This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I have thought about creating templates for topics such as Template:Current ABC prime time schedule using http://epguides.com/grid/fall.shtml . Maybe we could also produce templates such as Template:2008-09 ABC prime time shows, which would include all shows that were part of the prime time schedule over the course of the year. The latter could be a substitute for the former and by having the current schedule and the cancelled shows, shows on hiatus, and future pilots. Additionally, we could have templates for Template:2008-09 United States Tuesday night prime time shows, which could also have the current regular schedule, cancelled shows, shows on hiatus and future shows.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The page Defensor (Transformers) is up for deletion, feel free to go voice your opinion on it and save the page. Mathewignash ( talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been seeing a few infoboxes on the tv articles that don't have the purple banner (or whatever it is) in the box. In some instances, people are inserting their own color like in the Girlfriends article here (I changed it awhile back) and on The Game here (again, changed it). In other instances (ie Entourage & Sex and the City) the boxes have different colors than the template that can't be changed. Do different genre of shows get their own color, should they all be the same or does it even matter? Pinkadelica ( talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been mild drama over the various Lassie television articles of late, which are almost exclusively being edited by Lassie fan User:ItsLassieTime. The newest bone of contention deals with Timmy Martin (television character). ItsLassieTime has done tons of edits to the article, adding lots of plot stuff, and only a few references. To me, I find she shows a great deal of ownership over the articles, reverting almost anyone else's edits (valid or not) if she doesn't like them. We edit warred recently over the use of an image that was violating WP:NONFREE, and it took three editors removing it and a warning from an admin before she stopped putting it back. Tonight, I reformatted the article to follow the MoS, remove small tags she had placed around most of the references (apparently not liking their standard appearance), and do some rewording in some areas [1]. She immediately reverted, claiming that the MoS could be completely ignored because it says to do what works best for "you" (which is incorrect), and rejecting all of the edits. [2] I reverted, blah blah, and the article is now protected. Discussion efforts very quickly feel, as its one against one, so asking the project to take a look at both versions to see which it feels is the "best for the article" (per what the MoS actually says).
I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article could easily be FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan instead of experienced editors.
Anyway, thoughts on the two versions and which is "best practices", and anyone else want to task of going for the FA so I can get away from this area? Much as I love the show, I don't think I'll be the editor to take it there because of the discord with this other editor.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I note that both of you have ownership issues (not necessarily bad; I have them at times too)? As I am mostly unfamiliar with Lassie, I can't and don't want to comment on what representation works best. However - and this doesn't mean I am siding with anyone - Collectionian has FA experience and thus has much experience dealing with various issues that come up during editing (including MOS issues), while ItsLassieTime seemingly doesn't, so this is an opportunity for ItsLassieTime to watch and learn. If I remember correctly, Collectonian has also expressed an interest in Lassie articles at least half a year ago, and I doubt that this had anything to do with ItsLassieTime's interests. So ItsLassieTime, please assume good faith that Collectionian is not after you; she is just watching out/trying to prevent poor editing choices to article she cares about just as much as you do (again, experience tells you what is likely poor). And although bad decisions happen to be made by everyone at times, even by established editors (I recently nominated a list for deletion for my favorite fiction and was shot down there, then I improved the list to Featured List Candidate status), this doesn't mean their general judgment is always off. Edit conflicts happen to everyone, and the back-button in some/most browsers can restore the edit-conflict edit that got "lost". If my attempted advice here doesn't help you to get along, I'd suggest that both of you make a copy of said article in your userspaces to take off the imagined [WP:DEADLINE]] pressure. If one userspace version is close to GAN quality, I figure you'll get along much better with further proceedings. – sgeureka t• c 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We currently have rather a mess when it comes to describing the actual organisation of TV, who broadcasts it, what the commercial structures are, etc. Articles such as television network, television channel, and television station are confusing in their scope, and fail to give a clear view of how things actually fit together.
I think rather than (as has been proposed) looking at mergers between these articles, we need to have a fundamental look at how we treat these topics. What's needed is an article somewhere giving a co-ordinated explanation of the way TV is organised in different countries, and how they compare: the US model of networks, affiliates, syndication etc; the UK model of national TV channels with local opt-outs; etc.
From this, we will end up with various entities that need further explanation, and therefore their own articles; we can give these appropriate names, and link prominently to the overall explanation to guide readers to all the related terms in a kind of super- disambiguation.
Now, a WikiProject ought to be ideal for this, but this project seems to be mainly focussed on TV content, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations is US-only, despite the name, and too narrow in scope anyway. So before we can organise the content, it seems we need to organise the organisation a bit: we need a new project, or a new co-ordination page somewhere (I'm really not up on the bureaucracy of these things) where we can hash out what needs covering, how we're going to use terminology, etc.
Thoughts? - IMSoP ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
May I turn your attention to the article on The Pirates of Dark Water? I while ago another Wikipedian and I were in a pretty bad edit conflict. I let it rest since then and stumbled upon it just now, finding it is still, in my personal opinion, in a bad shape. Can anyone here please look at it? Thanks! Oh, I've also posted this at the Animation WikiProject. -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Approximately five months ago, this article was moved from Sci Fi Channel (United States) to SCI FI (United States) to SCI FI. I feel this name violates the naming conventions and have started a discussion to look at moving it back to the original name, or to a different name as the original move was done claiming that "Channel" has been dropped from its name. Please offer thoughts at" Talk:SCI FI#Article Name -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please find a way to fix {{ TV network logos}} so that the title of the template isn't overlapping the template's "v - d - e" and "show/hide" links? As is, the template looks really poorly designed. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
A user named Alaistaward(something like that) has gone on a crusade and eliminated every piece of trivia that he could from the SP episodes. Now, most of them are understandable- however, he takes out trivia relating to callback to other episodes and even super obvious, shot-by-shot parodies. Like I said, most of the stuff is fine that it is taken down- but some of it is not, but he often doesn't go to an episode's talk page beyond copying what he deletes. He ignores the discussion.
Example: Up The Down Steroid. This guy seems fine, but overzealous. Help? 70.232.166.37 ( talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been a long time coming, but there is now a generic template, Template:Episode list/sublist, which can be used for season episode pages so that the lists can easily be transcluded into the main episode list. This will drastically reduce the need to make new subtemplates for each series that has been broken down into multiple lists and transcluded. For example, instead of using the single series Template:Episode list/Lassie, all of the List of Lassie episodes lists can be updated to use List of Lassie episodes to achieve the same effect, but with a single template. Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense, and thanks to User:Dinoguy1000 for solving the mystery of how to do it and sharing :) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Great work to both of you. It took me a long time to figure out how to apply transclusion to a single series' episode list so making a universal template is particularly impressive to me.-- Opark 77 ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I dropped by because I saw a discussion going awry at Talk:The China Probrem. A couple of users are against Alastairward's removal of trivial information. Maybe someone here can give support, cause this is getting ridiculious. -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on WP:HANBAR in my sandbox, if anyone at all wants to help before the WikiProject is officially released. --Dylan620 ( Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently, Veronica Mars was taken to FAC, and one of the main issues was sourcing, particulary with the casting section. I know about verifiability and reliable sources, but are interviews with fansites accepted? Casting is never talked about, and the actors rarely give interviews. These interviews with the fansites are the best ones out there. Is there anything I can do to keep the sources for the next FAC, or they do have to be removed? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone here good at writing about cartoons? The Brothers Flub needs more information on plot summary, history, critical reception, etc. Although I liked the cartoon, writing about fiction isn't really my area of expertise, and I'd appreciate if someone would help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
So I've hit kind of a snag while checking this project for redirects still being tagged as articles. There's close to eight hundred redirects tagged with some variation of {{ WikiProject Television}}. Normally I would go through and remove the banners from all those talk pages, but there's a twist. Specifically, articles in Category:Redirect-Class Avatar: The Last Airbender articles (or any other variation I haven't seen) show up in Category:Unassessed television articles. Normally I leave redirect-class articles alone but now I'm at an impasse.
So I guess the question is, should I go ahead and knock out the 200-some banners tagged as redirect-class, or do you guys want to get the project banner working with Redirect-class, so I can reassess all the other articles instead of just removing the banner? Nifboy ( talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
At the WP:FLC discussion of The Office (US TV series) season 4 the format and layout was commented on by User:Bignole, who said that the table of episodes should appear first since it is a page about the episodes of the season, and also that there is no need to mention the main characters in each season page. I don't want to paraphrase, so either go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4), or maybe Bignole will say it again here.
As a writer of 7 FLs for seasons, I'm interested in finding out the thoughts of the community at this time. WP:MOSTV#"List of ..." structure, WP:EPISODE and WP:LOE don't go into detail about season pages, but they do link to many FLs as good examples, and they all have the tables at the end, and all contain main cast and crew info. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Many characters portrayed by The Office cast are based on the British version of the show. While these characters normally have the same attitude and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its generally large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[8] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[9] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[10] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[11] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[12] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[13]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker), compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.
Season 2 page:
The Office employs an ensemble cast. All of the main characters, and some minor ones, are based on characters from the British version of The Office. While these characters normally have the same attitudes and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[16] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[17] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[18] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[19] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[20] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[21]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker) compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest and Vice-President of Regional Sales, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.
Apart from some minor differences in the first sentence, this is the same information duplicated across two pages (it's actually on three and four as well). That is too much duplication. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Do television advertisements such as Grim Reaper (advertisement) fall under the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the lead paragraph ended up being all bolded. Couldn't find the culprit here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing disagreement there about the inclusion of show/hide buttons for final diagnoses. It seems that a local consensus may be developing which seems to some to be at odds with WP:SPOILER. More editors involved in and contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of House episodes would be welcome. Jclemens ( talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made a page for Popstars The Rivals because I noticed one didn't exist. I have put tables on the page similar to those on The X Factor. Feel free to fill in the tables with songs performed and the rest of the page with other referenced info. Thanks. Matcham of the Day ( talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone let me know and add to the page? Matcham of the Day ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.79.191 ( talk)
Hi. Has anyone come up with any guidelines for the notability of television episodes ? Going through new page patrol / uncategorised articles, I'm coming across a lot of articles for individual episodes of television series which contain nothing more than a list of guest stars, broadcast date, and a plot. I thought the consensus was that individual episodes were ok if they were notable in some fashion - major guest star, news coverage, real-world relationship etc. Has this been changed to allow all episodes to be de facto notable, or is it just a case of too many articles and not enough people checking them ? :-) Indidentally, the one that propmted me to write this was Shelter Island (How I Met Your Mother). CultureDrone ( talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone with access to US newspaper articles in Newsbank, or similar databases, spare the time to access old reviews for the pilot episode of Friends and either incoporate them into that article's reception section or add them to the article talkpage? I'm willing to give a shiny, albeit imaginary, penny to anyone who can do this. Bradley0110 ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, in the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) article (and all other seasons) there is a crew section. The article is a Featured list. In Survivor: Borneo, the largely expanded crew section was removed per this project's MOS. It says that IMDb lists the crew, but we aren't IMDb. Why can't the expanded crew section stay in this article. It's the only thing holding it back from DYK right now. iMatthew 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The Graysons page has been nominated for deletion. More editor opinion is greatly appreciated. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, -- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As television articles could be affected by this, the project may be interested in knowing that there is a lengthy on-going discussion(s) regarding a proposal about citing IMDB, particularly whether it should be a citable source or all, and if so, what parts. Discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that almost every episode of South Park has it's own article. I was wondering why it's considered notable, for each individual episode. If it's ok, I'd like to do the same for every episode of Survivor (U.S. TV series) aye matthew ✡ 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The template {{WikiProject Television|class=List}} fails to add the the part with List with it's purple background to the template when adding the addition of |class=List it just has the three question marks instead. I noticed when I went to rate the article Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes as a List class. Govvy ( talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The season articles are located at The Amazing Race 1, The Amazing Race 2, etc. To be consistent with other television season articles, would anyone object to moving these to The Amazing Race (season 1), The Amazing Race (season 2), etc.? aye matthew ✡ 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I just moved some of "Credit" section in the Pocoyo article into the infobox there and made the entire section hidden. It should merged into the infobox there. Help me! (Oh. It is located under the " DVD Releases" section.) - JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Modelled after List of Naruto characters, the above articles are need help with contents. (I'll do my best with the layout but it may need your help also.)
A proposal to make a main article for Cartoon Network as a generic brand. Also need your help with contents. -- JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have any accounts of IMDB, TV.com, BCDB and Voice Chasers, can you correct pages below?
Things you should correct:
-- JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the project (both Wikipedia and WikiProject TV) current advice re: linking dates in articles about TV items to the [YEAR in television] article? I know that just linking years [1977] is discouraged as overlinking, but what about [1977 in television|1977]? When is such linking appropriate and when is it also considered overlinking? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that these should be avoided and most of these should be taskforces, however not many people seem to bother with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals is a very rarely viewed page and advice there is often not heeded. e.g. recently WikiProject Prison Break has been created despite much opposition. Would people be against me boldly moving some of the more recent Projects to taskforces within WP:TV. I won't be moving any of the much particpated in ones (like WP:Simpsons or WP:LOST) but think that many of the others should be taskforcified! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a fictional character merge proposal here. Neelix ( talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is simply an announcement that the proposed Veronica Mars task force has been created. I don't know the standard protocol from this point out, but I thought it prudent to inform the main project of this creation. hornoir ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Momma's Boys and its talk page? A couple of IP editors are intent on identifying all the contestants by race or ethnicity despite my requests on the talk page not to do so, and they have not provided any justification for doing so. I have noted that similar racial coding is not used on other articles about dating/reality shows such as The Bachelor. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe ( talk) 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, an issue about using section headers for individual episodes on a list of episode originally started on my talk page. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu for wider discussion, since that was the WikiProject being affected. But I would also like to see input from WP:TV on this matter as well. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've created a task force for the Adult Swim block, and I was wondering if anyone may be interested in Adult Swim, feel free to participate. And if you could also help me build it up (not very good at the technical stuff and all), that'd be great too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This may seem like a really minor point, but it's something there has apparently been edit-warring over: when a television show has ceased production, should it be referred to in the present or past tense in the first sentence? ('X is a television series...' vs 'X was a television series...') We seem to use the present tense more often here (see e.g. the opening sentences of Friends, The West Wing, The Sopranos), and that's what makes more sense to me: all of those may have stopped running, but they still are television shows. I just changed this on the lead of Sex and the City ( diff), but I've noticed that some other articles, such as Charmed and Angel (TV series) use the past tense as well. So: is there any standard style here? If not, should there be? Terraxos ( talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill about what to do with the character articles. Please feel free to add your input. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if any members of this project could spend a bit of time and participate in the peer review of Survivors (2008). Thanks, Deadly∀ssassin 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I was told to specifically to ask outside WP:ANIME for someone to come and review the list for grammar mistakes as that is all that is keeping it from being an WP:FLC at this time. This seemed like the most appropriate place to ask, but I did not see a way to request a peer review on the main page (only list of current ones). じん ない 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Before I leave (for my holiday), I just wanted to check if any knows of any websites/articles that can help source the ratings section of the Friends article. Most of the newer seasons are reffed, but I have been unable to find any for the first four seasons. Also, I have nominated the article for GA; would asking for a semi-protection disqualify it from passing? (I have seen this happen in the past.) The page is regularly edited by IP's, and most are not constructive. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The dust has barely dried on the newest discussion about whether Wikipedia:Television episodes should be demoted from a guideline (with consensus saying wait till WP:FICT is actually done and back to guideline status), when another editor has started an extremely length attack against the article and basically threatening to demote it himself. Right now, only three other editors are involved, and I got tired of answering because of his lengthy replies and constant personal attacks against responders and overall snarky attitude (IMHO). Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Laws are like sausages is the discussion and additional eyes/opinions could be used, particularly since we are the project the guideline most directly affects. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody has changed the Variety Television Network page, saying the network has ceased broadcasting. They didn't add a reference though, can anyone confirm if this exciting news is true? Retro Agnostic ( talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone re-assess James T. Kirk? I am unsure how to generate the template for review at the article level - there appears to be some conflicting info (and I would genuinely like to know how to do it if someone can take the time to show me how), and I don't want a mistake on my part to slow down the process and movement to GA and FA. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried some time ago to clean up the list of characters which was made in tables which had a lot of minor characters, it counted the episode appearance of each characters. I tried to change most of that to prose, but there were several complains that said they liked more the tables. Before ending the discussion one user reverted the list to tables, saying I was the minority that said that version was better [4]. That was not my main comment. I mentioned that the tables added 10 kylobites to the articles and that it made impossible to use links for certain. Im leaving on holidays, so could anybody take a look? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I am sprucing up ghost and was musing on a short list of the most notable depictions of ghosts on TV in the Ghost#Film_and_television section. All suggestions welcome. Also, if someone has a reference discussiing the use of shosts on television overall that would be much appreciated. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, toonsters! Any chance that any of you could help me with List of Tiny Toon Adventures episodes? Each episode needs a summary. I've been able to do the first 35 episodes based off the DVD, but I could really use help from a fan of the show. I'm actually quite new to this series, and any help with the Tiny Toon Adventures articles in general would be greatly appreciated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting comments about / suggestions for this article from you folks. I made a few changes over the weekend, another editor reverted some of them, and I don't want to re-do them unless they're appropriate. I won't ask you to concentrate on any specific details; if a problem doesn't jump out at you, I'll assume it isn't a real problem. Thanks! Townlake ( talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
it'sme who adds so much information about Catherine Siachoque novelas please dlete all my edits from everywhwre is it possible and delete my accopunt ooo please I'm not going to edit anything more. I've worked on this pages and info since 2007 and now I'm already fainted when I saw everything deleted so please delete my edits everything info I brought here and my account too.
Hey, I need help populating Category:Television series with missing episodes, well, you probably can figure out how to get to the category, which is really incomplete. I'm no expert on non-DuMont television series, any help adding this category to more shows with missing episodes would be great. Thanks in advance. Retro Agnostic ( talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
For any Wikipedians interested in joining a Dexter task force, please feel free to sign up here. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Asking here on the part of the video game project, since it's being considered usable as a source for voice acting credits in articles. It's owned by CBS which seems to give it a lot of credibility, just seeing if anyone here has really delved into them or not in terms of being a reliable source.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Following up Talk:List of Fringe episodes#Episode 15 - April 7, 2009, I came to the article this morning to see that the next episode did not have an line item. Research revealed it wouldn't air until April 7, 2009 and that was all I could find, so I added an entry to the list of episodes filling in the unknowns with "TBA". There is some disagreement about this; my position is that some (sourced) information is better than no information. Thoughts? – xeno ( talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion. -- JD554 ( talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that a TV episode is its own cite for the plot synopsis. I.e. watch it for the plot, no secondary sources needed? I thought I had seen that somewhere else on wikipedia, but I can't think where. Alastairward ( talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I could use some help citing the viewer count for Burn Notice (season 1). Nielson's Cable archives don't go that far, at least from what I could see on "tvbythenumbers.com" . I found what I could, but I still need help for it. If some could help; that would be excellent. Once I have that, finishing List of Burn Notice episodes and getting it to Featured List status would be simple. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Several shows mention that they don't feature a 'studio audience laugh-track'. However, as far as I was concerned, studio audiences cannot produce canned laughter. Unless the audience consists of robots.... Retro Agnostic ( talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ Cite episode}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:Cite episode if you'd like to offer your views.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This template has been nominated for deletion. Your views welcome at its deletion discussion. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I request (either permission to do or have one of the bosses here do) that some of the articles Related to NCIS be linked to some pages at our own wiki. Not all must, since we are still a work in progress, but some of our articles are of a good quality. General Grham Talk to Me NCIS wiki 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering why we add links to TV.com on television series pages. From what I can tell it is as user based as Wikipedia is except that Wikipedia has higher standards than TV.com does. TV.com can not be used as a source, if I am remembering correctly. What does TV.com offer that can not be found here? LA ( T) @ 10:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking for some input on the MOS guidelines for listing 'international broadcasts' of channels. Any comments would be much appreciated. DP76764 ( Talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have a current
request for bot approval open, requesting authorisation to migrate {{
needs television infobox}}
to a parameter in {{
WikiProject Television}}
. A couple of questions...
Firstly, would it be useful for the bot to simultaneously fill in the class= field in {{
WikiProject Television}}
, copying it from other such fields on the page?
Secondly, the bot will attempt to detect the presence of an infobox on the corresponding article page. If it does find an existing infobox, should it delete {{
needs television infobox}}
or list the page for review?
Thanks for your help!
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's bad enough there has been a mass-deletion of episode articles, character articles, and the images attached to them. Now an entire character list has been tagged as non-notable and is threatened with deletion! This kind of destruction is really getting out of hand! ---- DanTD ( talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To Jclemens, my paranoia is due to past experience with TV-related articles, which have been wiped out. And I just checked and found it's not the only one. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the links to IMDb and TV.com be removed from the infobox and placed into an external links section. I think films is already doing this, and while we do not have to follow film's lead, it would add a form of consistency. The only external link that would be included in the infobox is the official site of the television series. LA ( T) @ 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As it seems that we are agreed with this proposal, I would like to further ask if this WikiProject would have any objection to me creating two hidden categories, Category:Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox and Category:Television articles with a TV.com link in the infobox. The categories would be populated by the infobox. It may be a slow process until a bot is secured, but this would allow us to know just how much work would need to be done. I am not sure that a bot could do this. I am willing to do some of this manually for those series in which I am interested (it is quite a long list, so don't think I can do them all in one sitting). If you approve, I can add the hidden categories quickly with little fuss. LA ( T) @ 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: A note could be added to the documentation stating that the IMDb and TV.com links are to go into the External links section from here on out using the appropriate templates. LA ( T) @ 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bravo for this decision! I have never understood how these two sites, which rely on fan submissions and thereby epitomize lack of reliability, were accorded any space in the Wikipedia at all. At least moving them to links lessens their importance significantly. Drmargi ( talk) 23:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa whoa...apparently User:Lady Aleena misunderstood this discussion and believe it meant that she should new template. She has now been going through dozens of articles and using this new, inappropriate template, replacing any existing EL templates without any discussion nor consensus as to whether one template a good idea. I have TfDed the template (and revert the use of it), for those reasons, and I feel this template is inappropriate and encourages less discriminate in the selection of ELs links, has very bad formatting, etc. Comments at the TfD appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
*{{amg title|314758}}
*{{IMDb title|0389564}}
*{{Tv.com show|23350}}
{{Movie title external links|amg=314758|imdb=0389564|tvcom=23350}}
I don't get it. Is his alter ego "Kell-El" or "Kel-El"? Various sources are using different names. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi if there's any admins here, a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently. TomCat4680 ( talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Criminal Minds's talkpage currently has a discussion regarding which stars to include in the infobox. I believe that it should only include current stars, but you can read my detailed explanation on the talkpage. I was hoping to get some other editors besides me that have knowledge of the infobox to give their inputs. I was also hoping regardless of the decision on Criminal Minds that we could come up with some guidelines regarding the infoboxes, as I believe they should only include current information. Discussion here [5] Thanks -- DJS 24 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I recently started a section for moving the page List of minor characters of Scrubs to List of Scrubs characters, as well as removing many very minor characters from the list and merging in character pages (though the latter would be handled more separately and with consensus on each page) on the discussion page. It's been a few days, and no one has replied, and with a subject such as this, I'd like to get opinions from others. So, would anyone mind replying on Talk:List of minor characters of Scrubs#Move, remove, and merge? Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A merge of Toon Disney into Disney XD has been proposed. Please see This discussion page for comments. Thank You. -- Gman124 talk 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Diaa abdelmoneim has nominated BBC Young Musician of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit TV articles much, so I'm having problems finding sources for the awards. Help? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Characters notable enough for stand-alone articles sometimes also are subject of SNL et al. spoofs. Is it appropriate to list such spoof/satirical portrayals in a character infobox's list of "portrayals"? Is a spoof of a character the same thing as portraying the character itself? Does this content go in a "portrayal"s section or "reaction/commentary" section?
On a related note, should an infobox/the article include coverage of an amateur (i.e. fan) production if that coverage includes commentary on the actor's performance of that character?
These questions derive from a conversation about James T. Kirk, and the extent to which we include coverage of a fan production's performance (with commentary from a reliable source) and John Belushi's spoof. -- EEMIV ( talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of us are on the same page as to what specifically we are referring to. I'll try and lay out my thoughts as to what I believe the discussion to be about and anyone is free to do the same about their own thoughts (as well as critique my stance).
That's my assessment of the issue, take it as you all like. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know how to put an article about TV and its relationship into Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. If searching a TV programme produced by the National Television Network by Google and its hit is over 50,000, then should we create a new article about it in Wikipedia English or local Wikipedia. User:Es.ntp - 58.186.244.92 ( talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
Project members might be interested in two discussions on-going. One, started at WP:N is a straw poll asking that there be a "policy change" to state that "Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it." Wikipedia talk:Notability#Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode. Over at WP:EPISODE, it has once again been tagged disputed and a discussion started there Wikipedia talk:Television episodes# Disputed. Both apparently being spurred by the South Park episode merging discussions noted above (which could also use more views). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Further views needed at Talk:The Pretender (TV series)#DVD Releases Dispute. This a series article I've more recently started cleaning up and trying to get in better shape. For background, on the 21st, User:HeMan5 visited the article and redid the existing DVD release table into a "more detailed format" that included breakdowns of the features and what not. [6] From his contribution history, this is something he is apparently doing on many series articles. I reverted this change, noting that the amount of detail was excessive for a main series article, and then replaced the old table with a more appropriate prose summary [7] having finally finished reformatting the episode list just this weekend (only reason I hadn't done it weeks ago). [8] He, however, reverted the next day claiming I gave no "logical" reason for this change. Reverted again and gave a fuller explanation. Today, same thing, only now he's reverted twice. I attempted to discuss this with him, explain why it wasn't proper, pointed him to the MoS, pointed him to FA series articles, etc. He responded with some mild personal attacks and then finally just saying "I'm done talking with you" after I pointed him to the FAs he demanded to see. For now, the reverting has stopped and a discussion started above. As this is basically a 1 against 1, additional project views would be appreciated regarding whether either DVD table is appropriate or if the prose version is best. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to help the project in a fairly un-time consuming way? Why not go by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and assess some articles. There are currently 14 unfulfilled request, some from February 08! It doesn't take tons of time, just a decent familiarity with the project's quality scale and WP:MOSTV. :) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Today, if we see one article about a character that is not supported by multiple third party reliable sources, we merge it into a character list. I have followed that policy, but recently I have come to question that logic. We say article A is not notable, so then we merge it together with a bunch of other unnotable characters and suddenly that character list is notable. For me that doesn't make any sense.
Basically, we must admit that no matter how important and notable a show is, we can't get multiple third party reliable sources for every character. Usually, you can find stuff on the main characters, such as the concept of the character and casting, but when it comes to recurring characters, you can usually only find a source saying which actor portrays the character. Therefore a character list would mostly consist of in-universe stuff. If we look at Characters of Carnivàle, which is the character list that has made to FA status, it mostly consists of in-universe stuff.
So where am I going with this? I want to know what it takes to make a good character list, because right it is a dumping ground for articles some people don't like. I would like this project to come up with a guideline specific to how to deal with character lists. Right now, all WP:MOSTV says is "For a good character list example, see Characters of Kingdom Hearts, although it is not a television-related article". The first thing that should be mentioned in that guideline is that it is okay to write it from an in-universe perspective, although you should do your best to include out-of-universe stuff.
Also, if anyone could come up with a solution regarding extremely long-running shows, I would appreciate it. I am thinking of soaps operas and The Simpsons. Merging is not always the best choice. The Simpsons has 8 different character lists. One of which is currently 124,689 bytes long. Merging everything would put it well beyond 200 KB.-- Maitch ( talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how many people know of this in the first place, but it's possible to give the infoboxes of TV shows a certain color throughout wikipedia by noting the preferred color at Template:Television colour (this template is called by {{ Infobox Television episode}}). The TV shows and their colors there are currently
| Angel = #5678AC | Buffy the Vampire Slayer = #5678AC | Entourage = #FBBC87 | Firefly = #fc9 | Home and Away = #F9BA5B | Mad Men = #F52B13 | The 4400 = #B9D0E8 | The O.C. = #FFAA44 | The Simpsons = #FADA00 | The Sopranos = #CDCCCC | Veronica Mars = #C0D883 | Sex and the City = #EAADEA
Stargate SG-1 was included there as well once, but got removed because of standardization/cleanup attempts in 2008. Now, there is a request at the template's talkpage to include
| Star Wars = #FFD700 | Battlestar Galactica = #B22222
I wonder if TV shows should really get their own color because they can, or if we should keep all TV article infoboxes color-standardized to lightblue and attempt to standardize the rest as well. (In my opinion, the only show where a separate color makes some sense would be The Simpsons because they have a very active project with a huge output of quality articles, and the connection to yellow is obvious, but I'd welcome a standardization on a voluntary basis of the respective wikiproject as well.) So, yes or no to standardization? If yes, for all TV shows or just some (and which and why)? – sgeureka t• c 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Please read the top of Template talk:Television colour as well. – sgeureka t• c 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The template was introduced for the exact reasons i listed at the top of the talk page there. Simpsons is a clear case. A color that is deeply associated with the topic. And as such, there is nothing wrong with using that. BSG has no clear associated color in my opinion. Firefly however is clearly coupled to that brownish orange. This should be judged on a case by case basis. (And some weeding needs to occur in the existing list). For instance, i'm quite sure the template still has some colors that I added to prevent edit warring when we did the Infobox Television episode unification drive. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said. I would find it "weird". Primarily I'm providing historical perspective, I don't give a flying-!@*#%$ about what actually happens next, as I'm no longer interested in this project. But you'd better inform the respective wikiprojects if you are gonna change something, and you'd probably better start with bgcolor and textcolor first, since that was contentious enough back then. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the very existence of this template can be problematic in unrelated but identically-named articles; because Angel (TV series) has an assigned colour, the code seeps through into the Angel (1960 TV series) infobox. Bradley0110 ( talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Revisiting, there seemed to be a general opinion that it would be okay to do away with the colours. Shall we make this happen, and if so does anyone have a strategy to do so? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I had posted the following to a Buffy-related template and, in following up followed the links to here. I'm not sure if it'll get any attention here or not, and I may need to re-poste to that Project, but it is some thing to keep in mind with the above.
The Buffy background color is in conflict with WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS. The contrast between the background and the 3 default text colors is so low that even with good eye sight it's hard to read. That one at least needs a re-think.
Doing a quick look at the rest using the switch, only Mad Men is close to a problem.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been trying to get List of Jericho episodes to FL status for around the past month and a half. [9] To do this, I undertook a project to rewrite all of the episode summaries. At first, this started going pretty well; the summaries stayed around 4 lines or so. But as I went further into the series, the episode became more and more complex, until the season two reached 7-8 lines of episode summary (To be fair, it was at least a half-season scrunched into 7 episodes). The problem, as I see it, is that the earlier episodes are just much less complicated and have less intricacies than the latter ones. I just wanted to ask what the project thought of all of this. Should I attempt to shorten each episode summary, or just leave it as is? The former would risk losing information; the latter would make it seem like the episode lengths are unbalanced. What do you all think: shorten or keep? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
How should the number of episodes of a ongoing tv show be listed in the infobox? Me and Mythdon think it should be listed by the number of episodes that aired and then the date of that episode. But Ryulong think it should be listed as ongoing. What do you think? Powergate92 Talk 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) A discussion has been started at WT:TOKU, meaning the discussion has been more or less moved there. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong is saying there has been no agreement here about this. Has there been no agreement here about this? Powergate92 Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For some background, the article on Bob Ross had a "trivia and in popular culture" section that contained a laundry list of unsourced claims of "Bob Ross" appearances and references in various shows, films, etc. It was removed in October 2007 (yes, 07) as WP:OR and unsourced trivia during an effort to clean up the article a bit. [10] Now an editor, User:Proxy User wants to put it back in, but without being able to actually provide sources, proof of significant coverage, etc. He canvassed a bunch of people who at one time or another said "oh, I liked that section" and is now claiming that because one came back to say "bring it back again" that there will soon "be consensus" to add a new "Bob Ross in Popular Culture" section. Discussion is at Talk:Bob Ross#Cultural Influence. Additional, out-side views heavily needed. I also posted asking about the validity of the section at the Biography project, but no one has said anything, and as Ross is primarily known for his TV personality status, I thought it would be good to mention here as well.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Want a challenge? Take a look at this list. It is...beyond words. I'm thinking it should probably be split between the three series that lasted, and the other three can just have their characters in their main articles. Also, of course, needs a ridiculous amount of character article merging, as articles have been made for just about every last minor one to appear. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Hendrix is a fairly minor character of the SVU series, so I nominated it for AfD. It seems pretty clear the AfD will close as a delete, however User:A Nobody merged the article to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters (sans redirect of course). I reverted this, feeling she was far too minor a character to include in the series character list. He disagrees and would like the character added back to the list. Additional views on this issue at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merge? would be useful as it seems clear we can not come to an agreement. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt ( talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Television page asks editors to tag articles needing images with {{
tvimage}}, which adds the article to
Category:Wikipedia requested television images. Can we make this instead {{
reqphoto|television programs}}
? I am on a mission to reduce and consolidate redundant photo request templates!
Tim Pierce (
talk)
16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)#Merge same topic, regarding the merger of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) back into one article given that they are two separate articles covering the same topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a user refusing to remove a trivial mention of a naming difference. Could someone review this situation? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working a bit on Castiel (Supernatural), and I'm not totally satisfied with putting the in-universe info in a section titled "Character background". I looked at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Fictional_characters_and_technologies for ideas, and there seems to be about as many ways to name sections as there are articles. Does anyone know of a standarized naming scheme? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ USLateNightTelevision}} has been proposed for deletion:
as a redundant alternative to {{ Late night}} (included in most of the same articles). Only the proposer (yours truly) and the creator of USLateNightTelevision have contributed to the discussion so far. WP:TV member comments are welcome. 67.100.127.102 ( talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we please try and get better style guidelines for List of episodes articles? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I decided to revisit some of the first film articles I ever worked on to see if I could apply what I've learned in the last two years to making them better. One of those articles is Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (B-movie goodness). Doing some clean ups for it, I removed some unsourced statements and one statement that was "sourced" to a copyvio link. Said statement said "In order to play the role of Diane Agostini, Jennifer Garner had to have her ears pierced especially for the very first time in her life, but then let them heal up again after filming was completed." Another editor, User:Sandi saraya reverted, claiming it was properly sourced. I reverted, pointed to WP:COPYRIGHT. She removed the link and reverted again as she feels its "notability is that it was done SPECIFICALLY for this film." I attempted to discuss with her on her talk page, but she firmly believes it is a notable fact, while I firmly believe its pointless trivia. [11] A discussion is now at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York#Jennifer Garner where she spells out her reasons for feeling its notable, and I spell out mine for it not being. Now need additional views. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what the hell is wrong with the List of Life with Derek episodes? I can't add the template to the bottom of the list without the thing blending in, as you can see by this edit. Even if I tried to make a separate chapter for the template it still doesn't work. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not get any feedback when I posted this suggestion last week, so here it is again under a more explicit title:
I am proposing to replace the {{
tvimage}} template with {{
reqphoto|television programs}}
. That would implicitly rename
Category:Wikipedia requested television images to
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs. It would also make it possible to write more specific requests for images, e.g. {{
reqphoto|television programs|of=the "Cheers" logo}}
or {{
reqphoto|television programs|of=the actual Tom's Restaurant in Manhattan}}
.
I'm interested in hearing opinions one way or the other. If I don't hear any feedback at all in the next week or so, I will assume no one else cares much, and will instruct PhotoCatBot to start replacing the templates. Tim Pierce ( talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Instead of logos and intertitle images, you want photos of buildings? What if there is no chance for a photo, for example if the series is filmed entirely on a studio lot? Matthewedwards : Chat 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed some things about the LOE pages, and I wanted to propose one change as well as bring up a new issue that I've been seeing on a select few of the LOE pages. The proposed change I would like to implement would be the moving of the DVD information (ex. List of Meerkat Manor episodes#Series) to a more professional header, and appropriate location. I would suggest the standard "Home video release" or "DVD release", and that it be placed under the episodes. My feelings are that these are lists of episodes articles, not lists of DVD releases. It does not seem right to introduce the body of the article by telling people they can buy the DVD. This isn't done on the main pages of TV articles, it doesn't make sense to promote the selling of a show before you've even listed what the show contains. The WP:MOSTV doesn't tackle this little formatting structure, and there is generally more traffic on this page than on that one, hence why the discussion is here. The proposed changed would look more like this setup, where the page's sections are ordered via their importance to the topic.
The issue that I saw was the apparent increase in images in the LOE pages in the past year. Now, before that all of the images were removed from LOE pages following that snafu regarding non-free images. They seem to be making their way back through FLs (currently, I think 8 of our LOE FLs have some form of image...one of them has 2 images). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have caught two articles of fictional characters where it seems evident that the birth/death dates are based soley on the actor they player:
I will be looking for such cases trough at least this week, and whatever case I find will be resolved, mentioned here, and discussed. All participants are free to discuss this right here. — Mythdon t/ c 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
join in the fun at Talk:Tuner_(electronics)#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I have thought about creating templates for topics such as Template:Current ABC prime time schedule using http://epguides.com/grid/fall.shtml . Maybe we could also produce templates such as Template:2008-09 ABC prime time shows, which would include all shows that were part of the prime time schedule over the course of the year. The latter could be a substitute for the former and by having the current schedule and the cancelled shows, shows on hiatus, and future pilots. Additionally, we could have templates for Template:2008-09 United States Tuesday night prime time shows, which could also have the current regular schedule, cancelled shows, shows on hiatus and future shows.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The page Defensor (Transformers) is up for deletion, feel free to go voice your opinion on it and save the page. Mathewignash ( talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been seeing a few infoboxes on the tv articles that don't have the purple banner (or whatever it is) in the box. In some instances, people are inserting their own color like in the Girlfriends article here (I changed it awhile back) and on The Game here (again, changed it). In other instances (ie Entourage & Sex and the City) the boxes have different colors than the template that can't be changed. Do different genre of shows get their own color, should they all be the same or does it even matter? Pinkadelica ( talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been mild drama over the various Lassie television articles of late, which are almost exclusively being edited by Lassie fan User:ItsLassieTime. The newest bone of contention deals with Timmy Martin (television character). ItsLassieTime has done tons of edits to the article, adding lots of plot stuff, and only a few references. To me, I find she shows a great deal of ownership over the articles, reverting almost anyone else's edits (valid or not) if she doesn't like them. We edit warred recently over the use of an image that was violating WP:NONFREE, and it took three editors removing it and a warning from an admin before she stopped putting it back. Tonight, I reformatted the article to follow the MoS, remove small tags she had placed around most of the references (apparently not liking their standard appearance), and do some rewording in some areas [1]. She immediately reverted, claiming that the MoS could be completely ignored because it says to do what works best for "you" (which is incorrect), and rejecting all of the edits. [2] I reverted, blah blah, and the article is now protected. Discussion efforts very quickly feel, as its one against one, so asking the project to take a look at both versions to see which it feels is the "best for the article" (per what the MoS actually says).
I firmly believe this article (as well as the series article could easily be FA with some work, so I'm finding it very frustrating dealing with this kind of thing. The show has a ton of sources, and yet both are start class, and I honestly feel it is because the whole thing is "controlled" by a single fan instead of experienced editors.
Anyway, thoughts on the two versions and which is "best practices", and anyone else want to task of going for the FA so I can get away from this area? Much as I love the show, I don't think I'll be the editor to take it there because of the discord with this other editor.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I note that both of you have ownership issues (not necessarily bad; I have them at times too)? As I am mostly unfamiliar with Lassie, I can't and don't want to comment on what representation works best. However - and this doesn't mean I am siding with anyone - Collectionian has FA experience and thus has much experience dealing with various issues that come up during editing (including MOS issues), while ItsLassieTime seemingly doesn't, so this is an opportunity for ItsLassieTime to watch and learn. If I remember correctly, Collectonian has also expressed an interest in Lassie articles at least half a year ago, and I doubt that this had anything to do with ItsLassieTime's interests. So ItsLassieTime, please assume good faith that Collectionian is not after you; she is just watching out/trying to prevent poor editing choices to article she cares about just as much as you do (again, experience tells you what is likely poor). And although bad decisions happen to be made by everyone at times, even by established editors (I recently nominated a list for deletion for my favorite fiction and was shot down there, then I improved the list to Featured List Candidate status), this doesn't mean their general judgment is always off. Edit conflicts happen to everyone, and the back-button in some/most browsers can restore the edit-conflict edit that got "lost". If my attempted advice here doesn't help you to get along, I'd suggest that both of you make a copy of said article in your userspaces to take off the imagined [WP:DEADLINE]] pressure. If one userspace version is close to GAN quality, I figure you'll get along much better with further proceedings. – sgeureka t• c 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We currently have rather a mess when it comes to describing the actual organisation of TV, who broadcasts it, what the commercial structures are, etc. Articles such as television network, television channel, and television station are confusing in their scope, and fail to give a clear view of how things actually fit together.
I think rather than (as has been proposed) looking at mergers between these articles, we need to have a fundamental look at how we treat these topics. What's needed is an article somewhere giving a co-ordinated explanation of the way TV is organised in different countries, and how they compare: the US model of networks, affiliates, syndication etc; the UK model of national TV channels with local opt-outs; etc.
From this, we will end up with various entities that need further explanation, and therefore their own articles; we can give these appropriate names, and link prominently to the overall explanation to guide readers to all the related terms in a kind of super- disambiguation.
Now, a WikiProject ought to be ideal for this, but this project seems to be mainly focussed on TV content, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations is US-only, despite the name, and too narrow in scope anyway. So before we can organise the content, it seems we need to organise the organisation a bit: we need a new project, or a new co-ordination page somewhere (I'm really not up on the bureaucracy of these things) where we can hash out what needs covering, how we're going to use terminology, etc.
Thoughts? - IMSoP ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
May I turn your attention to the article on The Pirates of Dark Water? I while ago another Wikipedian and I were in a pretty bad edit conflict. I let it rest since then and stumbled upon it just now, finding it is still, in my personal opinion, in a bad shape. Can anyone here please look at it? Thanks! Oh, I've also posted this at the Animation WikiProject. -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Approximately five months ago, this article was moved from Sci Fi Channel (United States) to SCI FI (United States) to SCI FI. I feel this name violates the naming conventions and have started a discussion to look at moving it back to the original name, or to a different name as the original move was done claiming that "Channel" has been dropped from its name. Please offer thoughts at" Talk:SCI FI#Article Name -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please find a way to fix {{ TV network logos}} so that the title of the template isn't overlapping the template's "v - d - e" and "show/hide" links? As is, the template looks really poorly designed. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
A user named Alaistaward(something like that) has gone on a crusade and eliminated every piece of trivia that he could from the SP episodes. Now, most of them are understandable- however, he takes out trivia relating to callback to other episodes and even super obvious, shot-by-shot parodies. Like I said, most of the stuff is fine that it is taken down- but some of it is not, but he often doesn't go to an episode's talk page beyond copying what he deletes. He ignores the discussion.
Example: Up The Down Steroid. This guy seems fine, but overzealous. Help? 70.232.166.37 ( talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been a long time coming, but there is now a generic template, Template:Episode list/sublist, which can be used for season episode pages so that the lists can easily be transcluded into the main episode list. This will drastically reduce the need to make new subtemplates for each series that has been broken down into multiple lists and transcluded. For example, instead of using the single series Template:Episode list/Lassie, all of the List of Lassie episodes lists can be updated to use List of Lassie episodes to achieve the same effect, but with a single template. Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense, and thanks to User:Dinoguy1000 for solving the mystery of how to do it and sharing :) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Great work to both of you. It took me a long time to figure out how to apply transclusion to a single series' episode list so making a universal template is particularly impressive to me.-- Opark 77 ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I dropped by because I saw a discussion going awry at Talk:The China Probrem. A couple of users are against Alastairward's removal of trivial information. Maybe someone here can give support, cause this is getting ridiculious. -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on WP:HANBAR in my sandbox, if anyone at all wants to help before the WikiProject is officially released. --Dylan620 ( Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently, Veronica Mars was taken to FAC, and one of the main issues was sourcing, particulary with the casting section. I know about verifiability and reliable sources, but are interviews with fansites accepted? Casting is never talked about, and the actors rarely give interviews. These interviews with the fansites are the best ones out there. Is there anything I can do to keep the sources for the next FAC, or they do have to be removed? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone here good at writing about cartoons? The Brothers Flub needs more information on plot summary, history, critical reception, etc. Although I liked the cartoon, writing about fiction isn't really my area of expertise, and I'd appreciate if someone would help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
So I've hit kind of a snag while checking this project for redirects still being tagged as articles. There's close to eight hundred redirects tagged with some variation of {{ WikiProject Television}}. Normally I would go through and remove the banners from all those talk pages, but there's a twist. Specifically, articles in Category:Redirect-Class Avatar: The Last Airbender articles (or any other variation I haven't seen) show up in Category:Unassessed television articles. Normally I leave redirect-class articles alone but now I'm at an impasse.
So I guess the question is, should I go ahead and knock out the 200-some banners tagged as redirect-class, or do you guys want to get the project banner working with Redirect-class, so I can reassess all the other articles instead of just removing the banner? Nifboy ( talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
At the WP:FLC discussion of The Office (US TV series) season 4 the format and layout was commented on by User:Bignole, who said that the table of episodes should appear first since it is a page about the episodes of the season, and also that there is no need to mention the main characters in each season page. I don't want to paraphrase, so either go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (US TV series) season 4), or maybe Bignole will say it again here.
As a writer of 7 FLs for seasons, I'm interested in finding out the thoughts of the community at this time. WP:MOSTV#"List of ..." structure, WP:EPISODE and WP:LOE don't go into detail about season pages, but they do link to many FLs as good examples, and they all have the tables at the end, and all contain main cast and crew info. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Many characters portrayed by The Office cast are based on the British version of the show. While these characters normally have the same attitude and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its generally large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[8] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[9] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[10] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[11] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[12] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[13]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker), compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.
Season 2 page:
The Office employs an ensemble cast. All of the main characters, and some minor ones, are based on characters from the British version of The Office. While these characters normally have the same attitudes and perceptions as their British counterparts, the roles have been redesigned to better fit the American show. The show is known for its large cast size, many of whom are known particularly for their improvisational work. Steve Carell stars as Michael Scott, Regional Manager of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton Branch.[16] Loosely based on David Brent, Gervais' character in the British version,[17] Scott is a dim-witted and lonely man, who attempts to win friends as the office comedian, usually making himself look bad in the process. Rainn Wilson portrays Dwight Schrute, who, based upon Gareth Keenan, is the Assistant to the Regional Manager, although the character frequently fails to include "to the" in his title.[18] John Krasinski portrays Jim Halpert, a sales representative and prankster, who is based upon Tim Canterbury, and is in love with Pam Beesly, the receptionist.[19] Pam, who is based on Dawn Tinsley, is shy, but is often a cohort with Jim in his pranks on Dwight.[20] B.J. Novak portrays Ryan Howard, who is a temporary worker.[21]
The show includes many minor characters playing roles of office workers, working in various positions around the office. Angela Martin, Oscar Martinez, and Kevin Malone are the office's accountants, and are portrayed by Angela Kinsey, Oscar Nuñez, and Brian Baumgartner, respectively. Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin (portrayed by Phyllis Smith), and Stanley Hudson (portrayed by Leslie David Baker) compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Kate Flannery portrays Meredith Palmer, the promiscuous Supplier Relations Representative, writer-actress Mindy Kaling portrays Kelly Kapoor, the pop culture-obsessed Customer Service Representative, writer-actor Paul Lieberstein portrays Toby Flenderson, the sad-eyed Human Resources Representative, and Creed Bratton plays a fictionalized version of himself as the office's Quality Assurance Officer. Other characters include Roy Anderson, Pam's fiance played by David Denman, Warehouse Supervisor Darryl Philbin, played by Craig Robinson, and Jan Levinson, Michael's main love interest and Vice-President of Regional Sales, who is portrayed by Melora Hardin.
Apart from some minor differences in the first sentence, this is the same information duplicated across two pages (it's actually on three and four as well). That is too much duplication. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Do television advertisements such as Grim Reaper (advertisement) fall under the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the lead paragraph ended up being all bolded. Couldn't find the culprit here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing disagreement there about the inclusion of show/hide buttons for final diagnoses. It seems that a local consensus may be developing which seems to some to be at odds with WP:SPOILER. More editors involved in and contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of House episodes would be welcome. Jclemens ( talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made a page for Popstars The Rivals because I noticed one didn't exist. I have put tables on the page similar to those on The X Factor. Feel free to fill in the tables with songs performed and the rest of the page with other referenced info. Thanks. Matcham of the Day ( talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone let me know and add to the page? Matcham of the Day ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.79.191 ( talk)
Hi. Has anyone come up with any guidelines for the notability of television episodes ? Going through new page patrol / uncategorised articles, I'm coming across a lot of articles for individual episodes of television series which contain nothing more than a list of guest stars, broadcast date, and a plot. I thought the consensus was that individual episodes were ok if they were notable in some fashion - major guest star, news coverage, real-world relationship etc. Has this been changed to allow all episodes to be de facto notable, or is it just a case of too many articles and not enough people checking them ? :-) Indidentally, the one that propmted me to write this was Shelter Island (How I Met Your Mother). CultureDrone ( talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
A new notability guideline has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I think it would be prudent for members of this project to review and comment, as it could greatly affect articles within our realm and our current consensus' regarding various fictional elements if instituted. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone with access to US newspaper articles in Newsbank, or similar databases, spare the time to access old reviews for the pilot episode of Friends and either incoporate them into that article's reception section or add them to the article talkpage? I'm willing to give a shiny, albeit imaginary, penny to anyone who can do this. Bradley0110 ( talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, in the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) article (and all other seasons) there is a crew section. The article is a Featured list. In Survivor: Borneo, the largely expanded crew section was removed per this project's MOS. It says that IMDb lists the crew, but we aren't IMDb. Why can't the expanded crew section stay in this article. It's the only thing holding it back from DYK right now. iMatthew 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The Graysons page has been nominated for deletion. More editor opinion is greatly appreciated. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, -- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As television articles could be affected by this, the project may be interested in knowing that there is a lengthy on-going discussion(s) regarding a proposal about citing IMDB, particularly whether it should be a citable source or all, and if so, what parts. Discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that almost every episode of South Park has it's own article. I was wondering why it's considered notable, for each individual episode. If it's ok, I'd like to do the same for every episode of Survivor (U.S. TV series) aye matthew ✡ 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The template {{WikiProject Television|class=List}} fails to add the the part with List with it's purple background to the template when adding the addition of |class=List it just has the three question marks instead. I noticed when I went to rate the article Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes as a List class. Govvy ( talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The season articles are located at The Amazing Race 1, The Amazing Race 2, etc. To be consistent with other television season articles, would anyone object to moving these to The Amazing Race (season 1), The Amazing Race (season 2), etc.? aye matthew ✡ 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I just moved some of "Credit" section in the Pocoyo article into the infobox there and made the entire section hidden. It should merged into the infobox there. Help me! (Oh. It is located under the " DVD Releases" section.) - JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at WP:WAF by User:Pixelface requesting comments on whether the guideline should be demoted and on his requested removal of the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles." As this project deals heavily with fictional topics, members may be interested in this topic. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Demotion from guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Modelled after List of Naruto characters, the above articles are need help with contents. (I'll do my best with the layout but it may need your help also.)
A proposal to make a main article for Cartoon Network as a generic brand. Also need your help with contents. -- JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have any accounts of IMDB, TV.com, BCDB and Voice Chasers, can you correct pages below?
Things you should correct:
-- JSH-alive (talk) (cntrbtns) (mail me) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the project (both Wikipedia and WikiProject TV) current advice re: linking dates in articles about TV items to the [YEAR in television] article? I know that just linking years [1977] is discouraged as overlinking, but what about [1977 in television|1977]? When is such linking appropriate and when is it also considered overlinking? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that these should be avoided and most of these should be taskforces, however not many people seem to bother with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals is a very rarely viewed page and advice there is often not heeded. e.g. recently WikiProject Prison Break has been created despite much opposition. Would people be against me boldly moving some of the more recent Projects to taskforces within WP:TV. I won't be moving any of the much particpated in ones (like WP:Simpsons or WP:LOST) but think that many of the others should be taskforcified! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a fictional character merge proposal here. Neelix ( talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is simply an announcement that the proposed Veronica Mars task force has been created. I don't know the standard protocol from this point out, but I thought it prudent to inform the main project of this creation. hornoir ( talk) 12:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Momma's Boys and its talk page? A couple of IP editors are intent on identifying all the contestants by race or ethnicity despite my requests on the talk page not to do so, and they have not provided any justification for doing so. I have noted that similar racial coding is not used on other articles about dating/reality shows such as The Bachelor. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe ( talk) 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, an issue about using section headers for individual episodes on a list of episode originally started on my talk page. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu for wider discussion, since that was the WikiProject being affected. But I would also like to see input from WP:TV on this matter as well. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've created a task force for the Adult Swim block, and I was wondering if anyone may be interested in Adult Swim, feel free to participate. And if you could also help me build it up (not very good at the technical stuff and all), that'd be great too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This may seem like a really minor point, but it's something there has apparently been edit-warring over: when a television show has ceased production, should it be referred to in the present or past tense in the first sentence? ('X is a television series...' vs 'X was a television series...') We seem to use the present tense more often here (see e.g. the opening sentences of Friends, The West Wing, The Sopranos), and that's what makes more sense to me: all of those may have stopped running, but they still are television shows. I just changed this on the lead of Sex and the City ( diff), but I've noticed that some other articles, such as Charmed and Angel (TV series) use the past tense as well. So: is there any standard style here? If not, should there be? Terraxos ( talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill about what to do with the character articles. Please feel free to add your input. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if any members of this project could spend a bit of time and participate in the peer review of Survivors (2008). Thanks, Deadly∀ssassin 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I was told to specifically to ask outside WP:ANIME for someone to come and review the list for grammar mistakes as that is all that is keeping it from being an WP:FLC at this time. This seemed like the most appropriate place to ask, but I did not see a way to request a peer review on the main page (only list of current ones). じん ない 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Before I leave (for my holiday), I just wanted to check if any knows of any websites/articles that can help source the ratings section of the Friends article. Most of the newer seasons are reffed, but I have been unable to find any for the first four seasons. Also, I have nominated the article for GA; would asking for a semi-protection disqualify it from passing? (I have seen this happen in the past.) The page is regularly edited by IP's, and most are not constructive. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The dust has barely dried on the newest discussion about whether Wikipedia:Television episodes should be demoted from a guideline (with consensus saying wait till WP:FICT is actually done and back to guideline status), when another editor has started an extremely length attack against the article and basically threatening to demote it himself. Right now, only three other editors are involved, and I got tired of answering because of his lengthy replies and constant personal attacks against responders and overall snarky attitude (IMHO). Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Laws are like sausages is the discussion and additional eyes/opinions could be used, particularly since we are the project the guideline most directly affects. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody has changed the Variety Television Network page, saying the network has ceased broadcasting. They didn't add a reference though, can anyone confirm if this exciting news is true? Retro Agnostic ( talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone re-assess James T. Kirk? I am unsure how to generate the template for review at the article level - there appears to be some conflicting info (and I would genuinely like to know how to do it if someone can take the time to show me how), and I don't want a mistake on my part to slow down the process and movement to GA and FA. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried some time ago to clean up the list of characters which was made in tables which had a lot of minor characters, it counted the episode appearance of each characters. I tried to change most of that to prose, but there were several complains that said they liked more the tables. Before ending the discussion one user reverted the list to tables, saying I was the minority that said that version was better [4]. That was not my main comment. I mentioned that the tables added 10 kylobites to the articles and that it made impossible to use links for certain. Im leaving on holidays, so could anybody take a look? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I am sprucing up ghost and was musing on a short list of the most notable depictions of ghosts on TV in the Ghost#Film_and_television section. All suggestions welcome. Also, if someone has a reference discussiing the use of shosts on television overall that would be much appreciated. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, toonsters! Any chance that any of you could help me with List of Tiny Toon Adventures episodes? Each episode needs a summary. I've been able to do the first 35 episodes based off the DVD, but I could really use help from a fan of the show. I'm actually quite new to this series, and any help with the Tiny Toon Adventures articles in general would be greatly appreciated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting comments about / suggestions for this article from you folks. I made a few changes over the weekend, another editor reverted some of them, and I don't want to re-do them unless they're appropriate. I won't ask you to concentrate on any specific details; if a problem doesn't jump out at you, I'll assume it isn't a real problem. Thanks! Townlake ( talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
it'sme who adds so much information about Catherine Siachoque novelas please dlete all my edits from everywhwre is it possible and delete my accopunt ooo please I'm not going to edit anything more. I've worked on this pages and info since 2007 and now I'm already fainted when I saw everything deleted so please delete my edits everything info I brought here and my account too.
Hey, I need help populating Category:Television series with missing episodes, well, you probably can figure out how to get to the category, which is really incomplete. I'm no expert on non-DuMont television series, any help adding this category to more shows with missing episodes would be great. Thanks in advance. Retro Agnostic ( talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
For any Wikipedians interested in joining a Dexter task force, please feel free to sign up here. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Asking here on the part of the video game project, since it's being considered usable as a source for voice acting credits in articles. It's owned by CBS which seems to give it a lot of credibility, just seeing if anyone here has really delved into them or not in terms of being a reliable source.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Following up Talk:List of Fringe episodes#Episode 15 - April 7, 2009, I came to the article this morning to see that the next episode did not have an line item. Research revealed it wouldn't air until April 7, 2009 and that was all I could find, so I added an entry to the list of episodes filling in the unknowns with "TBA". There is some disagreement about this; my position is that some (sourced) information is better than no information. Thoughts? – xeno ( talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion. -- JD554 ( talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that a TV episode is its own cite for the plot synopsis. I.e. watch it for the plot, no secondary sources needed? I thought I had seen that somewhere else on wikipedia, but I can't think where. Alastairward ( talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I could use some help citing the viewer count for Burn Notice (season 1). Nielson's Cable archives don't go that far, at least from what I could see on "tvbythenumbers.com" . I found what I could, but I still need help for it. If some could help; that would be excellent. Once I have that, finishing List of Burn Notice episodes and getting it to Featured List status would be simple. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Several shows mention that they don't feature a 'studio audience laugh-track'. However, as far as I was concerned, studio audiences cannot produce canned laughter. Unless the audience consists of robots.... Retro Agnostic ( talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ Cite episode}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:Cite episode if you'd like to offer your views.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This template has been nominated for deletion. Your views welcome at its deletion discussion. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I request (either permission to do or have one of the bosses here do) that some of the articles Related to NCIS be linked to some pages at our own wiki. Not all must, since we are still a work in progress, but some of our articles are of a good quality. General Grham Talk to Me NCIS wiki 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering why we add links to TV.com on television series pages. From what I can tell it is as user based as Wikipedia is except that Wikipedia has higher standards than TV.com does. TV.com can not be used as a source, if I am remembering correctly. What does TV.com offer that can not be found here? LA ( T) @ 10:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking for some input on the MOS guidelines for listing 'international broadcasts' of channels. Any comments would be much appreciated. DP76764 ( Talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have a current
request for bot approval open, requesting authorisation to migrate {{
needs television infobox}}
to a parameter in {{
WikiProject Television}}
. A couple of questions...
Firstly, would it be useful for the bot to simultaneously fill in the class= field in {{
WikiProject Television}}
, copying it from other such fields on the page?
Secondly, the bot will attempt to detect the presence of an infobox on the corresponding article page. If it does find an existing infobox, should it delete {{
needs television infobox}}
or list the page for review?
Thanks for your help!
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's bad enough there has been a mass-deletion of episode articles, character articles, and the images attached to them. Now an entire character list has been tagged as non-notable and is threatened with deletion! This kind of destruction is really getting out of hand! ---- DanTD ( talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To Jclemens, my paranoia is due to past experience with TV-related articles, which have been wiped out. And I just checked and found it's not the only one. ---- DanTD ( talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the links to IMDb and TV.com be removed from the infobox and placed into an external links section. I think films is already doing this, and while we do not have to follow film's lead, it would add a form of consistency. The only external link that would be included in the infobox is the official site of the television series. LA ( T) @ 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As it seems that we are agreed with this proposal, I would like to further ask if this WikiProject would have any objection to me creating two hidden categories, Category:Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox and Category:Television articles with a TV.com link in the infobox. The categories would be populated by the infobox. It may be a slow process until a bot is secured, but this would allow us to know just how much work would need to be done. I am not sure that a bot could do this. I am willing to do some of this manually for those series in which I am interested (it is quite a long list, so don't think I can do them all in one sitting). If you approve, I can add the hidden categories quickly with little fuss. LA ( T) @ 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: A note could be added to the documentation stating that the IMDb and TV.com links are to go into the External links section from here on out using the appropriate templates. LA ( T) @ 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bravo for this decision! I have never understood how these two sites, which rely on fan submissions and thereby epitomize lack of reliability, were accorded any space in the Wikipedia at all. At least moving them to links lessens their importance significantly. Drmargi ( talk) 23:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa whoa...apparently User:Lady Aleena misunderstood this discussion and believe it meant that she should new template. She has now been going through dozens of articles and using this new, inappropriate template, replacing any existing EL templates without any discussion nor consensus as to whether one template a good idea. I have TfDed the template (and revert the use of it), for those reasons, and I feel this template is inappropriate and encourages less discriminate in the selection of ELs links, has very bad formatting, etc. Comments at the TfD appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
*{{amg title|314758}}
*{{IMDb title|0389564}}
*{{Tv.com show|23350}}
{{Movie title external links|amg=314758|imdb=0389564|tvcom=23350}}
I don't get it. Is his alter ego "Kell-El" or "Kel-El"? Various sources are using different names. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi if there's any admins here, a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently. TomCat4680 ( talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Criminal Minds's talkpage currently has a discussion regarding which stars to include in the infobox. I believe that it should only include current stars, but you can read my detailed explanation on the talkpage. I was hoping to get some other editors besides me that have knowledge of the infobox to give their inputs. I was also hoping regardless of the decision on Criminal Minds that we could come up with some guidelines regarding the infoboxes, as I believe they should only include current information. Discussion here [5] Thanks -- DJS 24 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I recently started a section for moving the page List of minor characters of Scrubs to List of Scrubs characters, as well as removing many very minor characters from the list and merging in character pages (though the latter would be handled more separately and with consensus on each page) on the discussion page. It's been a few days, and no one has replied, and with a subject such as this, I'd like to get opinions from others. So, would anyone mind replying on Talk:List of minor characters of Scrubs#Move, remove, and merge? Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A merge of Toon Disney into Disney XD has been proposed. Please see This discussion page for comments. Thank You. -- Gman124 talk 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Diaa abdelmoneim has nominated BBC Young Musician of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit TV articles much, so I'm having problems finding sources for the awards. Help? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Characters notable enough for stand-alone articles sometimes also are subject of SNL et al. spoofs. Is it appropriate to list such spoof/satirical portrayals in a character infobox's list of "portrayals"? Is a spoof of a character the same thing as portraying the character itself? Does this content go in a "portrayal"s section or "reaction/commentary" section?
On a related note, should an infobox/the article include coverage of an amateur (i.e. fan) production if that coverage includes commentary on the actor's performance of that character?
These questions derive from a conversation about James T. Kirk, and the extent to which we include coverage of a fan production's performance (with commentary from a reliable source) and John Belushi's spoof. -- EEMIV ( talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of us are on the same page as to what specifically we are referring to. I'll try and lay out my thoughts as to what I believe the discussion to be about and anyone is free to do the same about their own thoughts (as well as critique my stance).
That's my assessment of the issue, take it as you all like. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know how to put an article about TV and its relationship into Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. If searching a TV programme produced by the National Television Network by Google and its hit is over 50,000, then should we create a new article about it in Wikipedia English or local Wikipedia. User:Es.ntp - 58.186.244.92 ( talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
Project members might be interested in two discussions on-going. One, started at WP:N is a straw poll asking that there be a "policy change" to state that "Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every single episode of it." Wikipedia talk:Notability#Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode. Over at WP:EPISODE, it has once again been tagged disputed and a discussion started there Wikipedia talk:Television episodes# Disputed. Both apparently being spurred by the South Park episode merging discussions noted above (which could also use more views). -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Further views needed at Talk:The Pretender (TV series)#DVD Releases Dispute. This a series article I've more recently started cleaning up and trying to get in better shape. For background, on the 21st, User:HeMan5 visited the article and redid the existing DVD release table into a "more detailed format" that included breakdowns of the features and what not. [6] From his contribution history, this is something he is apparently doing on many series articles. I reverted this change, noting that the amount of detail was excessive for a main series article, and then replaced the old table with a more appropriate prose summary [7] having finally finished reformatting the episode list just this weekend (only reason I hadn't done it weeks ago). [8] He, however, reverted the next day claiming I gave no "logical" reason for this change. Reverted again and gave a fuller explanation. Today, same thing, only now he's reverted twice. I attempted to discuss this with him, explain why it wasn't proper, pointed him to the MoS, pointed him to FA series articles, etc. He responded with some mild personal attacks and then finally just saying "I'm done talking with you" after I pointed him to the FAs he demanded to see. For now, the reverting has stopped and a discussion started above. As this is basically a 1 against 1, additional project views would be appreciated regarding whether either DVD table is appropriate or if the prose version is best. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to help the project in a fairly un-time consuming way? Why not go by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and assess some articles. There are currently 14 unfulfilled request, some from February 08! It doesn't take tons of time, just a decent familiarity with the project's quality scale and WP:MOSTV. :) -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Today, if we see one article about a character that is not supported by multiple third party reliable sources, we merge it into a character list. I have followed that policy, but recently I have come to question that logic. We say article A is not notable, so then we merge it together with a bunch of other unnotable characters and suddenly that character list is notable. For me that doesn't make any sense.
Basically, we must admit that no matter how important and notable a show is, we can't get multiple third party reliable sources for every character. Usually, you can find stuff on the main characters, such as the concept of the character and casting, but when it comes to recurring characters, you can usually only find a source saying which actor portrays the character. Therefore a character list would mostly consist of in-universe stuff. If we look at Characters of Carnivàle, which is the character list that has made to FA status, it mostly consists of in-universe stuff.
So where am I going with this? I want to know what it takes to make a good character list, because right it is a dumping ground for articles some people don't like. I would like this project to come up with a guideline specific to how to deal with character lists. Right now, all WP:MOSTV says is "For a good character list example, see Characters of Kingdom Hearts, although it is not a television-related article". The first thing that should be mentioned in that guideline is that it is okay to write it from an in-universe perspective, although you should do your best to include out-of-universe stuff.
Also, if anyone could come up with a solution regarding extremely long-running shows, I would appreciate it. I am thinking of soaps operas and The Simpsons. Merging is not always the best choice. The Simpsons has 8 different character lists. One of which is currently 124,689 bytes long. Merging everything would put it well beyond 200 KB.-- Maitch ( talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how many people know of this in the first place, but it's possible to give the infoboxes of TV shows a certain color throughout wikipedia by noting the preferred color at Template:Television colour (this template is called by {{ Infobox Television episode}}). The TV shows and their colors there are currently
| Angel = #5678AC | Buffy the Vampire Slayer = #5678AC | Entourage = #FBBC87 | Firefly = #fc9 | Home and Away = #F9BA5B | Mad Men = #F52B13 | The 4400 = #B9D0E8 | The O.C. = #FFAA44 | The Simpsons = #FADA00 | The Sopranos = #CDCCCC | Veronica Mars = #C0D883 | Sex and the City = #EAADEA
Stargate SG-1 was included there as well once, but got removed because of standardization/cleanup attempts in 2008. Now, there is a request at the template's talkpage to include
| Star Wars = #FFD700 | Battlestar Galactica = #B22222
I wonder if TV shows should really get their own color because they can, or if we should keep all TV article infoboxes color-standardized to lightblue and attempt to standardize the rest as well. (In my opinion, the only show where a separate color makes some sense would be The Simpsons because they have a very active project with a huge output of quality articles, and the connection to yellow is obvious, but I'd welcome a standardization on a voluntary basis of the respective wikiproject as well.) So, yes or no to standardization? If yes, for all TV shows or just some (and which and why)? – sgeureka t• c 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Please read the top of Template talk:Television colour as well. – sgeureka t• c 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The template was introduced for the exact reasons i listed at the top of the talk page there. Simpsons is a clear case. A color that is deeply associated with the topic. And as such, there is nothing wrong with using that. BSG has no clear associated color in my opinion. Firefly however is clearly coupled to that brownish orange. This should be judged on a case by case basis. (And some weeding needs to occur in the existing list). For instance, i'm quite sure the template still has some colors that I added to prevent edit warring when we did the Infobox Television episode unification drive. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said. I would find it "weird". Primarily I'm providing historical perspective, I don't give a flying-!@*#%$ about what actually happens next, as I'm no longer interested in this project. But you'd better inform the respective wikiprojects if you are gonna change something, and you'd probably better start with bgcolor and textcolor first, since that was contentious enough back then. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the very existence of this template can be problematic in unrelated but identically-named articles; because Angel (TV series) has an assigned colour, the code seeps through into the Angel (1960 TV series) infobox. Bradley0110 ( talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Revisiting, there seemed to be a general opinion that it would be okay to do away with the colours. Shall we make this happen, and if so does anyone have a strategy to do so? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I had posted the following to a Buffy-related template and, in following up followed the links to here. I'm not sure if it'll get any attention here or not, and I may need to re-poste to that Project, but it is some thing to keep in mind with the above.
The Buffy background color is in conflict with WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS. The contrast between the background and the 3 default text colors is so low that even with good eye sight it's hard to read. That one at least needs a re-think.
Doing a quick look at the rest using the switch, only Mad Men is close to a problem.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been trying to get List of Jericho episodes to FL status for around the past month and a half. [9] To do this, I undertook a project to rewrite all of the episode summaries. At first, this started going pretty well; the summaries stayed around 4 lines or so. But as I went further into the series, the episode became more and more complex, until the season two reached 7-8 lines of episode summary (To be fair, it was at least a half-season scrunched into 7 episodes). The problem, as I see it, is that the earlier episodes are just much less complicated and have less intricacies than the latter ones. I just wanted to ask what the project thought of all of this. Should I attempt to shorten each episode summary, or just leave it as is? The former would risk losing information; the latter would make it seem like the episode lengths are unbalanced. What do you all think: shorten or keep? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
How should the number of episodes of a ongoing tv show be listed in the infobox? Me and Mythdon think it should be listed by the number of episodes that aired and then the date of that episode. But Ryulong think it should be listed as ongoing. What do you think? Powergate92 Talk 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) A discussion has been started at WT:TOKU, meaning the discussion has been more or less moved there. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong is saying there has been no agreement here about this. Has there been no agreement here about this? Powergate92 Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For some background, the article on Bob Ross had a "trivia and in popular culture" section that contained a laundry list of unsourced claims of "Bob Ross" appearances and references in various shows, films, etc. It was removed in October 2007 (yes, 07) as WP:OR and unsourced trivia during an effort to clean up the article a bit. [10] Now an editor, User:Proxy User wants to put it back in, but without being able to actually provide sources, proof of significant coverage, etc. He canvassed a bunch of people who at one time or another said "oh, I liked that section" and is now claiming that because one came back to say "bring it back again" that there will soon "be consensus" to add a new "Bob Ross in Popular Culture" section. Discussion is at Talk:Bob Ross#Cultural Influence. Additional, out-side views heavily needed. I also posted asking about the validity of the section at the Biography project, but no one has said anything, and as Ross is primarily known for his TV personality status, I thought it would be good to mention here as well.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Want a challenge? Take a look at this list. It is...beyond words. I'm thinking it should probably be split between the three series that lasted, and the other three can just have their characters in their main articles. Also, of course, needs a ridiculous amount of character article merging, as articles have been made for just about every last minor one to appear. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Hendrix is a fairly minor character of the SVU series, so I nominated it for AfD. It seems pretty clear the AfD will close as a delete, however User:A Nobody merged the article to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters (sans redirect of course). I reverted this, feeling she was far too minor a character to include in the series character list. He disagrees and would like the character added back to the list. Additional views on this issue at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merge? would be useful as it seems clear we can not come to an agreement. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt ( talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Television page asks editors to tag articles needing images with {{
tvimage}}, which adds the article to
Category:Wikipedia requested television images. Can we make this instead {{
reqphoto|television programs}}
? I am on a mission to reduce and consolidate redundant photo request templates!
Tim Pierce (
talk)
16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)#Merge same topic, regarding the merger of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) back into one article given that they are two separate articles covering the same topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a user refusing to remove a trivial mention of a naming difference. Could someone review this situation? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working a bit on Castiel (Supernatural), and I'm not totally satisfied with putting the in-universe info in a section titled "Character background". I looked at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Fictional_characters_and_technologies for ideas, and there seems to be about as many ways to name sections as there are articles. Does anyone know of a standarized naming scheme? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ USLateNightTelevision}} has been proposed for deletion:
as a redundant alternative to {{ Late night}} (included in most of the same articles). Only the proposer (yours truly) and the creator of USLateNightTelevision have contributed to the discussion so far. WP:TV member comments are welcome. 67.100.127.102 ( talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we please try and get better style guidelines for List of episodes articles? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I decided to revisit some of the first film articles I ever worked on to see if I could apply what I've learned in the last two years to making them better. One of those articles is Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (B-movie goodness). Doing some clean ups for it, I removed some unsourced statements and one statement that was "sourced" to a copyvio link. Said statement said "In order to play the role of Diane Agostini, Jennifer Garner had to have her ears pierced especially for the very first time in her life, but then let them heal up again after filming was completed." Another editor, User:Sandi saraya reverted, claiming it was properly sourced. I reverted, pointed to WP:COPYRIGHT. She removed the link and reverted again as she feels its "notability is that it was done SPECIFICALLY for this film." I attempted to discuss with her on her talk page, but she firmly believes it is a notable fact, while I firmly believe its pointless trivia. [11] A discussion is now at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York#Jennifer Garner where she spells out her reasons for feeling its notable, and I spell out mine for it not being. Now need additional views. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what the hell is wrong with the List of Life with Derek episodes? I can't add the template to the bottom of the list without the thing blending in, as you can see by this edit. Even if I tried to make a separate chapter for the template it still doesn't work. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not get any feedback when I posted this suggestion last week, so here it is again under a more explicit title:
I am proposing to replace the {{
tvimage}} template with {{
reqphoto|television programs}}
. That would implicitly rename
Category:Wikipedia requested television images to
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of television programs. It would also make it possible to write more specific requests for images, e.g. {{
reqphoto|television programs|of=the "Cheers" logo}}
or {{
reqphoto|television programs|of=the actual Tom's Restaurant in Manhattan}}
.
I'm interested in hearing opinions one way or the other. If I don't hear any feedback at all in the next week or so, I will assume no one else cares much, and will instruct PhotoCatBot to start replacing the templates. Tim Pierce ( talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Instead of logos and intertitle images, you want photos of buildings? What if there is no chance for a photo, for example if the series is filmed entirely on a studio lot? Matthewedwards : Chat 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed some things about the LOE pages, and I wanted to propose one change as well as bring up a new issue that I've been seeing on a select few of the LOE pages. The proposed change I would like to implement would be the moving of the DVD information (ex. List of Meerkat Manor episodes#Series) to a more professional header, and appropriate location. I would suggest the standard "Home video release" or "DVD release", and that it be placed under the episodes. My feelings are that these are lists of episodes articles, not lists of DVD releases. It does not seem right to introduce the body of the article by telling people they can buy the DVD. This isn't done on the main pages of TV articles, it doesn't make sense to promote the selling of a show before you've even listed what the show contains. The WP:MOSTV doesn't tackle this little formatting structure, and there is generally more traffic on this page than on that one, hence why the discussion is here. The proposed changed would look more like this setup, where the page's sections are ordered via their importance to the topic.
The issue that I saw was the apparent increase in images in the LOE pages in the past year. Now, before that all of the images were removed from LOE pages following that snafu regarding non-free images. They seem to be making their way back through FLs (currently, I think 8 of our LOE FLs have some form of image...one of them has 2 images). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have caught two articles of fictional characters where it seems evident that the birth/death dates are based soley on the actor they player:
I will be looking for such cases trough at least this week, and whatever case I find will be resolved, mentioned here, and discussed. All participants are free to discuss this right here. — Mythdon t/ c 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
join in the fun at Talk:Tuner_(electronics)#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)