouldn't worry too much, as this only affects a handful of shows. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedical. It seems like people are getting more worked up about this than necessary. Not a lot of the episode lists have been split in half. Also, it wouldn't be inconsistent since other articles that have been split in half contain the same naming scheme. For example, List of organisms named after famous people was split into List of organisms named after famous people (born before 1900) and List of organisms named after famous people (born 1900–present) and the original page remains as a sort of redirect to both of the split versions. Perhaps the episode lists can be organized in a similar manner, such as "Lists of x episodes" with each list linked, which is what was done with the movie lists. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wikipedical:

• transclude the series overview tables directly there, leave their current lede paragraphs, etc. - That's what we do now, but we've tried to minimise the number of articles created.
• we shouldn't worry too much, as this only affects a handful of shows. - Only 2 years ago it affected only 2 or 3 but a lot more have been identified and split. Fortunately, COVID-19 slowed it down last year but this will affect many more programs as time goes on. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @AussieLegend: Currently, we don't transclude the series overview tables to the List of episodes pages because the LoE is where the series overview table lives. I'm suggesting that if we fully split the LoE pages, the series overview tables can live in the split pages and we can transclude both/all to the full LoE disambiguation pages. Yes, there would be some work to do, but the present status quo is still odd, as noted by the other editors. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• True, currently we transclude from the LoE page to other pages, and there's no reason to change that. Doing so just adds complexity and would make extremely large episode lists more confusing. The current scheme makes it a lot easier for editors and readers alike. I'm concerned that anyone claiming that the present status quo is still odd doesn't really understand episode lists, especially the technicalities of Labelled section transclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the concerns, but I'm not uninformed here. I just disagree with you on this issue. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990: - As I already pointed out above The current situation provides almost seamless navigation, which makes it very easy when jumping between seasons. The example that you've quoted does not need this. TV programs usually do. --AussieLegend (✉)

However, other split pages actually do that just fine, like the lists of Nintendo switch games, which have a way to jump from each letter even when it is not on the page. Also, it is not really all that necessary when you can just visit the intended page. Also, for many shows, each season has its own page. Also, something similar is actually done on List of deaths due to COVID–19, where each month is listed in a specific table. So we can do something like that with the episode lists. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I am suggesting. This ONLY affects the titles of each page, and does not affect navigation. Changing the name of the page's names that I have suggested does not affect the readability of the pages nor does it affect navigation. The same logic is used with wiki skins: Changing from Vector to Monobook will not affect readability, navigation, or underlying software, it will just make the page look a bit different. And a name change is an even more minimal change. The only issue that I could see arising is redirects, though those could easily be fixed, since there are not that many pages that have this issue being discussed. Many of the other split pages have proper names and still work just fine. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

What you are proposing means changing a small number of articles to be inconsistent with thousands of others, because of a misconception about what article titles indicate. That requires wide consensus and I don't see that. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Other open RMs not mentioned at the top are Talk:List_of_Cops_episodes#Requested_move_12_July_2021 and Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_episodes#Requested_move_12_July_2021. I don't have a strong opinion on the best solution here, but Blubablubla, I really wish you had started a single discussion about these rather than individual RMs for each list article. We're seeing the same arguments taking place in parallel across 7 different discussions. And it would be unfortunate if these end up with inconsistent titles at the end of this because different closers read consensus differently (or because different RMs attracted different sets of participants). Colin M (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My $0.02 on this: The "best" solution is to have the base LoE articles transclude both of the "child" LoE articles (e.g. "(seasons 1–20)" and "(season 21–present)") (because the best solution is to have all of the episodes lists at the "base" title, not just a portion of the episode list there with the rest transcluded), but I gather there are technical limitations that prevent that. If so, then the "next best" solution is to have the "(seasons 1–20)" portion of the episodes list placed at the "base" LoE title, and transclude the "(season 21–present)" "child" article to that. If technical limitations prevent that, then maybe we really need to get rid of the idea of a "centralized" LoE article, and just have two separate "(seasons 1–20)" and "(season 21–present)" LoE articles (and maybe have the "base" LoE title redirect back to the parent TV series article). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The entire point of splitting the LoE page was that you can't transclude all of the episodes to the one page because it breaks the post-expand include size limit.

the "next best" solution is to have the "(seasons 1–20)" portion of the episodes list placed at the "base" LoE title, and transclude the "(season 21–present)" "child" article to that. - Again, this breaks the post-expand include size limit. Even if it didn't, the early seasons were moved to a separate page because they are essentially complete and don't need further editing, while the later seasons need to be updated on a regular basis if the program is airing, meaning the editors only need to go to the LoE page to edit.

maybe we really need to get rid of the idea of a "centralized" LoE article, and just have two separate "(seasons 1–20)" and "(season 21–present)" LoE articles - We've always had a centralised LoE page. Numbering pages "seasons 1-20" straight out of the gate doesn't work for several reasons. Many TV programs never make it to 20 seasons and even those that do don't necessarily need to be split at 20 seasons. Constantly renaming pages to suit the current situation just adds complexity. The current system is really the easies, both for editors and readers.

maybe have the "base" LoE title redirect back to the parent TV series article - that makes no sense. When a reader clicks on the LoE link in {{infobox television}} it goes to the base LoE page in the vast majority of cases.

In Australia we round down $0.02 to $0.00. We learned long ago that 2 cents is really worth nothing. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• • To reply to Colin M, since there were 7 pages to be moved I had to do 7 separate requests. At the time I did not think to post a discussion on this talk page, as first I had just made the request for List of The Simpsons episodes, then I was informed of two more pages, so then I looked and found all of the other pages that needed to be moved. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Blubabluba9990: For future reference, you can actually package multiple related page move requests into one discussion. See WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves. Here's an example. Colin M (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Ok. I was unaware of that at the time I made these requests. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed that people want to change a system that has worked well for many years, just because one person misundertood an LoE title. I almost wish the cancer takes me soon. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As unfortunate as they are, please keep your personal issues out of Wikipedia; your personal attacks and snide remarks about others' opinions are not collaborative. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

They're not personal attacks, they're a statement on the sad inability of some to make mountains out of molehills and misunderstand as well as go completely against long-standing practices and even the MoS. It's ruining Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉)

Closing time

Having read this discussion and the RMs (mostly with the same participants), I think there is general consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles (notwithstanding AussieLegend's legitimate opposition). I'm about to close those RMs and move the pages, but I do not feel like creating summary pages at the base titles; instead, I will leave them as redirects to the list of last seasons for the time being. Perhaps that would even be an optimal solution for navigation (per Masem's concerns), but I'll leave that to the Wikiproject's decision. No such user (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC re: Ronan Farrow reporting at NBC News

There is an RfC at Talk:NBC News#Request for Comment NBC News Farrow Reporting that members of this project may be interested in. Please note I am a paid consultant to NBC News. BC1278 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Queerbaiting examples list

Input would be useful at Talk:Queerbaiting#Examples section lacks credibility, as would anyone willing to edit the queerbaiting article itself and excise the WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That has the potential to get into people discussing the issue rather than the coverage of it, and I want no part of that, but the first thing is they need to work out what definition of queerbaiting they're going with. There's some straight characters who had intimate friendships, some gay characters that just never got to have a relationship, and some gay characters that had an intimate friendship with straight characters as well as a gay relationship. So the current definition for selection seems to be "fans were upset their ship didn't date and call it queerbaiting"... That is to say I'd trash it all. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, with a lot of articles, you need to define the WP:SCOPE first, and go from there. And in the case of a subject like this, I would definitely go with whatever the WP:DUE definition of what "queerbaiting" is first, before proceeding... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree. All and none of those are queerbaiting depending on the specific example. The problem here is that you need multiple, good-quality (not just minimally reliable) sources to show appropriateness of labelling it a (possible) example of queerbaiting in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, it's better to give attribution and a basic summary of the argument for it being queerbaiting, and whether that's been disputed by either other fans or people who worked on the show. Rather than fans thinking it's queerbaiting, we need experts to. — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The more we accept "it is queerbaiting if someone says it is", which is what you're advocating, then the less it can be considered a real phenomenon I would say. It keeps getting diluted to be defined on opinion. For that whole article, as other theories of media, academic sources should be preferred. But when it comes to pop culture reaction, other sources are often necessary. But hopefully, vetting will happen. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is inherently opinion, to be honest. It's more like writing List of films considered the worst (summary of expert opinion, no rigorous typography) than Dawson casting (objectively defined). Maybe we can still agree that there is queerbaiting/"a worst film", and we agree on lots of the conditions in the cluster property of queerbaiting/"worst film", but we can't always agree on an exact list. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is why I am saying defining the WP:SCOPE first is important – if something is defined as "queerbaiting" in some reliable sources, but is outside the definition established in the article's scope, then it can still be excluded from the article on the basis that it is "out of scope". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup. The current definition calls it a marketing technique, but the sources being used for the list are all over the place in terms of criteria. Kingsif nailed it that a lot of the stuff around this topic is fans being mad their ship didn't come true. One or two of them writing about it in some minor outlet does not WP:DUE make. I also agree with Bilorv that any examples should have multiple really good sources covering it. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried removing what doesn't qualify based on comments here and at the talk page but was reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles that don't meet notability standards

Recently, I was going around to some articles for new summer 2021 US TV series, and I have to agree with IJBall, who has tagged some of these articles, that a lot don't meet notability standards. I don't know why articles are being created with a couple sentences (sourced to a press release) and a ratings table. Examples like this are The Ultimate Surfer, House Calls with Dr. Phil, and Superstar. Clearly there is not significant independent coverage. Ultimately these shows are just summer filler. We need to recognize that some shows just do not receive the coverage to warrant an article. Heartfox (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What does it say that I read the header and immediately thought it was going to be about episode articles. LOL Yeah, ALL articles have to start with the GNG. So, if they fail it then you can look at possible merger locations. I imagine that House Calls could easily just be merged to Dr. Phil's article until it becomes notable enough to warrant a separate page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem in my mind is that WP:TVSHOW still implies "airs nationally = notable!!1!", but that has never been universally true, and it is less true with every passing year. We really do need to revise WP:TVSHOW, as per recent discussions, to make it about WP:GNG first, and everything else second. But, yeah – a "documentary" program like Superstar is the kind of show that is unlikely to ever meet WP:GNG (even if it airs for multiple seasons...)... Of course, the other problem being that too many editors do not understand WP:EXIST. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It does say "likely" and not "automatically". But, I think that wasn't meant to imply that it would be notable because it airs nationally, but more that it is more likely that you'll find enough information to show notability if it airs nationally (more eyes means more thoughts and more thoughts means more coverage and more coverage means more third-party sources). That's probably just some better wording needed on that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If we just want to bite the bullet, I think we can just start an RfC for Wikipedia:Notability (television) to get what's there accepted, then we can continue to fine tune. But I think it's high time we did that. Maybe I'll give this discussion a few days and start that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Style for designating seasons and episode numbers

Does Wikipedia have a style guideline for consistent indication of season and episode number for an episode of a TV show? As I look at biographies, I see a variety of styles. For example, Barbara Feldon alone contains:

• "season one, episode 24"
• "Season 3, Episode 17 (1970)" and
• "S9, EP 19"

I have not seen anything in the Manual of Style about this topic, but I might just have missed it. I am hoping that someone here can point me to a guideline. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no guideline or apparent consensus over this. Personally, I believe it should be in prose form: "the third episode of the second season", etc. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In Filmographies, that information should never be included: just the episode title or titles (where applicable) – if desired a link to the episode article, or a link to the episode listing in the LoE episode table, can be used in lieu of listing specific "episode number/season" info. In prose, I also think this kind of information is extraneous/WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and should not be included – again, only the episode title should be put into prose (with a link to the episode article, or LoE table, if desired). Now, in the case of TV programs that do not title their episodes?... Then I would go with something like "...the twenty-fourth episode of the first season of..." or "...the seventeenth episode of the third season of..." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex 21 and IJBall. I neglected to include in my post that the examples that I listed are from the article's text. I agree with IJBall's comment about that kind of information's being extraneous in prose. I think it detracts from an article. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Have to consider the problem of American and British formatting of TV series; therefore I would think S9, Ep 19 would avoid any problems of season and series confusion. Prose is just too long winded especially if appearing in more than one episode in diferent Season/Series.REVUpminster (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"S9, Ep 19" is too arbitrary and not at all the formal tone for an encyclopedia. British formatting would just require "the third episode of the second series", that's it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Are we talking about when we're writing prose? If so, then you would never say "S9, ep 20", or even "season 9, episode 9", because you would follow basic grammar rules for writing numbers. In the example you listed: "She played Lauren Hudson, Sam Malone's annual Valentine’s Day love interest in the 1991 Cheers episode "Sam Time Next Year" (S9, EP 19)." ---> The last part should just be removed. If you need to, you can say, "...in the season nine Cheers episode, "Sam Time Next Year"." 13:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with a couple Drag Race-related lists?

Are any project members interested in creating List of Drag Race Thailand episodes and/or List of The Switch Drag Race episodes? I'm not very familiar with how the tables are created/transcluded/etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, related, WikiProject Television members are invited to discuss proposed changes to Template:RuPaul's Drag Race, which covers the entire Drag Race franchise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The Mash Report naming

The Mash Report continued last night on a new channel under a new name, Late Night Mash, but it's formally a continuation of the series. Should we have a separate article for Late Night Mash, and if we don't should the article be renamed Late Night Mash? Can anyone point to relevant precedent? — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say "No" on the first question (certainly, "Not yet"), and "Wait" on the second – at this point, I would think the former title is still the WP:COMMONNAME. I would create a redirect at Late Night Mash, though. The closest comparison would be something like The Soup or The Late Show (franchise), etc., IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples and the opinion. I was also thinking we shouldn't be making separate articles yet. For what it's worth, Abdul Muhammad1 has just moved it to Late Night Mash and I won't move war, but I'd like the discussion to continue. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it back: WP:OFFICIALNAME applies, and there should be a WP:RM about this if there's a desire to move it. In general, I am not keen on moving a show that has been known by one title for several years/series to the title of a "new" (limited-run?) series. At the least, it should be discussed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking by "limited-run", but the series on Dave will be 8 episodes, whereas the BBC's first was 10 and the other three were 6. This is a UK programme, so 8 is longer than a normal series. — Bilorv (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that, right now, it's one series under the "new name" vs. four under the old. The old title will remain the common name unless the new version gets at least another series, and is more than a "one-off". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thai TV awards

A few users have been actively populating Awards sections on Thai TV show articles. Some of these awards, however, I don't think warrant inclusion. The top five Thai television awards are the Mekhala, TV Gold, Kom Chad Luek, Nine Entertain, and Nataraja, according to this Isra News column[1], and there seems to be general agreement on these five being the major ones, based on what I could glean from online discussion forums. None of them currently have articles on Enwiki, but this is more attributable to lack of editor interest, not lack of notability (all of them have articles on the Thai Wikipedia).

It's not directly addressed by WP:MOSTV, but I think having some kind of definition of what constitutes a major award, to be allowed in awards lists, is in line with current practice. I would like to therefore suggest that only the five aforementioned Thai awards should generally be included in Awards tables in television show articles, where relevant. Conversely, I'd suggest removing other entries, which can be considered minor awards.

Thoughts? Pinging ChanonMH10, who made most of the edits that I've come across. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The current rule is simply that the award needs an article on any language Wikipedia (it can be interlanguage linked if no enwiki, obviously enwiki preferred). So, there's nothing we need to do here. Add ILL's to the awards being added, and if any other awards don't have any Wikipedia articles, remove them.
But don't go removing them if the award has an article, even if you think it's too minor for inclusion; you could try to argue UNDUE/INDISCRIMINATE, but since there is policy would probably get denied, or even try to AfD the article on the award you think is too minor. Kingsif (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There are some "awards" (such as Line TV Awards, itself a promotional event self-organised by the platform) which consist entirely of popular votes. Are there any guidelines or common practice on these? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion at I believe ITN, about how many Indian awards are self-promotional. But that's about their importance compared to all other film/TV awards. As far as general practice goes, the Teen Choice Awards and similar are American awards that are based on popular vote, there are audience awards at most if not all film festivals; the self-promotional ones are perhaps supported less on WP but still exist with enough independent coverage. Line TV has that, as far as I can tell. Kingsif (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add that an award probably doesn't need to have an article about it, but if it doesn't have an article, it should have reliable secondary sources covering it. For instance, I included the NAMIC Vision Awards at List of awards and nominations received by The Wire, which recently passed FLC. The awards don't have an article, but they do have external coverage in reliable sources (for instance, this Variety article is cited in the list). In other words, if the awards don't have an article, there should be enough secondary sources that someone could write an article about it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with fake articles

User:Wikibrown2 and User:Wikigod8 are creating or editing existing articles and adding huge amount of fake information, to the point that I can't tell what part of the article is even real. Please take a look at Tex Brown (I've nominated In The End (TV series) for deletion as that seems 100% fake). Gonnym (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV and/or WP:SPI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Arghh, I should have caught this in July when I twice declined Draft:Tex Brown (Season 1) at AFC. I can't find any evidence that Tex Brown is real so I've asked for G3'ing of that too. For instance, its CNET source doesn't mention the show and none of the other references look like they will from their titles. Out of an abundance of caution, I am not clicking on the first link and actually removing it because the URL looks like a phishing/virus-ridden/dodgy site posing as Netflix. All of the major contributors to the article except those two and the creator is blocked as a Jmaxwell10 sock so I'm bringing this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmaxwell10. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that List of fictional librarians be merged into Libraries and librarians in fiction. Seeking your feedback at Talk:List of fictional librarians#Merger proposal. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to protect Wikipedia page on Indian Television show "Kaatelal & Sons"

I would like to Request to protect Wikipedia page on Indian Television show "Kaatelal & Sons" as the view history shows a lot of attempts of Vandalism wherein genuine references previously cited by editors were removed by a group of people for their own benefit. Information regarding an actor from the cast (Paras Arora) was also removed from the page which was later retrieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivasug (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wikivasug, I've submitted a request at WP:RPP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthiness of Real Housewives opening credits taglines

Should Real Housewives taglines be included in season articles? Example of what this might look like.

This has been the subject of a lot of back-and-forth edits spread over a large number of articles.

Those removing this content from articles have cited MOS:TV#Taglines or WP:NOTADVERTISING. However, I think this is based on a misunderstanding of the function of taglines in the RH franchise. Housewives "taglines" are not "taglines" in the sense of the advertising slogans mentioned in MOS:TV (or the ones listed at Tagline#Examples). Rather than being external marketing materials, they are a part of the show proper, as a part of each season's opening credits. Moreover, they are a highly recognizable feature of the franchise, and are the subject of significant commentary in RS. The closest analogy is probably The Simpsons' "couch gags", which are included in the infoboxes of articles on individual episodes (example) - the main difference is that Housewives taglines are constant across a season, rather than varying from episode to episode.

Pinging in editors who I've seen adding (@Kelege and Livelikemusic:) or removing (@Hotwiki and Onel5969:) taglines from these articles, in case they wish to chime in. Colin M (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, thanks for the ping. I don't remember removing the tags, but if I did it was not simply because they were tag lines. I might have removed them if they were uncited, or they were part of a larger edit issue. Personally I think tag lines are un-encyclopedic (unless they become iconic). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a couple years ago on The Real Housewives of Potomac (season 4), specifically Special:Diff/910780145 and Special:Diff/910817129. Colin M (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Programming Insider

I'm currently working on an FAC, and one of the reviewers is asking about the reliability of Programming Insider. I know the general consensus is that the website is reliable, but I've never seen any explanation as to why that is in any of the discussion pages I could find. Could someone explain what makes the website reliable? Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone and have never even participated in these discussions but Programming Insider appears to have been cited by Adweek ([2][3]), which in turn has cited by Nielsen (well, these are its readers' choice awards though...), ViacomCBS, National Geographic Partners, Bloomberg, etc. On the other hand, CBS News said it was "badly managed [...] in the late 1990s" and also apparently used to lack credibility and be a gossip site. So I think Programming Insider's reliability might depend on Adweek's unless we can find other RSes citing it. Pamzeis (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

AFD for Riding High (1995, TV series)

Can we have some experienced eyes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riding High (1995, TV series), please? I'm not going to lose sleep over whether the article is kept or not, but I'd like to see some participation and analysis of whether or not it meets GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Attribution of first-run streaming providers when simulcasting?

I've noticed that the page for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards attributes the telecast as being "on CBS and Paramount+", as it is being simulcast on a streaming platform. Is this appropriate verbage or should only the linear broadcaster be named? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Derry Girls episodes

Somebody wanna explain to me how a 12-episode series (which will likely only get to 18–20 episodes with its third and final series) has a standalone episodes list?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

For a serious answer, I assume the episode boxes are all filled out and the main article is either very long or full of other tables already? Kingsif (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

IMO, it is not. IOW, this LoE split-out is totally unjustified here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This goes against MOS:TVSPLIT and should be merged back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge has happened. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Likely because the article was created before TVSPLIT was implemented into our MOS (only days before, actually), likely based on the previous (and now outdated) idea of two-seasons-and-split that editors used to run by frequently. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR - Characters of Carnivalé

I have nominated Characters of Carnivàle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Mjroots (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about James Morton (baker)

I started the merger/redirect proposal on James Morton (baker) at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists. --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Help! Re: Drag Race

RuPaul's Drag Race (the original series in the U.S.) has seen many spin-offs. Can project members help determine if Category:RuPaul's Drag Race should actually be a subcategory of something like Category:Drag Race (franchise)?

I should note, I just created Category:Drag Race (franchise) templates as a catch-all for Drag Race-related templates. Perhaps the article and category structure should follow shows like Big Brother? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I should also note, Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race has seen recent discussion re: whether or not the template should be renamed Template:Drag Race (franchise) and re-organized to focus less on the U.S. Participation welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hypable as a reliable source

I searched the talk page archives but got no results. Checked the Perennial sources archives as well but found no previous discussion, so I'd like to get opinions on Hypable. A search on WP says there's 395 uses of it as a source so not a lot in the grander scheme of things. This is their About section (linking Google cache of the page just in case the website is down). The staff bios don't indicate any particular professional qualifications in journalism or writing (except for 1 person I think), and that, combined w what minimal outside coverage I could find (Google search for "Hypable website") of the site (an OC Register piece on its founder, a mention in an ABC piece on the HP fandom, a UK Times piece about JK Rowling calling them out for publishing a "leak"), leaves me w the impression that it is nothing more than a glorified fan blog for lack of a better term, but perhaps others may feel differently. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It does get insider scoop, like other smaller media sites like Moviefone. Hypable wouldn't be my first choice, because of the relative obscurity, but its articles are reliable. While the staff writers don't list credentials, it has staff writers, which is WP's requirement for editorial oversight. So, it passes RS for me. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice for establishing Wikipedia:Notability (television) as a guideline

This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

List of longest-running American cable television series

This article needs some tender loving care; it looks like it really hasn't been updated since 2014, and though some automation through template transclusion has helped, there are a few other things that need to be addressed, such as the use of 'seasons' for reality shows that somehow has made them appear to have run longer than shows which started in the 70s; I reverted a couple of obvious cases like Chopped and The Ultimate Fighter, but there's still a lot of dates which need updating. Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter

Hello, WikiProject TV,

We generally don't retain empty categories unless they are category redirects, disambiguation categories, categories being discusses at WP:CFD or WikiProject categories so I'm just inquiring of the purpose of this category and if you anticipated it staying empty or if this is a temporary blip. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't even look like {{Infobox television}} has anything to trigger this. A G8 may be advisable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of Carnivàle episodes for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions for awards list

Recently, I've noticed several TV shows with awards lists titled "List of accolades received by X" (e.g., List of accolades received by The Mandalorian and List of accolades received by WandaVision). However, while this seems to be the standard format for Category:Lists of accolades by film, this isn't the standard for Category:Lists of awards by television series, which instead prefers "List of awards and nominations received by X". Category:Lists of awards received by actor also seems to use "List of awards and nominations received by X".

Two questions:

1. Is there a reason for the distinction between the two naming formats?
2. Should we establish a standard naming format for TV awards lists?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: The Next Step (2013 TV series) → The Next Step (Canadian TV series) (and one similar)

An editor has requested for The Next Step (2013 TV series) to be moved to The Next Step (Canadian TV series). Since you had some involvement with The Next Step (2013 TV series), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

An editor has requested for The Next Step (1991 TV series) to be moved to The Next Step (American TV program). Since you had some involvement with The Next Step (1991 TV series), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

Havelock Jones (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for relisting that. And it definitely could use more involvement, especially editors who are familiar with or willing to look at the results of previous similar RM's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

'Cartoonlounge' reliability?

Wanting to get thoughts regarding this website...

A user in an article is attempting to use this website to source an international airing of episodes of a show, but I'm doubting the reliability of this site. Don't see any sort of 'About us' page, the 'best' information would just be the copyright at the bottom of the article. Also, the website linking a fan petition (the link regarding It's Pony) makes me moreso believe this is some sort of fan-created site.

Either way, any thoughts on this? Magitroopa (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback needed at Talk:Blade of the Immortal (2019 TV series)#TV series or season

I would appreciate feedback on a situation over at Blade of the Immortal (2019 TV series) and Blade of the Immortal (2008 TV series). I've started a discussion at Talk:Blade of the Immortal (2019 TV series)#TV series or season, but the gist of it is, the article represent themselves as "TV series" but the infobox uses the season infobox (which I have a feeling is used only for the color option). Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The plane, the plane

The article on "Ze plane! Ze plane!" is misnamed. None of the sources call it that, and it's obviously wrong if you listen to the show's opening. I would just go ahead and move it, but sources differ on whether it's "The" or "De". Please weigh in on the talk page. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Television resolutions being removed from articles

Suddenly noticing that because they're 'not verifiable', editors like @Geraldo Perez: are removing the broadcast resolutions out of all television series articles, even though the resolutions for every television network are publicly available and very easily verifiable through the most basic of means (checking 'info' on your television set or even the upload format of their YouTube promos which generally shares their TV format...oh, and our own article confirming each network's format), networks can't change resolutions at random (you won't find a network airing in 1080i airing something else in 720p randomly), and the sources for series such as Scandal do list their original resolution in their press releases. I feel like I stirred this hornet's nest to begin with a few months earlier by reverting another editor who tried to start a lame edit war about Nickelodeon's broadcast resolution (and apologize that I even tried to do so). Asking for clarification, because this feels like something easily resolved, and just feels like a group of editors needing something to do rather than improving actual article content. Nate • (chatter) 04:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no – this is a lot more complicated then you are making it out to be, with IP editors spamming many articles with junk resolution content for up to a decade. For example, how many articles list garbage like "[[1080i]] [[HDTV]]<br/>[[480i]] [[SDTV]]"?! – obviously, it's a joke that a series would be simultaneously broadcast in two totally different resolutions like this! (Oh, and it's entered wrong as per the template docs anyway!) For any show in the last 5 years, yeah – resolution is likely easily verifiable. But for shows c.2000–2005? It's likely anything but, and the resolution should be sourced to something. WP:BURDEN isn't just some "thing" that we should maybe enforce sometimes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

High-definition television in the United States – hey, look! another article with absolutely atrocious use of rowspan in its table!! [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have been removing the ones that were listing multiple conflicting formats and fixing the ones to conform to the infobox instructions for that attribute when they are obviously correct for the dates aired. Most stuff after the digital transition on the major networks is fixed and well-known, the network link in the article links to the details and is usually right at that point. Before the digital transition different shows transitioned to HDTV at different times and only a few shows actually document and source the details. Basically if a recent show on a major network lists a single picture format and I know it is correct, I leave it alone with minor changes to formatting if necessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

1080i is a high-definition format...then 480i is how programming is aired on standard-definition televisions, reduced by a consumer's set-top box if they don't want to upgrade a television set, or use a converter box. This is how it's been during this transition from analog television to standard definition. I agree the 480i info should be cut at this point (it's been twelve years, and all American broadcast television stations since June of this year now must broadcast only digital television)...but at least for the 2000-2005 era, we have to confirm is if the series was produced in HD (and then there are of course the 'HD remasters' issue with 90s-2005ish series like Seinfeld and Friends which are always going to be muddled, and eventually down the line, we've got 4k broadcast television/remasters to deal with for whatever is the format du jour at that point). GP is removing the resolutions from current-day series like Scandal where we know it was in HD and 720p is the problem, thus why I thought I'd note it here. Outside a few networks like the A&E Networks though where a bunch of channels in one HD format switched to another because of corporate unity and a master control merger, no television network has switched their HD format, their series have usually been produced in that network's and they've nearly all been set in stone since day one. I just want this to be careful and known is all. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It should never be "480i" – it should always be "NTSC". And it still must be sourced to something, or it's WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk)

It should still be easily sourceable (preferably from sources already in the article). Something like Scandal obviously seems easy on this front – most "recent" TV series will be. (Though the "streaming" TV series is an area I haven't looked closely at – I'm assuming they are easy too?...) Probably any show covered since the advent of The Futon Critic should be relatively easy to source. But, yeah – the 1995–2005 period is likely to be problematic, and these are exactly the series where picture formats/resolutions are not currently sourced at the article, and generally won't probably be easily sourceable. And they are also often the targets of the IP trolls/vandals. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It is getting complicated as ATSC3 is starting to appear for broadcasting UHDTV and streaming can be in 4K formats too. We really should have sources for this in the articles, it is not always obvious. Some series started using analog formats and moved to digital formats in later seasons. Need sources for transition dates too if going to list both. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What has long confused me about this is: who cares and why? Is it encyclopedic information that a TV show was originally broadcast in resolution X, but not (generally) that a book's first edition had this number centimetre margins and this font and so on? I have also wondered what the sources for these things are, but first and foremost is that if it's not important enough to mention in the body with a full sentence justifying the relevance of the information (e.g. "one of the first documentaries to be filmed in resolution X") then it's not important enough to take up valuable real estate in the infobox (remember that mobile readers—i.e. most people—have to scroll past the infobox to get to the second paragraph of the lead). This is before we get into IJBall's claims of widespread vandalism, or my presumption that a lot of this cruft is going to have been blindly copied over article to article when the article was created and the infobox was copied off a similar page and tweaked. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an incredibly important point that is perennial overlooked – the infobox is supposed to summarize existing article content. In general, most TV articles do not mention stuff like resolution/picture format in either the 'Production' or 'Broadcast' sections of the articles. If it's not mentioned in prose, it should not be in the infobox!! But for many many years people have been adding things to various infoboxes (not just TV-related articles) that are mentioned nowhere in the article itself (sourced or not!)! This is obviously a larger Wikipedia-wide issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there are editors in this project that get MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in this project brings a tear to my eye. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should be sourced or at the very least mentioned in the article. I have found some that did - interesting and relevant to the show. See The Tonight Show § Broadcasting milestones for example. It is extremely rare to see any mention of picture or audio format in any TV series article other then the somewhat pro forma, unsourced, mention in the infobox, most of which I truly believe were just part of a infobox television template that has been copied around with little or no consideration given to the content inherited from the other shows used in. Exact same formatting not conformant to the template instructions. There has been some comments in the infobox talk page about whether or not the format attributes should be deprecated as not being of any real value to what the articles are about, the show itself, and not the mechanics of how it gets to the viewer. If it were important to the show it would be mentioned in the article and the importance explained. Generally transmission and display formats are described in the network articles, but seldom sourced there either. A mention of the network in the TV series article should be sufficient to determine the mechanics of how the show gets to the viewer and what the viewer will see. It would be more appropriate to just have the production formats covered in the article, if sourced, and leave what the networks does with what it gets from the production studios to the network articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with IJBall here. Information that is present in the infobox but not mentioned even once in the article is a sign of it not being important (to en.wiki). Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it time to deprecate this parameter except in cases where the picture format is somehow relevant and has received some level of coverage by sources beyond the fact of it? DonIago (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd go further. Way back in 2010, the video games WikipProject undertook a major overhaul of their infobox after the notability and verifiability of certain fields was raised. The key fields were given a free pass, but all other fields, where notability and/or referencing were a concern, were put under the microscope with individual discussions for each field. It took a month, but the results were well worth the effort and cleared a lot of baggage from the early days of the template. I mention it because of the parallel between the above discussion and some of the fields that were removed, Aspect Ratio and Resolution for example, are very similar. They were amongst the rarely referenced or cited in prose fields that got removed and shaped the infobox into a better more relevant thing. I think its time for WPTV to have that spring clean. - X201 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a discussion like that would be fantastic. I would agree with deprecating the parameter entirely. In cases where it's relevant, it still shouldn't be in the infobox—prose only is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I considered using the dreaded three-letter acronym in my earlier comment but had decided against doing so...based on these responses though, perhaps it's time to invoke it...RfC? DonIago (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Would this just cover {{Infobox television}} or other infoboxes? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing the former. But a discussion should be held first, as other parameters like audio_format should also likely be scrubbed. And possibly other little-used parameters like editor too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support removal of technical parameter, but not creative ones like |editor=. A discussion should be started at {{Infobox television}}, but in doing so, it should also consider {{Infobox television season}}, {{Infobox television episode}} and related spin-off infoboxes that mirror any of these. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Degrassi Goes Hollywood and Degrassi Takes Manhattan - episodes or films?

Are Degrassi Goes Hollywood and Degrassi Takes Manhattan episodes or films? The lead, italics and all but one category say film, while the infobox and Category:Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes say episode. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is like iParty with Victorious or Saved by the Bell: Hawaiian Style (note: the latter should probably not even be a standalone article) – the answer is both: they are television films that also effectively function as "episodes" of the television series. However, I guess the "television film" claim for these should probably be sourced to something like it is with iParty with Victorious – if sources don't call them a "TV movie", etc. then they are probably just "episodes". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So should they use {{Infobox television}} like in your two examples and use italics or use the episode one with quotation marks? Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say if sources verify the "TV movie" categorization, I would advise using {{Infobox television}}, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred at AfD

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred regarding The notability of A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Kim-Joy

I started merger/redirect proposal on Kim-Joy. Location of discussion is Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists‎#Redirect Kim-Joy? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A Ghost Story for Christmas

Is A Ghost Story for Christmas a TV series or a film series? And in turn, are the parts if it "episodes" or "films"? A Ghost Story for Christmas#Episode list lists the "episodes" and calls them "films" and they were released one per year (between 1971 to 1978). Gonnym (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Number of episodes total or shown thus far?

If they announced there were 10 episodes and when they'd be shown, should the infobox show 10 as the number of episodes? Or only show the number of episodes shown thus far? [4] Dream Focus 12:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thus far. The value is then updated when a new episode airs. This is how the parameter has worked for years. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

From the template documentation: The number of episodes released. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled. — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Isabel Adrian, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Would appreciate some outside input with an edit conflict at Talk:Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)#Episode is now at the wrong title. Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

FTR, I despise that many editors insist upon holding our MOS as higher than explicit (original) sourcing, but it is what it is, and you shouldn't be disruptive about it as you will inevitably lose most of the time and risk getting blocked on top of that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

External link question

Does anyone object to the external link suggested at Talk:Dish Network#Proposal to Add New External Link? It doesn't violate any part of Wikipedia:External links (this was previously discussed at WP:ELN). I don't think the article is watched by very many people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox Saturday Baseball is too long and convoluted

I think this pertains to this WikiProject.

Simply speaking Major League Baseball on Fox is way too long and complicated and should be shortened while other supplemental articles should be created. I suggest we model this off of ESPN Major League Baseball and their supplemental articles Monday Night Baseball, Wednesday Night Baseball and Sunday Night Baseball. I suggest adding a Major League Baseball on FS1 and a Fox Saturday Baseball article. Thoughts? Mannysoloway (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Are made-for-TV movies of series considered episodes of the series?

With the upcoming release of the made-for-TV movie South Park: Post Covid, there is a discussion ensuing as to whether a made-for-TV movie of an episodic series should stand alone as a movie, or if said movie should be considered an episode of the series. There are a couple of other lists of episodes that include made-for-TV movies (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but these examples are of series where the movie came out some time after the cancellation of the series. With Post Covid, we have a made-for-TV movie being made while the series is still ongoing. There's also the fact that every episode of South Park has an article for the episode, so there is debate if the infobox of most recent episode should list the movie as the next episode or not. The current standard has been to consider the movie as separate from the episodes, and this upcoming movie is listed and discussed at South Park (franchise) (since this is where the previous full-length animated movie is discussed), while some editors think it should be listed at List of South Park episodes and that the infobox of the most-recent episode of the show should list the movie as the next episode. To me, I guess a big determining factor in the matter will be whether or not the Post Covid movie has details/plotlines that reference the previous television episode, or if the plot of the made-for-TV movie stands alone. I'd love to hear some other opinions on the matter though. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that there is any one answer for the question. Each situation would need to be handled on a case by case basis. With Psych and Psych: The Movie for example, the series had ended and the movie is considered a sequel to the series, it is included at List of Psych Episodes (as well as the movies sequels) but is not included in any of the episode counts. The plots do continue the stories from the series but also has stand alone lines as well. The closest example to your South Park situation that comes to my mind is Exiled: A Law & Order Movie. It aired on NBC during the fourth season between episodes 5 and 6, its included in that episode table as well as the series overview table (therefore being transcluded to List of Law & Order episodes but not included in the episode count. I didn't actually set it up that way but this is just what I've seen elsewhere. If needed for the infobox you could list both, jumping to Doctor Who for a second there were two regular episodes, The Parting of the Ways and The Christmas Invasion, split by a min-episode Doctor Who: Children in Need. Parting of the Ways links to both Christmas Invasion and CiN in the next field, Christmas Invasion links to both Parting of the Ways ad CiN in the previous field. And finally, CiN lists previous and next like normal. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Full House#Requested move 25 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Full House#Requested move 25 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Hddty (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Foundation "Unique"

Hi, wasn't Joe Straczybski's BABYLON-5 "a novel for television" [jms' own description] in the 1990s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny0634Cashx (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Home media releases

Please comment on this discussion on articles about home media releases of films and tv shows. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Judy Justice

Thoughts on List of Judy Justice episodes existing as a separate article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I vote "no", because I generally do not think talk shows and reality shows like this should even have "episode lists". But it's one opinion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notability (television) is now a notability essay

Per the results of the recent RfC, WP:NTV is now a notability essay. It can be looked to for reference on notability matters, but do note it is simply an essay and not a notability guideline or WP:SNG. There were some good criticisms brought up in the RfC (such as possibly trying to emulate WP:NMUSIC's layout/format), but I feel now that this is an essay, it can still be worked on and expanded upon, which I would encourage from anyone interested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, apparently Wikipedia:Television episodes has existed (I was not aware), but it has not been edited in a meaningful way since 2016. There will be more eyes here, but I think we should redirect this to WP:NTVEP given the work that went into creating that section in NTV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I think this whole process is why many of us have lost any appetite for Wikipedia "governance", because it's basically impossible to get any good ideas implemented (or bad ideas overturned!)... But as to the second point, I would definitely agree with converting that page into a redirect to WP:NTVEP. And, regardless, that page is almost certainly not actually a "guideline", and so even if kept it should be demoted to "essay" (at best). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The TV project, as one of the more active and popular ones on the site, needed a "guideline" for notability, and that was always the goal - to have something us editors can look to in discussions. And that's the hope with this now even as an essay. I'll give it a day or so for any further input on WP:Television episodes, and then will redirect /remove links to it as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Television episodes has been redirect to WP:NTVEP, removed from the project navigation template, and in the process of fixing any major incoming links. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

IP Anonymous Vandalism for The Voice-related articles

Also for @Bsems, MarcioRob24, Disney1024, Livelikemusic, Superman011, Lonniemitchell22, Jeremy Butler, EdrianJustine, WikiVirusC, Cleo20, TheTVExpert, and TomCat4680:, I happened to find this page while I also understand many had also agreed on fed up by the IP vandalisms, as suspected, the anonymous user had used too many IP addresses to keep revert the edits that also violate the WP:MOSTV guidelines. Well, I saw from one of the talk pages that time and suggested the same as I do, is a permanent indefinite semi-protection of all The Voice-related articles to counter the vandalism. I hope that this can raise the awareness and why the fight is still on. Do inform the Reality television task force as well. Thank you. TVSGuy (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​I might suggest that this might been a case of an editing war. Maybe. TVSGuy (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wheel of Time Rotten Tomatoes error

There's a serious error in RT's entry about The Wheel of Time (TV series). Tomatometer is +15% off, so unless it became just a random number and not an actual percent of positive review, we need to remove it from art. about the series. I tried, but my edit was contested. Mithoron (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The current figure in the article is the same as in the source. If this is about your opinion about the series, that violates WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked on internet and probably it's not an error, but an artifact of how they calculate for TV series. I couldn't find this detail on RT, but apparently it's indeed not an actual percent of positive reviews. It's an avarage of season tomatometer and episode 4 tomatometer. So, while I probably wasn't right, it's still an issue that perhaps should be reflected in articles. Mithoron (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Article updates at 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards

Hey everyone, I've been working on a major update to the article 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards in order to bring it up to FL standards and hopefully set a better example for what these articles should look like. You can see my revisions here. If you have any suggestions or feedback, I'd really appreciate hearing them here. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jane the Virgin

What do you all think of this edit? The IP is adding a section called "Arabic-language adaptation", but the content, though written in English and seemingly constructive, appears incoherent - I reverted a similar edit a week ago - and from the overall dearth of footnotes, mostly unsourced. No doubt this needs to be better written if it's to be retained. (I decided to revert the edit, again.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a bunch of copy-pastes from press releases and articles covering the press releases. Overall, no reason to retain any of this beyond "this adaptation exists", which the article already does. I feel like it's a genuine attempt at being helpful, just utterly mangled. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wipeout season articles

Is there anything that should be done with these?... Each season article basically seems to be plots/statistics only, which is not encouraged per WP:PLOT. An IP has been attempting to add similar plots/statistics to the article for the 2021 reboot, but continues to be reverted has seems to have no intention of discussing the issue.

My best idea would probably be to just redirect all the season articles to Wipeout (2008 game show) (or Wipeout (2008 game show)#Episodes) unless there is better information/improvements to make instead.

Articles in question:

• Wipeout (season 1)
• Wipeout (season 2)
• Wipeout (season 3)
• Wipeout (season 4)
• Wipeout (season 5)
• Wipeout (season 6)
• Wipeout (season 7)

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete and redirect. The articles fail:

• WP:V there are no references in the information.
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." the information has no context or referenced explanations.
• Even WP:DUE applies; The detailed information is only of interest to fans of the show, most readers won't be interested in the specific outcome of each stage of each episode, Wikipedia articles should give a general understanding and not be written specifically for experts on the subject.

I've had similar problems with two other articles (The Wheel and The Wall (both UK versions)). - X201 (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So should I just go ahead and be WP:BOLD and change them to redirects? Or would it be better to bring to WP:AFD and propose redirecting the articles in question? Magitroopa (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would just go ahead and boldly convert to redirects. If anybody reverts that, then you can go through WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've just converted the seven season articles listed above to redirects, as well as removed similar information from Wipeout Australia and made List of Wipeout Canada episodes a redirect per the reasons mentioned.

The other issue still present is that the IP I mentioned above is still at it adding this same WP:NOTSTATS/WP:DUE information to Wipeout (2021 game show) and at this point is edit warring over it, despite the messages/warnings left on their talk page by myself here. What can/should be done about this?... Magitroopa (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Either WP:ANEW or WP:RfPP would be the way to go – IP is clearly edit warring over this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting but not deleting was the right move. You could tell the IP that they can reuse the content (with attribution) at Fandom (formerly Wikia) if they're interested. There's already a Wipeout Wiki. — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe some context: it's about how you like your dashes to look. I don't think it's such a massive discussion to need to involve more than the people interested in titles specifically, nor do I think there's a significant number of TV (or film...) articles with dashes to change, either. Kingsif (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I could parse from that discussion, it may affect the titles for some articles on Awards (e.g. the Emmys). So the issue is pretty tangential to WP:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

How would this affect awards in any way? There are awards with dashes in the title – for instance, the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama – but those are proper titles and therefore should be capitalized regardless of what the RfC outcome is. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): If possible, maybe you could clarify what your concerns were with entertainment articles? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion at Wikiproject Tennis and the draft RFC (which has been deleted), it was specifically said not to include projects like Entertainment in the sports RFC. They said they would tackle that next and adding it now would make the RFC harder. They want to do it piecemeal. I'm not an expert on Entertainment articles or what the project wants to do with its article titles, That's up to you. Maybe everyone wants all lettering after the dash in small letters (or even if there is no dash). And that's regardless of sourcing. They say it's what MOS demands. I'm just letting you know about it because I thought it was unfair to do the Wikiprojects one after another. If it's going to be done, then no exceptions. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Infobox television channel"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television channel#RfC for removal of "Availability" section, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Netflix episode summaries

I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm wondering if copying Netflix episode summaries are copyrighted and cannot be used for episode summaries. Outside of the copyright issue is the unencyclopedic tone of such summaries. Considering both issues together, I'm thinking they shouldn't be used at all, but I wanted to get some feedback on the question. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Copying plot summaries from anywhere is a copyright violation unless they are published under a creative commons license. As for the second part, I generally find that summaries from the network (or in this case Netflix) aren't of the best tone. They're more likely to read "When X_Character gets into trouble at work his job is on the line." A better encyclopedic description of that would be something along the lines of "After X_Character is caught stealing at work his boss considers firing him." That said, copyright is enough issue alone to not use them. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary may be helpful if you're writing your own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Program guide teasers are meant to induce people to watch an episode without giving away any real details. Sort of pointless as a plot summary which should actually summarize what happened. A good episode summary should written by someone who actually watched the episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything is copyrighted by default, and nothing can be copied, unless there is very clear and explicit broadcasting that this is not the case ("I release my content into the public domain"). Copying of Netflix episode summaries is widespread and we need to stamp it out wherever we see it. It is also cumbersome to clean up, because every page version that contains the copyright violation needs revision deleting by an admin. — Bilorv (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Understanding Wikipedia:Notability

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.

---

I am writing this to flag an attention for this new user @CreecregofLife: for reverting some of the edits including mine, claiming that the edits are not notable. I writing on this post is to let you all know, but reverting an edit is just too much and is beyond understanding the meaning on what is notable about. I'm not trying to be selfish, but given that he was a new user and his experiences, I leave you all to decide on that and just to let you know, Wikipedia is a place to edit and for contributions amd being civil, and not to plain revert because claiming notability is just as too much and it is not right at all. TVSGuy (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I find this comment highly passive-aggressive and therefore inappropriate--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (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.

MOS:TVCAST style guide

Is The Penthouse: War in Life#Cast listing and description going against the style guide in MOS:TVCAST given that it did mentioned that styling should be consistent throughout a given list while also showing 3 examples of what consistent is referring to. In case, my question is confusing, I mean:

• ABC as XYZ

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

if the example styling above is acceptable.

Thanks, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Yes. While this kind of formatting is probably considered "non-standard", it is acceptable, and is used at some articles. As long as things like WP:LISTGAP are properly followed, this formatting should be OK... However, the cast table should almost certainly be removed from that article – cast tables are pretty much never necessary for shows that have run under 4–5 seasons; also, as per MOS:TVCAST, the table at the main article should not even include 'Recurring' cast (those should only be included in cast tables at 'List of characters' articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall Understood, thanks you for the reply/clarification. Noted on the cast table as well, will discuss that on the article talkspace. Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Cast section listings and crediting changes

What is the general WP:TV feeling on how to handle name/credit changes in the middle of TV series? I have always though that we should list by the name(s) first credited on the series, and then "note" any subsequent names/crediting. But I notice that The Witcher (TV series) is throwing that out the window, and is listing two actors by their season 2 credited names, rather than their season 1 credited names (without even including a note about the crediting changes).

Any thoughts on this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this the character name change, or the actor changed their name?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In both cases, it was the actor whose name changed. (In general, character name changes are less important, and can easily be dealt with in the character summary...) Actor name changes are more complex. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The only similar situation that comes to my mind is Friends, which saw a change from "Courteney Cox" to "Courteney Cox Arquette". In that case, the article uses her current name. But I'm not sure how useful that is here, as the name changes aren't perfectly analogous. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've come across this in several cases. I just did this for RJ Hatanaka at When Hope Calls, and had to do it quite a bit at List of The Next Step characters (e.g. Trevor Tordjman). In general I believe this is how this should be handled. It is just plumb confusing (to readers) if you list only one name while never "noting" the name change, especially if you only list the later name, and not the earlier one. IOW, the one editor who changed this at The Witcher (TV series) on Dec. 17 just plumb got this wrong, because these aren't even iterations of the previous names: they are entirely new surnames! But I figured I'd bring it up here to see what others think... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it this change? If something like that changes and they are credited with a new name (if they are credited with the original name, then it's irrelevant). Then I would suggest something like "Wilson Mbomio (née Radjou-Pujalte)". That should cover it, so that it's clear he has changed his last name. If there needs to be, then a note can be listed with it. It doesn't need to be explained in the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not just that one – Mimi Ndiweni is also credited under a new name in season #2 (you can see the piping in your diff link)... I would suggest that "notes" would be the best way to handle this for The Witcher, as both have entirely new surnames. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems that both should be a "nee" and a note that explains that they changed their names (for whatever reason is not relevant to the page) and are now credited under the new name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Should Chevron Hall of Stars be merged into Stage 7?

As I did some research on Chevron Hall of Stars and Stage 7, I found that the former is essentially a subset of the latter. When Stage 7 was syndicated, some sponsors applied a title that reflected their sponsorship. The Billboard article 'Stage' Into Eleven Marts for Drewry's lists Chevron Hall of Stars as one example.

On November 22, 2021, I posted an item about possibly merging Chevron Hall of Stars into Stage 7 on Talk:Chevron Hall of Stars. No one has yet responded, so I thought I would ask here to see whether members of this project think a merger is appropriate. I have never done a merger, so perhas someone else could take charge if merging is favored. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Definition of the term: "Comedian"

Greetings. For interested parties: there is currently a discussion at Patricia Routledge Talk Page on the defining term: "Comedian" in regards to actors / actresses starring in television sitcoms. Maineartists (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Gogglebox episode list

At Talk:List of Gogglebox episodes a couple of months ago, an IP tried to raise the issue of splitting what is quite a large episode list page. Stumbled across it while declining Draft:Lists of Gogglebox episodes (doesn't look like an improvement in structure), but attention to the situation would be good. — Bilorv (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My $0.02: Yes, it's long-ish, but no I don't think that should be split – that LoE article is still manageable. Also, there is not a proper WP:SPLIT proposal on the Talk page, so I would argue that the tag from October is invalid and should be removed from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:High-dynamic-range video#Requested move 18 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:High-dynamic-range video#Requested move 18 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Request: Image for The Alaska Triangle

Is a project member able to upload the title card or promotional artwork for The Alaska Triangle's infobox? I should also note, the article is currently nominated for deletion, if folks care to weigh in on the ongoing discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Overly long delsort archive

While navigating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television/archive 2 for precedents on an AfD I'm contemplating, I noticed that it was lagging my browser — because it is nearly 1 MB in length! We need to split it up more finely. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: That task is quite automated, and WP:DELSORT does not seem to split archives up for any field. Might be worth asking them as something they maintain. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking through it more, I suspect it will reach the maximum page size as the original archive did and start an archive 3 automatically, likely in the next few months. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Question, re: Streaming television series

In the following article, Deadline Hollywood claims there were 7 streaming TV series in the 2010–2011 (U.S.) TV season: [5] How do I figure out what these were?

There is no List of American streaming television series article. Surprisingly, there is no Category:Streaming television or something like Category:2010 American streaming television series debuts. (There is Category:Internet television in the United States, but doesn't break out series by year, and looks more like it's for "web series" than "streaming television series".)

So, any ideas here?

And are we missing out in not have a Category:Streaming television category tree?

P.S. I think one of them may be The Booth at the End, but it's unclear to me because it's not in any streaming TV categories! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A few notes. There is Category:Internet television which parent article Internet television is a redirect to Streaming television. There is also Category:Web series and Category:Original programming by streaming service. Some articles have a mix of television and web categories. An example is The Confession (TV series) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot that can be found in the tree of Category:Web series. So the rabbit hole you are searching for is pretty deep :) Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that among them is the Big Brother live feeds (American? One of the internationals?), but I don't follow the show well enough to have any idea when the feeds started--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just took that cat to CfD/S. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

South Park: Post Covid/Return of Covid: movies or episodes?

More input would be appreciated: Talk:List of South Park episodes#Post Covid.

Thanks. --Thibaut (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Episodes airing internationally first

Terrible section title, I know. But I was just looking for some opinions or options on how to handle a show airing episodes internationally before airing in its country of origin. Australian soap Neighbours has been airing four-times a week in Australia, but five-times a week in the UK in order to make up a gap caused by lockdown/COVID scheduling. The respective broadcasts have now caught up to each other, but Australia is sticking with the four episodes a week, so on 7 January, the UK will pull ahead for the first time. I was trying to think of examples of where something similar happened and my mind just drew a blank. I was wondering what to do about dates for things like character introductions or departures? Do we go by the UK dates or stick with Australia? And what happens if the UK pulls ahead by weeks rather than a couple of days? - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think generally, where appropriate, we just give the original release date regardless of what country that is in and then explain with prose / a note what the difference is if clarification is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

With Torchwood: Miracle Day and Victoria (season 3), both shows that originated in the UK but had episodes that aired in the U.S. before the UK, we just added the AltDate parameter to the episode table and used that to show both dates. I know the situation isn't exactly the same because those aired weekly instead of daily, but a similar solution could work.

I am noticing after typing this response that Neighbours doesn't have an episode table; however, the paragraph explaining the difference in broadcast dates seems sufficient to me. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a really interesting situation, and I don't think I've come across it before. I'd go with the date of the first broadcast, and if that's expected to be ambiguous then add a concise footnote explaining that it's (e.g.) "Airdate in the United Kingdom". — Bilorv (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, the general practice is what Adamstom laid out – you go with the airdates for the country of origin/broadcast (i.e. the country that the show was produced to be broadcast in), and then if necessary add a "note" for the airdates of the episode or two that aired in an international market first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also go with the date the episode was first shown regardless of the country. I think we were confused because the Australian date has always been used. It does make sense to switched since it has changed with the UK debuting episodes.Rain the 1 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, what you and Bilorv seem to be suggesting would be more confusing. Think about it – you have episodes tables with 50 episodes, all of which, say, list the UK air dates for a UK TV show, and then randomly there's a single episode date that lists, say, a Canadian air date (just because it was first by a day or two or something). It makes much more sense to list all UK air dates for this hypothetical UK TV show, and then attach a {{efn}} note to that one episode air date, noting that the episode "aired in Canada first on [this date]"... If it's more than 1 or 2 episodes, esp. over the course of a season, then doing what TheDoctorWho suggests makes sense – adding a second AltDate column for the air dates in that other country that is not the show's native country. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What do we do about dates in cast lists/character articles? A character is returning on Friday in the UK, but the episode won’t air until Monday in Australia. Do we still go by AU dates? Maybe mention both dates in the prose? - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe mention both dates in the prose. But I would say the Aus date is "more important" in the context of an Aus show (that also happens to air in the UK). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on John Whaite

I started the merger discussion on the John Whaite article, located at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Merge John Whaite? George Ho (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on LGBT representation in children's television

I started a split discussion on the LGBT representation in children's television article, located at Talk:LGBT representation in children's television#Splitting proposal, proposing that parts of the "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section about Disney animation be split out into another article titled "Disney and LGBT representation in animation". --Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina

Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) recently unilaterally redirected a large number of his own articles on basis of lack of notability; a list can be seen at [6]. Also related is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin's Yearbook, opened after I reverted their unilateral redirect for lack of explanation. I find their motion on Would You Fall for That?, a short-lived spinoff of What Would You Do? (2008 TV program) which was redirected to its parent show without adding any salvageable content to it or the relevant list of episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow – the LoE article is even a WP:FL. FWIW, this is exactly the kind of show – a non-competition "reality" program" – that should likely not have a standalone "list of episodes" article. LoE articles should really be reserved for scripted series, and probably the "competition" reality shows. Other genres should not have them because there is no "plot developments" to report in an episodes table. I will also argue, strongly, that a show such as this should not have standalone "season" articles either (IOW, I would support the conversion to redirects.) That's my $0.02.

Does this affect any other shows aside from "What Would You Do?"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I brought another of their articles, Traci Hovel, to AfD due to concerns about the decision to redirect this actress to What Would You Do?. Do you think we should bring Would You Fall for That? to AfD, or leave it as is and merge suitable content to the main show? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Traci Hovel meets WP:NACTOR – so the question is whether a redirect is warranted, or whether it should just be deleted? I would definitely lean towards deletion here, as there isn't even a valid secondary source used at the article and she's done more than just What Would You Do?.... On Would You Fall for That?, I would argue for merging of any unique content to What Would You Do? (2008 TV program), and then leaving it as a redirect, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

At some point, maybe in the near future, I would be supportive of creating a taskforce to weed out episode, season, and LoE articles that shouldn't exist, and would even volunteer to head it. This includes GAs. I don't think we're even done with clean-up of the animated series episode articles, so it really would be worth it to do them all in one chunk. Of course, I can't blame SDFNC for taking the initiative with articles where he is the only significant contributor. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fishing television series"

The article Fishing television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) states that "fishing television series" are TV shows about sport and recreational fishing, while Category:Fishing television series contains many TV shows about commercial fishing, as does {{Fishing television}} (since 2009, when TV shows were added [7]); There's a discrepancy here. Is "Fishing television series" just about sport and recreational fishing, or does it also include commercial fishing. I will note that one of the most popular TV shows about fishing, The Deadliest Catch, is a commercial fishing TV show. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fishing television series offers no real sources for the claim that only shows about sport and recreational fishing should count (to be honest, that entire article is pretty awful). I personally think that any shows about fishing, commercial or not, are fine for inclusion in the category and template. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of awfully titled too – shouldn't it be titled Television programs about fishing? (At the least, it should be titled Fishing television programs, not "series"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• As a second note, the category description at Category:Fishing television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also doesn't match its contents, since it also states that it is about recreational and sportfishing, while containing commercial fishing TV shows; so it doesn't match the contents. 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I gather, from the current comments, the category description should just be removed? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit under FA review

I have nominated Quatermass and the Pit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How to cite Amazon Prime's Youtube channel

I am working on a tv episode article and while I have a good number of RS, there is a lot of insight to be offered from the program's aftershow (similar in content to that which follows other shows like The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Star Trek: Discovery and Doctor Who).

I am aware of the lack of durability of Youtube links, which is one of the reasons why we don't use them, but can if they are official media presented by the studio/showrunner. My question is how to note that they are from an official link within YT? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you just want to cite something? Use {{Cite AV media}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen that citation template before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As an example with a Talking Dead episode, this is how you would cite that: {{Cite AV media |title=Talking Dead: The Walking Dead Season 8 Premiere Highlights |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMUKLb8HTwY |author=[[The Walking Dead (TV series)|The Walking Dead]] |date=October 23, 2017 |access-date=January 20, 2022 |via=[[YouTube]]}} The |via= parameter is important and should be used as such, because YouTube is just a means on which you are viewing the content, not a publisher. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isn;t this template part of the drop-down list? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What dropdown list? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Like, when you are editing, you can choose from a drop-down list of common citation templates, ie. cite web, cite, book, etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you exclusively using visual editor? Even then, it's a selection box, not a drop-down... do you have some random script installed? Because that isn't standard to Wikipedia, so who knows why whoever made it didn't include cite AV media (and, importantly, we can't add it). Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If the aftershow is an actual TV series (i.e. Doctor Who Confidential and Talking Dead from your examples), you could always use {{Cite episode}} as well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Tom Jones (TV series) a real TV program?

Is Tom Jones (TV series) a real TV program? I couldn't verify the few sources it has, it is not listed on IMDb, it is not mentioned on Tom Jones (singer) and I couldn't find results when I googlged it. Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Seems like it. There was a lawsuit about the producer possibly not meeting its contractual obligations. As a result, the first 12 and second 12 episodes were made by different producers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

As a "variety show", "TV series" is a clunky disambiguator – "TV program" would probably make more sense here, if "talk show" can't be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Episode or film over at South Park

Would appreciate more television editors to join the discusion over at Talk:List of South Park episodes#Post Covid. As a summery of the situation, we have 2 South Park articles South Park: Post Covid and South Park: Post Covid: The Return of Covid which use a mixture of both episode or film terminology and styles. For the most part they follow film and use film terminology, categories and italics, however they also use {{Infobox television episode}} (instead of {{Infobox television}} which is used for television films) which then calls them a "South Park episode" and use quotes at List of South Park episodes#Paramount+ films (2021). I don't have a stake in this and don't care if these are films or episodes, but this inconsistency should really be fixed. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

'Cast'/'Characters' section for animated articles

Is there a 'correct' formatting for the cast/characters section on articles for animated series? Most of the examples at MOS:TVCAST are for liveaction shows, and I'm being told that the formatting style of "X (voiced by X)" is incorrect in regards to Big Nate (see talk page discussion). And if there is not a 'defined' formatting for this section on animated shows articles, should there be one decided on?... Magitroopa (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: There is no "right or wrong answer" here. While it probably makes sense to do animated series in 'Characters' list format, there is certainly no "requirement" that it be that way, and you can just as easily do these sections in '(Voice) Cast' format. Either is acceptable, and MOS:TV is pretty clear that either is fine. In general, you should probably stick with the original format used in the article, unless there is a Talk page consensus to switch the 'cast' section to another format... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

For live-action series, where the actors are more prominent than the characters they're portraying, I personally prefer "John Smith as Doe, a boy from the woods." On animated series, where the characters are more prominent, I prefer "Doe (John Smith) is a boy from the woods." But IJBall stated it well above that it's not so strict. Amaury • 23:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself. I tend to prefer the format Amaury put forward too. While I would say that IJBall makes a good point to "stick with the original format used in the article," that becomes a bit muddled if you are creating a page for an animated series. For that, I've usually based that format on what other pages have done, and that seems to have worked out for me so far. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The one definite advantage of creating an article yourself is that you get to choose things like date, reference and MOS formats. So, if you create an article for an animated TV series, and you prefer a 'Characters' list formatting, then you are well within your rights to go with that... But, in general, you shouldn't change a list from a 'Cast' list format to a 'Characters' list format (or vice versa) without opening a discussion on the Talk page first. That's all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is a lot of crossover in voice actors (i.e. one voice actor portrays multiple characters) which is reasonably common for animated shows it can also make sense then to list the character first, but that depends on the specific series. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

End date clarification request

So I wanted to get some clarification regarding the proper end date to list for The Looney Tunes Show. To summarize, the series, like many animated series, was given a two-season order to begin, but because of mixed reception and audience fall-off wasn't picked up for further renewal after that. This had already been announced when the last-produced episode was aired in the US (the country of origin) in August 2013, but due to a variety of circumstances one episode was skipped in the original airing order and didn't air in the US until almost a year later (August 2014) when the series was being rerun. However, and this is the key point, the episode was not skipped in overseas markets (including Australia and New Zealand) and actually aired in correct sequence about 10 months before it actually aired in the US for the first time, in November 2013. So my question is which if the three dates is the proper one to use as the end date? oknazevad (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is complicated (not as complicated as Dora the Explorer, but still complicated...). In this case, I would advise using the date when the last episode was aired anywhere, but then add an {{efn}} note to the end date, to explain about the "final" U.S. airing a year later. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Will do. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

Input for this PR is welcome. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Masking_imdb_links_as_wikilinks

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of color in placement tables of The Voice

Hi all. I just took a look at Season 18 of The Voice, and found that basically none of the tables in the article comply with MOS:COLOR, specifically with the part of "Not using color as the only means to convey information". The teams table uses only color to signal whether a contestant was stolen, finalist, or at what point were they eliminated, and the auditions table uses color to distinguish which coach the artist chose (Yellow cell with a checkmark for the chosen coach, blank cell with a checkmar for the other coaches that turned their chairs), and for blocked coaches, a cross with four different colors depending on which coach blocked them. Then the battles tables use only color to distinguish whether an artist lost but was stolen, lost but was saved, or lost and was eliminated. I think it would be good to reassess how to make the tables more accessible in terms of use of color. Any thoughts? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this is YA example of a reality TV series article that goes into massively way too much detail in terms of the "day-by-day" contest. This is absolutely not the purpose of Wikipedia, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and not to mention nearly all of it is unsourced!), and belongs at the Wikia/Fandom site... Beyond that, yeah – because it's over-written WP:INDISCRIMINATE content, yeah it also needlessly violates things like MOS:COLOR... So the short answer is – nearly all of that, i.e. all of those "results tables" – should just be removed from these articles. But the reality TV editors have shown time and again that they will continue to ignore WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so it is likely nothing will be done about this, even the MOS:COLOR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Power Rangers

Recently stumbled upon this mess of a template. Most "season" articles are filled with trivia. Take Power Rangers Zeo for example. It is almost entirely a list of characters with links to a list of episodes. Also keep in mind smaller seasons like this one from 2021, which links to not one but two different episode articles. Can anyone help merge them into their sub-articles? See this discussion about Pokemon articles for reference. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: @Lado85 has begun reverting my edits and those by @Onel5969. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: A clear case of Edit warring against MOS:TV consensus. It's now 3 editors vs. just Lado85. If they revert again, please report to WP:ANEW – this editor has a clearly established pattern of WP:DE already. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with IJBall. This editor has had nothing but WP:DE issues. All of my encounters with them have been them being disruptive. Amaury • 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

BARB

Hi everyone! Does anyone here know how we access the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board database? I'd like some stats for an article—which seems pretty common for TV series?—but it seems to be subscription only. Thanks in advance for any help! SN54129 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You can see some data at https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/most-viewed-programmes/, which is generally all you're looking for when it comes to reasonably popular shows, but it can put you out of luck in more obscure cases (or even just if a show is competing with a soap on the same channel). Because they're quite cagey with it, I'm not even sure if we can cite the subscription-only content. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv, that'll do me! Cheers, SN54129 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass unsourced page moves of ex-ViacomCBS subsidiaries

See Talk:ViacomCBS Networks International#New name and Talk:Paramount Global#Mass unsourced page moves of ex-ViacomCBS subsidiaries. Thibaut (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with use of Template:Epguides

Hi, Project Team experts.

I tried to let Wikidata populate the Template:Epguides item in Quantum Leap External links. It did not work, just went to the general Epguides.com website. I checked the entry in WIKIDATA Quantum Leap (Q230506), and it appears to have the correct "Epguides ID", being "QuantumLeap", as when I hit on that ID in wikidata.org it does go the the specific Epguides webpage for Quantum Leap.

Am I using the Template:Epguides incorrectly? Must I always include the "|id=SeriesName" in the template?

While the documentation (unlike some other templates of this type) does not show the "if you do not enter an ID, wikidata will do it all for you" (my words) option, the Template:Epguides documentation does have a Hatnote that includes the words "and ease of interoperability with Wikidata", which suggests that it is intended to read wikidata on its own, implying "if you do not enter an ID, wikidata will do it all for you" is a go.

(See how I used "suggests" and "implying" instead of "I assume"? Fooled myself into believing that you would not notice, but you probably caught me out on that.)

Thanks, in advance, for your guidance. Jmg38 (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jmg38: the template wasn't coded to work with Wikidata. It is now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Level 5 vital articles

It was brought to my attention by C933103 that the section of television topics in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences is larger than the intended quota for the entire category, largely because of the listing of 230 different U.S. TV shows. (There are 485 TV items out of 822 total, and the quota for the whole category of "Journalism and mass media" is 475.) Is it possible to review this and trim down the list? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness

I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment requested for A Discovery of Witches (TV series)

Please see Talk:A_Discovery_of_Witches_(TV_series)#RFC for discussion on the article's lead. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Episode table subheaders

Hi all, this discussion regards my recent updates to {{Episode table/part}}. I've updated the template to use more intuitive parameters, but not yet deprecating them, so nothing will be broken when I begin the changes throughout articles. (You can see this at User:Alex 21/sandbox2; the current parameters are used above the black header, and the new parameters are below, all parameters still actively work.)

To begin, we can see the following different types of episode table subheaders:

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original air date
'
'
'
'
'

These are respectively generated with the following code, which is what we actively use at the moment:

{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|p=1}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|p=Volume 1|nopart=y}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|p=Chapter 1|nopart=y}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|p=Chapter 1: ''The End''|nopart=y}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|p=''The End''|nopart=y}}

So, each time we want to update from "Part" to any other type, such as "Chapter" or "Volume", we need to override the |p= parameter and always set |nopart=y. However, these changes implement more intuitive parameters, so that the following codes gives the same results as above:

{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|part=1}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|volume=1}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|chapter=1}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|chapter=1|subtitle=The End}}
{{Episode table/part|c=#442B1A|subtitle=The End}}

This means we now have actual parameters for Part, Volume and Chapter (|part=, |volume= and |chapter=), and a parameter for a subtitle, no matter what "part" term we're using, even if we're not using one at all (|subtitle=). We no longer need to override the |p= parameter, and this deprecates the need for |nopart=y. These parameters can now be actively used, and they will be updated in due time, so we can deprecate the original basic parameters.

If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please let me know! -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Geo TV#Requested move 18 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Geo TV#Requested move 18 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hotstar#Requested move 2 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC), Adding WP Television to this. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Janani Iyer#Requested move 17 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Janani Iyer#Requested move 17 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Encounter (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 7 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Encounter (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 7 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (German season 2)#Requested move 9 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (German season 2)#Requested move 9 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article image

I'm trying to cleanup the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article at the moment... As I'm cleaning up the infobox, I (personally) feel like the image should be changed in the infobox, possibly to the award itself? Similar to Grammy Awards, Tony Awards, Academy Awards, etc. Seems a bit weird (at least to me) to have the infobox image being a random image of a performance that took place at one of the ceremonies from over 10 years ago (2009 ceremony, to be exact).

I'm honestly not the best with images/copyright/etc, so I don't know what can/can't be used, but if possible, I'm thinking either this image (from this article) or the image from this article.

And yes, I know it would likely be more appropriate to bring this to the article's talk page first, but given the fact that the latest three discussions on there are all from me and currently garnered no responses, seems like I'll be more likely to get help/an answer here.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa An image of the award would definitely qualify for fair use a la the awards you mentioned, and I think it would be a good upgrade from the present potato quality image. You might want to read the NFURs on File:Academy Award trophy.png and File:Tony Award Medallion.jpg. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Trying my best with this... but how would this be?- File:Kids' Choice Awards blimps.jpg. Not entirely sure what should be listed for 'Low resolution?' and 'Replaceable?' though.... Magitroopa (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not replaceable: you can say something like "There are no free equivalents of this image since the award design is copyrighted". If it's too high-res, a bot may come along and reduce the size. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Korean TV Channels

Is there anyone exploring the maintenance of articles relating to television in South Korea? I see too many redlinks, especially in navbox templates where usage is misleading, and articles that could easily be redirected to main broadcasting corporations as they've been left unsourced for maybe years. Thanks for any assistance provided in the matter. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't read or speak a lick of Korean, but I'm more than happy to assist in any other maintenance tasks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Image discussion at Talk:Survivor (American TV series)

I started a discussion at the following link: Talk:Survivor (American TV series)#DVD covers. --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fan editor interviews for PhD project

Hey all! My name is Gen. Quon and I'm currently a Wikipedia editor and PhD student working on a dissertation about information behavior of fan editors on Wikipedia. (Although I'm using "fan" fairly broadly, I intend to focus on media fans, so people who like music, movies, TV shows, books, etc. are all a-go.) Here's more info on my project, if you're curious. As evidenced by my edit history, I've been reaching out to folks who work on pop culture articles and seeing if they'd be interested in chatting with me about their experiences on the site. I was wondering if anyone who is a part of this WikiProject might be interested in chatting with me? If so, reply here, drop me a message on my talk page, or use the WP email function! I'd love to hear what you have to say. (Note: I posted a similar message over at the WikiProject Music page; just a heads up!)--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Emily VanDerWerff § Emily St. James

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily VanDerWerff § Emily St. James. — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Official websites

Since the websites parameters have been removed from the infobox and it's now handled by Wikidata, I've noticed some of the links for websites are either outdated, dead, or redirects. If the official website is dead or no longer working, should we just be removing the link from Wikidata? What's the process here? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The plan was to remove it when the bot process is completed (which should happen in a day or two. 10k+ was completed in less than 12 hours) as then the tracking category and related things can be removed from the template. If others feel like a day or two with outdated links is bad, we can remove it now. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends. There may be value in linking to an archive of an official site for a TV show in many cases. It may be that the {{Official website}} template should be "improved" to include an option for an archived site (by marking it as "archive", perhaps?). But just because a network has wiped a show's page from their website doesn't necessarily we shouldn't link to an archive of it. It's perhaps something that should be discussed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: to your comment and it's now handled by Wikidata, that's only happening per the way the infobox is currently coded given the removal of the parameters. The full "External links" section of the infobox and website parameters will be removed once the bot finishes so you won't be seeing those Wikidata instances anymore. See here for more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That should now be rectified. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize the parameters were being completely taken out of the infobox. All good. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Though your other statement about how to deal with dead websites and archived versions still stands and I think merits discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC notification

A request for comment that may interest members of this project has been opened at Talk:Donald Trump § RfC: Should the lead section have any citations?. ––FormalDude talk 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maō (TV series)#Requested move 24 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maō (TV series)#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A discussion on sources

There is a deletion discussion here about the show Can You Duet. While the show lasted for two seasons, it seems to have garnered no coverage as I've dissected in the AFD. I would appreciate more eyes on the AFD to judge the validity of the sources already there and prove or disprove the existence of further sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on MOS:TV

Hey, there's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Clarification on order of sections about what order to place sections (particularly episodes and cast) in television series articles. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Naming conventions question

I've been eyeing some modifications to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), and I've put the largest of them up for project discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force#Network, channel, or station? Looking for thoughts related to our use of disambiguators and definitions, especially "TV network" versus "TV channel". Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notifying WP:TV that I'm now soliciting feedback on the full text draft prior to taking to RfC. See User:Sammi Brie/NCBC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Routine coverage

Routine coverage for a series are production announcements (orders, castings, etc.). As @Toddst1 put it, who cares? Citing WP:NOTGOSSIP, the editor removed this information from Outer Range as well as filming dates and locations, writing, "it was filmed. BFD". Thoughts? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I find it weird that that the editor nuked all that information. The sources from Deadline Hollywood and The Futon Critic are fine as reliable, although I'm not sure about "Production List". I would say that the edits by Toddst1 should definitely be reversed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Now there is zero context. I would expect a background/casting section in a GA, much less FA. These edits go against MOS:TVPRODUCTION; "Casting: This section can cover the hiring of actors or personalities associated with the series or episode." Heartfox (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the editor was trying to say that an entire paragraph shouldn't be dedicated to "[actor], [actor], [actor], [actor] joined [date]. [actor], [actor], [actor] joined later." But even long articles like Yellowjackets (TV series)#Casting have that information. This was also an issue for films with large ensemble casts like Oppenheimer (film), where a talk page discussion said we should remove the section and move citations to #Cast instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are definitely ways to rephrase that information, especially where there are intriguing casting situations (large gaps between casting and production, lead roles cast later, etc, etc), rather than just delete the prose. Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of wrong, IMO. I agree that "list of actors" sentences, whether in a 'Casting' section or in an article lede is a terrible "writing style". But the 'Casting' section is exactly where we report casting info (i.e. ahead of time). We've had this discussion before, but a lot of us believe that you put casting announcement info in the 'Casting' section, and don't actually list anyone under the 'Cast' section until they are credited in an aired episode... I realize that get what info goes in 'Cast' vs. 'Casting' is a balance, but I would argue, rather strongly, that "casting announcement"-type info properly belongs in the 'Casting' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Just saying "it was filmed" is obvious; where and when, etc., are not. Heck, some of those details can indicate topic notability. And they aren't gossip, are they? An article only containing routine coverage (the things you outline that can all effectively be confirmed by the series existing) does need expansion or AfD if nothing to be found, but that doesn't mean the details should be purged from solid articles. Just revert with a nod to the TV production MOS per above comment. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point – "When and where" are not "trivial details", and are fully encyclopedic. I would say the edit should be reversed, on WP:BRD grounds, if nothing else. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I could find for removing the filming locations is that ProductionList.com is updated during pre-production but has no way of confirming their claims once production has started. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of times, filming location info can be confirmed in something like Variety. Nailing down filming dates is generally harder, though it is often possible to get an approximate date (e.g. "filming starts in mid-March", or "filming to take place this summer"), though, yeah – it's often an "advance announcement" rather than after the fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As other editors said above, the prose of the production information should be restore. A good TV series article contains a detailed and well-written Production section. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AFD help

Could I get some more television minded folks to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounty Hunters (American TV series) in order to help establish a better consensus? My main concern here is that the show was too short-lived to have garnered any media coverage. Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

This message provides notice that I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#2022 revision proposal on a proposed rewrite/update to the text of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Your comments are welcome. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A broken template

The main page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force, states that "This WikiProject is believed to be inactive." Left a message in their talk page, just in case someone still goes there. In case they don't, one of you who work the overarching WikiProject Television might care that the Template:AI contestant no longer works, as the underlying template data http://archive.americanidol.com no longer exists. Jmg38 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. If this can't be fixed then it will eventually head to WP:TFD. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ratings graph proposal

A discussion was recently restarted between YoungForever and I about the graphs used for ratings at Talk:List of Chicago Med episodes#Ratings table. A discussion of some nature was also done here between Alex 21 and I back in 2017. YoungForever and I came to the conclusion that rating graphs provide no new content and could borderline WP:FANCRUFT. Additionally, they provide major accessibility issues. One, the X axis of such graph is totally obliterated after a certain number of episodes. Secondly, the width of the graph exceeds the HTML and CSS code and causes vertical overflow on all devices. Additionally, some episode list pages include another table right under such graph with the exact same content, which again borderlines WP:FANCRUFT. It restates the same content from episode summaries and the first graph itself. Here are some examples I've gathered so far:

• List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#Ratings
• List of Friends episodes#Ratings
• List of Seinfeld episodes#Ratings
• List of Pretty Little Liars episodes#Ratings
• List of The Fosters episodes#Ratings
• List of The Blacklist episodes#Ratings
• List of This Is Us episodes#Ratings
• List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes#Ratings
• List of CSI: NY episodes#Ratings
• List of Black-ish episodes#Ratings
• List of The Resident episodes#Ratings
• List of Revenge episodes#Ratings

For that, I propose that some guidelines be tabled for such use:
1. Such graphs and tables be removed

(a) There is no need for a graph chart and a table repeating exactly the same content as the episode summaries.

2. Use of tables such as List of Station 19 episodes#Ratings instead.
3. Reliable sources demonstrate notability of viewership trends

(a) It seems that these graphs and tables are being added just to demonstrate viewership when there is no evidence of notability to these trends.

4. Once a certain number of episodes has been reached that causes accessibility issues, the graphs be moved into individual season pages.

(a) If no individual season articles exist, then the graphs should be separated by season subsections.

There is no consistency on their uses on pages, so it seems that they're just being applied without appropriate regard to WP:FANCRUFT. Any other proposals are welcome to establish proper guidelines for their uses. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense when there are few episodes, and it doesn't work when there are too many. Although I personally like the visual aspect of the graph, it's probably time to delete this template as viewership trends can already be seen in the season tables and denoted in Template:series overview. Heartfox (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully support the removal of these tables. It's much better to discuss in prose any trends as stated, than simply "copy-pasting" existing table info to a visual component that is horrible for ACCESS purposes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also against including ratings tables because, frankly, so-called "ratings" after about 2005, and esp. post-2010, are absolutely meaningless anyway. Ratings were only very relevant before DTV and streaming... But we don't need tables for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I also support the deletion of these templates. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the blanket removal of these graphs. A good use case is Breaking Bad#Viewership, where the graph shows visually the enormous jump in viewership on AMC that came after the show reached a much wider audience on Netflix. Information redundancy is not always a mistake: the accessibility of that information across education barriers is a key consideration. The table tells you the viewership in more detail than you can see from the graph, but can you really picture what a jump from an average of 2.93 to an average of 5.92 with a peak of 10.28 looks like? Well, I can picture it fairly well (it's roughly a jump from 1 to 2 to 3 1/2), but someone with lesser numeracy skills will not be able to. Similarly, we have images with captions or content redundant to prose in order to make information easier to process.

If the graph can cause overflow then its code should be rewritten, or the appropriate technical use cases ("between x and y episodes") should be specified in its documentation. — Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I'd argue that at least in the case you've mentioned, there are sources demonstrating notability. Most of the graphs I've seen just display the viewership trend without appropriate sources demonstrating the viewership trend. The only source, if mentioned, is only the total viewership by episode. There is no notability in the sources to warrant a graph to state the exact same content as the episode summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that. There should at least be some reason for the graph. I think the graphs should only be there if it conforms with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." e.g. it shows an actual notable trend, not just coloured viewership bars. Heartfox (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. If the ratings are significant enough to mention in figures, then they should be accompanied with a format that is actually digestible to our readers. The images here are not decorative: their point is to display statistical information. If you want to remove the rating numbers and the graphs, I can see a case for that, but routine calculations or presentation of statistical information (when these are stats with the same methodology, as here) is not original research or synthesis. Nor is it fundamentally different source-wise or due weight-wise to presenting the information in a table. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think what people were saying is that it when all of the ratings information is already given in episodic tables and/or ratings tables, a graph with coloured bars does appear decorative and unnecessary. I personally love the graphs and have made ones of my own but the template has format issues which make it render unreadable, e.g. one I did for Hell's Kitchen at User:Heartfox/sandbox/Masked Singer. Perhaps the x axis should just be removed? Heartfox (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wilford Brimley on Yellowstone (American TV series)

There was quite an internet hullabaloo when Wilford Brimley was given a title card tribute at the end of Season 3 episode 9 (August 2020) without ever appearing on an episode of Yellowstone (American TV series). It appears to me that he subsequently was included in a couple of scenes of Season 4 episode 5, which was released in November 2021. However, his filmography table on WP does not list this and IMDb does not list this. What is up?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The key issue here was was the appearance "archival footage", or was it "originally filmed" material. (Note: I do not watch Yellowstone, so I have not seen the scenes in question.) If the former, we absolutely do not include it in, say, the cast listing or in a Filmography. But if it was actually the latter, and he was credited, then it should be included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It looked like an original scripted performance to me. I just don't understand why he is not credited anywhere for this role.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Unless you have Peacock TV, you can't stream it for free, but a lot of channels offer it for $1.99 per episode. I am on the Netflix DVD plan.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have already put the DVD in the mail, so I don't know if he is credited in the episode guest star listings.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have determined that I can stream Yellowstone on Peacock (streaming service) or Paramount Network. What I thought were Brimley scenes in S4Ep5 are 12:50-15:28 and 42:17-43:18 seem to be scenes by Barry Corbin according to the credits and google image results.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hey everyone at WP TV, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Estelle Harris#Reliably reported content connecting the subject's death with that of her costar

Additional viewpoints would be welcome at Talk:Estelle Harris#Reliably reported content connecting the subject's death with that of her costar, which is currently basically a two-person back-and-forth. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Emmys for promos

Additional viewpoints would be welcome at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Better Call Saul. An IP has started a discussion about whether an Emmy Award awarded to a promo of Better Call Saul should be listed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yakamoz S-245

I've started a page for Yakamoz S-245 in draft: Draft:Yakamoz S-245. Consider contributing! This particularly needs referencing (which I suspect folks here have a good handle on!) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

New stub Everything's Gonna Be All White created

I've created a new stub called Everything's Gonna Be All White. I've added 9 references to the article and have added the infobox as well as the overview, cast, episodes and reception sections, but the article still needs some work like expanding and the episode list reformatted to the correct format. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TBS (American TV channel)#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TBS (American TV channel)#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Television cleanup

I fell down a rabbit hole of TV series navigational boxes that led me to discover a crapton of unsourced, undersourced, underused, and possibly non-notable TV shows. You can find my list here. I've already taken a crack at a few and would appreciate any help in source-hunting since some of these genuinely do seem to fail notability guidelines. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect most of these are real TV shows. I also believe that as most of them are minor (often documentary) programs on secondary or tertiary cable TV channels, they will not genuinely pass WP:GNG and should be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's my guess too. I think they just might be very, very obscure, so there are few sources on them. Historyday01 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sensing most of these will be difficult/may not pass GNG as well... I've just tried cleaning up Hi-Jinks- it certainly seems to be better than it previously was. Most of the sources for this particular show seem to be press releases from The Futon Critic. Apart from those, I'm not seeing many secondary sources whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried searching Electronic Media/TelevisionWeek? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The key part of WP:GNG is "significant coverage". A few sources only serves to prove that a TV show existed. But that's not enough to justify a standalone article, as per WP:NOPAGE/WP:NTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Quickly looking at what you prodded recently, has me concerned, User:TenPoundHammer. At WP:WikiProject Television/Article alerts#PROD you have over 250 prods in the last week or so! I don't see how you did before on these, and I've removed 4. I haven't looked deep into any of the American shows ... but every non-American show I have come across shouldn't be there. How can anyone check all these? Looking at the new list ... surely a TV show that ran for a year on a major US network is going to be notable. And good gosh, there's some classics in there; how can you have Bizarre (TV series) on your list - 140 episodes on CTV - plus years in syndication. Shouldn't a lot of the others be redirects to a list of network programming? Nfitz (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  The purpose of the list is improvement targets, not deletion targets. I've removed quite a few off the list like Smush because I was able to find sufficient sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, so it is. I found myself on your talk page after I saw the very high number of AFDs - where I saw a discussion with User:Liz concerning about your extremely high rate of Prods. In that discussion you mentioned on April 26 (UTC) that "I'm working on a list of articles I plan to prod". Then the following day you created User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup and started this thread. I mistakenly assumed that this was the list you were planning to prod, rather than improve! My apologies. Where is your prod list? Is it appropriate to be prodding and AFDing so many, mostly long-standing, articles simultaneously? It does present challenges in there being enough resources to review. And as I've noted at WP:Articles for deletion/You Wrote It, You Watch It, I think there may be BEFORE concerns in some of these AFDs (and presumably the Prods as well - though BEFORE doesn't strictly apply to prods). I'm also concerned, that many (if not most) of these prods are REDIRECTION candidates back to an expanded list of programs on the originating network. Perhaps it is better if we move this to your talk page ... I'm not sure how the rest of the project feels about this issue. Nfitz (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Television screenshots

Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 1, where I have nominated several television screenshots that fail WP:NFCC#8 for deletion. These include images of characters staring, walking, and talking to one another. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't familar with it before seeing this message, but I'll have to give it a try. Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any issues installing it. It's normally pretty easy though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass deprod of 146 articles

There are 146 articles PRODded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) on April 24 [8] that were deprodded by NemesisAT (talk · contribs) on the 30th due to concerns that too many articles were PRODded at once. These articles were deprodded in alphabetical order, including given names and articles, so this list will also be alphabetized. 14 of these articles have been AfD'd by TPH and one by me. I'm not 1000% certain about the fate of the rest. Most of the entries have few or no sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've already been told by @Liz: that this was a bad idea and agreed not to mass prod like this again. I've started my own list at User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup. What other editors want to do here is up to them; some of these may actually be valid deletion targets. I'd like to thank @Cunard: for finding sources in quite a few cases where they otherwise proved elusive, and @Nfitz: for informing me of Proquest. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm a little surprised I Just Want My Pants Back was included in this list. While a random check of the others confirms they are plausible deletion targets, I Just Want My Pants Back looks good enough to clear WP:GNG now, and that's including the fact that it is missing a 'Reception' section, and reviews of the show must surely exist... But a lot of the rest of these are what we discussed earlier: minor non-scripted TV shows on secondary and tertiary cable shows which in most cases aren't going to clear WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We did discuss this somewhat above at WT:WikiProject Television#Television cleanup. I and others unprodded some more as well, including some from later days. Also some Refunds ... and one I nominated at AFD after deprodding! There's likely some that slipped through and might be worth going to WP:REFUND. Very few seem to be worth completely deleting, though many could be redirects (and merges?) to the originating network. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this. If you think the episodes aren't notable for articles, please do not vote "delete" but "redirect" since these are perfectly find redirects. Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability of television episodes

Recently I went through redirecting a bunch of Heroes (American TV series) episodes because they were composed almost entirely of fancruft. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) undid most of the redirects, saying that reviews from IGN and AV Club made the episodes notable.

My read of WP:NEPISODE is that just a review or two isn't enough. Dream Focus says it is. Is this down to just personal opinion, or is an episode not notable unless there is coverage beyond just a couple of reviews? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, a few reviews is sufficient to warrant notability – the requirement for any article is that there must be significant coverage in reliable sources, and if there are entire reviews focusing on the episode, that would be "significant coverage" (most episodes don't receive individual reviews). It's also worth noting that WP:NEPISODE is an essay, not an SNG – an RfC to promote it to an SNG last year failed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The discuss is being had at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_television_episodes Dream Focus 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It should really depend on the kind of reviews and the source of them - some outlets, and IGN and AV Club are among these, review/recap every episode of popular shows, making their reviews little more than affirmation that the episode exists and the things that happened in it happened in it; i.e. you might as well be citing the episode. When an episode has demonstrated notability, of course include IGN/AV Club reviews and the critical opinions, they're not bad. They're just indiscriminate when it comes to episodes of popular shows. I also think discussion at the notability guidelines has majorly stalled? So you might not get much response there, unless I'm thinking of another discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the quality of reviews matters – this is why WP:NFILM includes "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The "nationally known critics" is to weed out using minor internet-only reviews to try to qualify a minor film for an article. WP:NTV should mirror that, to keep out using garbage like AV Club (which has internet randos reviewing everything). IOW, if it's not getting reviewed in Variety/Entertainment Weekly/LA Times/etc, the review is likely minor and doesn't meaningfully contribute to the "significant coverage in reliable sources" benchmark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_television_episodes Dream Focus 04:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Millennium (miniseries) into Millenium (film series)

Should the Millennium (miniseries) be turned into Millennium (film series)? I understand that the miniseries won awards and that may lead some to consider it notable to stand on its own, but they're the original films only extended and edited into a TV miniseries. Outside of Europe, it has been reformatted and released back into a film trilogy, at least according to IGN. Moving the article might give more room to add more relevant production information and reception of the individual films.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of television episodes

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of television episodes in regards to WP:NTV and WP:NEPISODE in particular. Editors of this project may be interested to participate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Episode table replacement

Hey, discussions regarding replacing Template:episode table with a different table at Inside No. 9 Indagate (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Actual discussion is here – WP:TV members may be interested as this discussion is about mixing use of the standard {{Episode table}}/{{Episode list}} formatting with a non-standard episodes table for different seaons in the same article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends 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/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

--Historyday01 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents characters dispute

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:List of The Fairly OddParents characters#Vicky is a main AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if more editors would keep an eye on this for a while – IP editor (operating on at least two IP addresses) is engaging in flagrant personal attacks and is declaring that "once the page is no longer under protection, I’m vowing to continue edit warring". Continued protection, and/or a block of the IP, may be required here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit alone should warrant a block. —El Millo (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

UK ratings through BARB

For anyone who's familiar with sourcing UK viewer ratings through BARB, do they no longer provide 28-day viewer ratings? This is their primary page for ratings data, but I don't seem to be able to find the relevant 28-day option anymore. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)