![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Just wondering, what is our policy on including international ratings on the main article for television shows? I think it's a good idea to have international coverage, but when it gets out of hand, like at Heroes, what happens? I don't think that much of the information is all that important, and just leads to cruft and unsourced figures. So which countries do we choose to include? Honestly, I would just like to see most/all of it gone. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to be an international encyclopedia, so I think foreign info (if cited) should be encouraged. Smart formatting may allow it to fit in a way that doesn't annoy. We devote a lot of text to the US situation, but we aren't the only country that watches it (apparently). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish to resolve this dispute once and a for I am tempted to revert it back to saying its a remake. This has been discusseed to death on the respective pages. Does anyone agree or disagree Biker Mice from Mars (2006 TV series) is a continuation of Biker Mice from Mars or a remake. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to participate as many views would be welcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony (pilot episode) Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. A while back, a pretty new editor created a very raw article for the TV cookery show Market Kitchen. I did what I could with it, in terms of getting references, rewriting it to be more encyclopedic and applying the manual of style. That doesn't seem to have gone down to well with the original editor who initially simply blanked the page and is now just removing all of my changes and reverting to a version of their original article. So far, I've reverted them once, but I don't want this to turn into a war between me and this other editor - so I'd appreciate it if some other editors could add the article to their watchlists and help ensure that future changes improve it. Hopefully any reversions that are necessary will be less confrontational coming from someone other than me. Also, I'm sure it can be improved beyond what I managed to do with it. Many thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In a character's infobox template, if a character has a divorced spouse, should the spouse's name in the infobox have a notation next to their name indicating the divorced status? Or should such status not be in the infobox, but be discussed in the article? WCityMike 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am here to inform that WikiProject Futurama is getting a revival. If you like to join the project, please sign up here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
See the June 15, 2010 discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know if there is a specific policy stating that "List of" sections must have more content than just the link to the main article. For instance, the "Episode" section in the Mannix article was tagged by a user for having no content. I've no idea what else that section, along with other sections of that nature, should state aside from maybe a "click the main article link to see it" (yay, sarcasm). Granted, I've seen sections like that with a bit of an overview in some cases, but I'm unaware if all articles are suppose to be that way. I've seen plenty with just the link, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that. Pinkadelica ♣ 11:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
{tl|rfctag|proj}}
What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? Taric25 ( talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | This section is too long with many extraneous comments, so I have tried to make the above summary. Please correct any errors by editing the above. It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support). While the above is a reasonable support consensus, I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [1] | ” |
.
Hi, all. I'm in a minor spat with a user regarding the car used in the series. The Black Beauty was not a "Chrysler Imperial" as many people think but rather an "Imperial Crown." Imperial was a separate brand in 1966 as correctly illustrated at the article on Imperial (automobile). It was suggested at the wikiquette alert page that I post my concerns here and on the article's talk page. Hoping I can get another gearhead to step in and help. Thanks! -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 05:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I need somebody to rate this article. It has been tagged for deletion. Sarujo ( talk) 09:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
After the usual spin down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, I came across The 100 Scariest Movie Moments. While it certainly sated my curiosity as to the list's contents, I afterwards wondered whether or not it fits Wikipedia's guidelines. Is the list notable? Is it a copyright violation to simply talk about the list? I thought about putting it up for AfD, but I wasn't sure if I would step on any toes, since I'm not exactly a frequent editor. I figured I'd bring it up at the proper WikiProject, since it doesn't look like the talk page gets any traffic. What's the proper thing to do here? Regards, Archaeo ( talk) 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Day of the Dumpster should be merged to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes I would value allow discussion and opinions? 82.25.105.18 ( talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I still believe this subject requires further discussion with a conclusive answer anyone wishing to voice thier opinion should go to
Hi guys, I'm not a member here, but I have a request. If this is the wrong place, can someone redirect me to where I need to go? I have been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article for quite some time, and have nominated it for GA, but there are a few problems; one of them is the TV section. It and the other media sections are simply tables with channel information, which doesn't fly with GA or FA nominations. I just tried to add some prose to this section using sparse resources (and kind of modelled off of Kent, Ohio#Media), but I can't really do much more. I can't really find sources that would be relevant to this section. Can someone with more experience dealing with this type of thing – especially the jumbled mass of information given by FCC queries of the stations in the city – try to fashion up a paragraph or two? Help would be very appreciated. Thanks! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Are theme shows lyrics or narration intros permitted for inclusion in articles. I view as a violation of copyright is this a correct or incorrect stance because if it is a volatioon a great many articles relating to television have this problem. Dwanyewest ( talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems as though the assessment department is completely dead here.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Episode list#Episode number column headings. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The recently-created template {{ Pretty Little Liars}} contains links to performer articles (and not much else) and is included in their articles. I believe in TV and film articles this isn't done for the obvious reason that otherwise actor pages would be cluttered with templates, but I'm not sure where the policy or discussion on the topic is, and I'd like to cite it if I attack the template LOL ;) — TAnthony Talk 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a reasonably recent article that hasn't been added to your project yet. I've nominated it for deletion, any comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time. Thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI a bunch of TV articles were sent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 11.
76.66.192.55 ( talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering if the following are considered reliable by this project for cast/character list:
I'm pretty sure iMDB isn't...
- J Greb ( talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
They are reliable as external links but probably not as sources. What do you have in mind? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say no, they are not good references for characters. In fact I am not really sure but I do believe you can edit on those sites as well. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just viewing an article's list of episodes ( List of Metalocalypse episodes) and noticed that every description I checked is found verbatim at the show's official website. It's a Wiki so I don't know which came first but as their website is copyrighted, it's an issue. Usually, I would just rewrite the article or tag it for deletion but there's too much work me to do by myself and deleting the article would be a substantial loss of content. Does your project often run into this problem? What do we do from here? OlYeller Talktome 00:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
TV.com are using the episode summaries I wrote at List of 2point4 Children episodes on their website, with no credit to Wikipedia. I've had to point this out at at least 2 AfDs. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox, the cast is ordered in credit order how they are on the show aren't they? Not in alphabetical. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
According to CTV, Degrassi: The Next Generation is being renamed to "Degrassi" on Monday when season 10 begins. The article makes it clear that it is being renamed as of season 10, and is not retroactive. I believe we should move our Degrassi article to Degrassi franchise, in the same way that Law & Order handles it, repointing all links to Degrassi, and then moving Degrassi: The Next Generation to that page name. Because the new name is not being applied to old episodes, I think pages such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) should not be moved. The only other regular editor to Degrassi articles believes that all articles should stay as they are, because for 10 years it has been known with the TNG suffix. To avoid being Wiktators, we need more input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on Merlin (TV series) for the past two days. I was hoping that someone could possibly assess this so that other editors and I can work on improving it further. Also, any help, contributions, or comments on the talkpage are welcome. ChaosMaster Chat 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the majority of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability in the above AfD discussion. As editors of a related project, your input is appreciated. -- erachima talk 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Pilot (Supernatural) for featured article here. There has been little response, so would anyone mind taking a look? Thanks. Ω pho is 03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why Grey's Anatomy wasn't a show-specific project of task force. I would like to nominate it to be. Is there a specific reason it is not a show-specific project or task force? Please let me know if you would consider it for nomination. Amandaxpandax14 ( talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Matthewedwards : Chat 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)"A brand-new Wikiproject for a TV show can often end up making its own rules, style guidelines, etc etc, which makes the end result of the articles that fall under its banner to look inconsistent with other articles related to TV shows, and really they should all be consistent. Sometimes it doesn't happen, such as with the articles under the Wikiprojects for Buffy, Degrassi, and 24 to name a few of the popular ones. But they all formed before or around the same time as WP:TV, and before Taskforces were popular. Those created more recently are all taskforces, and a Grey's taskforce of WP:TV would be a better option, as the taskforce can use the well-established WP:MOSTV and other guidelines already laid down for writing articles about TV shows, episodes, science fiction, etc. An independent WikiProject with a handful of members for such a small scope is not really sustainable. In the future, if the number of members increases and it looks like they can go out into the big bad world on their own, a decision to spin it out into an independent project can be made. A taskforce at this stage provides an opportunity to prove the worth of such a project, attract more members and a reasonable compromise."
Hi all. What is the current attitude towards Digital Spy in peer reviews and assessments? Is current consensus that it is a reliable source, or would an aticle be denied GA status if it referenced it? The JPS talk to me 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have enough sources gathered together to write one decent article about " West End Girls (D:TNG episode)", " Going Down the Road, Part 1 (D:TNG episode)" and " Going Down the Road, Part 2 (D:TNG episode)". The three episodes are intrinsically linked and aired over the course of three weeks. I doubt I could write an article about "West End Girls" by itself and a second about "Going Down the Road", because there was more attention given to GDtR in the press and such.
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This page directly has many issues. This page is the mail problem the others need work but can be done at another time. All of the episodes are not correct or confussing between the the US and UK titles. Also the page has two different formats going. it needs to be refreshed. The air dates I am not sure that they are correct. Something needs to be done about this article. This is all I can think of art this time but I am sure there is alot more wrong and need s to be fixed. Hope this helps so far and we can do something about the article Saylaveer ( talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk ~ contribs) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm having the articles Smallville (season 2) and Smallville (season 9) that mainly this user has been working on, but since I've started working on them-season 9 I have contributed more than the later-peer viewed. They haven't seen any reviews yet, so I thought anyone from the Television Project interested could pop in and review them? Season 9 can be found here and Season 2 can be found here. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ChaosMaster Chat 14:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Our museum website is referenced a number of times in Wikipedia,
Television Production Music Museum http://tvmusicmuseum.com
Can we add a page regarding the museum and it's television music preservation efforts?
We are non-profit and would appreciate the opportunity to be included in Wikipedia.
The museum does not have a brick and mortar location. We have found that we can serve many more people with their research and our resources can extend farther without the obvious expense associated with physical kiosk locations.
Opening up the existence of the museum in Wikipedia would better inform the world of our preservation efforts and ultimately guide more people/production companies to donate material for preservation. We don't make money doing this. It is a labor of love.
Are these things sufficient to be included in Wikipedia?
I would sincerely appreciate your support with our inclusion in Wikipedia. This inclusion would open so many doors, that are currently closed, to our preservation efforts.
Regards,
Terry Wilkie Tvpmm ( talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Television Production Music Museum
tvmusicmuseum@gmail.com
There is currently a discussion for deletion of the Family Guy article Road to... (Family Guy) located here. Comments on the matter are welcomed. Ω pho is 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Supernatural (season 1) is up for Featured Topic nomination here. Would anyone mind please reviewing it? Thanks. Ω pho is 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at the peer review page. Thanks! CycloneGU ( talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve articles such as Beauty and the Beast (TV series), Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Murphy Brown so that it has reliable third person information especially for television shows from 1970's to 1990's period. I feel too many seem to rely on first person info. Although its being easy getting information from archives of the New York Times. How are myself and others supposed to get any usable info by accessing the newspaper articles because others like the Washington Post you have to pay for it has anyone got suggestions. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information this is useful in terms for British shows I am sure I not sure so sure for some American shows since I am based in the UK. Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I really do think these articles below are long overdue in terms of whether they should be merged or not.
List of The Shield episodes, Human Weapon, My Little Pony (TV series) Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Cheers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll ( talk • contribs) 08:12, March 10, 2009
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
see Talk:List of Charmed episodes#Charmed (season_5)_and_Charmed_(season_6). -- User:Docu
![]() | WP:FICT: There is an RfC discussing the consensus on notability and how it applies to elements of fiction. Please feel free to comment on views and proposals, and add your own at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction. |
I have nominated List of Desperate Housewives episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Just came across Template:Degrassi episodes. Is this the current practice? I'm not completely sure how it works, but I think it updates the episode number automatically. I've never seen it in use anywhere else. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The number of episodes is written on three pages, and I didn't want to fill up the edit history with such minor changes. It is a time saving template, and updates without anyone having to log in at the correct time every day. I would be honoured if my idea spread to other sub-projects of WP:TV. 117Avenue ( talk) 23:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The production numbers come from the producers themselves. One even tweeted the fans to tell them the August 5 episode was number 200, [3] and its his count, not ours, because the number 200 was written into the dialog three times that episode, which would have to have been done before we extended that table that far. 117Avenue ( talk) 04:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Could we please have some input at Talk:Prisoner_(TV_series)#Multiple_Roles regarding very crufty lists that creep up on this article? The JPS talk to me 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Glee (season 1) has been nominated as a Featured list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1. During my review, I've brought up a point that could ultimately result in it not being passed. My feeling is that the season page is a summary of Glee (TV series), whereas it should be the other way around. Either that, or the season page just shouldn't exist because the series is only one season long so far. A lot of work has gone into both articles and it would be a shame for it to go to waste. If anybody here can help or advise the editors on what steps to take, or even tell them I'm wrong, I'm sure they would appreciate it. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
[Outdent] It appears on the FLC page and elsewhere that this has been addressed now. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to help decide whether this should be a FL, you are welcome to pop over. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the accepted standard for having a fictional television character to have an article because I am trying to find and add third person person for under sourced popular 80s and 90s shows with mixed results. But one thing that troubles me is the number of character articles which seem to rely on primary evidence and have no third person info and don't seem to demonstrate notability. I think some of the examples I have displayed below for example should be deleted or merged. What are other peoples opinions? Dwanyewest ( talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Power Rangers
Katherine Hillard
Adam Park possible merge
Golden Girls Blanche Devereaux Stanley Zbornak I think they should be deleted
Different strokes
Phillip Drummond (character) deleted
I imagine some of these articles were written before some wikipedia got went mainstream but surely until someone either finds online or via reliable books, newspaper archives etc there is isn't much point keep articles for the sake of them otherwise keeping them. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Just letting people know that The Vampire Diaries season 1 (Incubator) and The Vampire Diaries season 2 (Incubator) exist. They need a lot of work and I'll be doing a lot myself. But the great amount of people that view this page, any help would be greatly appreciated! Jayy008 ( talk) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) up for FAC here. Would anyone mind reviewing? Thanks. Ω pho is 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
New code for Template:Infobox television episode using Template:Infobox is now ready to be implemented. It'll allow for easy customization and tweaking, perhaps it will also aid in creating consistency across episode articles. Have a look at these test cases. If no objections are made, I see no reason for this to remain in the sandbox.– FunkyVoltron talk 15:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a mass nomination of Transformer related articles such as Buzzsaw (Transformers), Alice (Transformers) and a few others. My concern is some article use websites such as [8] and [9] as third person sources. Surely these websites aren't considered reliable or independent sources of information are or they not is the question. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This issue, in my opinon, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. I was pointed here by User:Begoon because of a disagreement on List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. The user suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explination of what was "overviewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. Also, I noticed that 90% of episode lists on wikipedia are inconsistant with the MOS of the date. Instead of listing two full years 2001-2002, it should be presented as 2001-02 (unless it is 1999-2000). Firthermore, half the articles list each season as "Season 1 (2001-02)", when in fact it would be less confusing to list that as "Season 1: 2001-02". ChaosMaster Chat 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the Smallville episodes list article is also a featured article, shouldn't all and future TV series episode lists follow its precedents, such as the exclusion of overview sections? (I'm not actually sure if featured status does affect precedent, actually). Overview tables look like they would be more appropriate for the TV series' articles themselves if not for the episode list articles. Additionally, does anyone have any ideas how a TV series with individual named seasons, like Power Rangers, deal with this issue in episode lists? I introduced a series overview table to it recently, but now it looks overly space-consuming and doesn't seem to belong on its respective series article either. In addition, it seems redundant to make individual episode list articles for each individual season when each season has its own article. -- Rebel shadow ( talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I invite participants in this WikiProject to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC.— Wavelength ( talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oz (TV series) has a lot of small character articles that need to be merged into an overall list of characters. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I am writing to discuss what should be done with the Buster Baxter article. I am not sure as to whether it should get its own article due to notability and sourcing issues - the entire article is almost a plot summary. We are currently having a discussion on the talk page of Talk:List of Arthur characters. Please feel free to voice your opinion, here. Thanks! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Hercules: The Legendary Journeys#Should individual episodes have their own articles? for discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I created the above article in December 2008 (when I was a newish editor) and used thefutoncritic.com as a reference source.
Another editor today has queried whether this is acceptable as a source.
My question here is two-fold:
Any advice would be much appreciated - if the consensus is that it is not a reliable source (or that the article should not exist) - then I will delete the article (I don't even know why I created it - it's not a programme I would have expected to have heard about, being in the UK, so why I created an article is beyond me!)
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems I've started a content dispute over my redirection of short, unsourced articles of House (TV series) episodes. See Talk:Here Kitty for a discussion. A couple editors are just ramming through and undoing my redirects because it seems they disagree with WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked this before about how the infobox should be ordered for cast, but I didn't bring it up for discussion. There seems to be two ways of doing it; Alphabetically and Credit order followed by order they joined the show. To me, alphabetical has no purpose. How does everyone think it should be? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
From experience, you order based on order in opening credits. You don't rearrange when someone is removed from the show because when the show finally ends there will be no "current" cast. To remove/reorder based on that would be subjecting the page to recentism and not really what is preferred. The reason Smallville just has a link in the infobox (which is suggested at WP:MOSTV) is because Smallville is a 10 season long show and to list everyone who has been/is a regular cast member would be extremely long. Given that the series already has a lot of executive producers to its credit, the infobox would be unnecessarily long. Since casts are usually discussed in-depth later and exec. producers are not, that is why the box just links to the appropriate section of the article. This should really only be done when you have a lot of cast members (ala Lost, as they should do this given how many characters are "regular cast" on that show). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
BigNole has managed to describe it much better than I did. I'll just go with what that user said to avoid confusions with my explanations. PS. Bbb23, I used to agree about the "starring now" thing but since it has individual articles for each season, since it's for the TV show 90210 season 1-3 all information, it should include, all information. For the moment, it seems the consensus is to keep all regulars in the infobox (I will still await more opinions). However, there isn't a consensus about the order. I say to avoid a lot of hard work, if it's already in credit order, maintain it as it's easy. BUT for example with Lost, it would be extremely hard to change it now, so keep it alphabetical. What does everyone think about that, order wise? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Most_Hated_Family_in_America. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Television articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand fans (or eager WikiProject Television members), feel free to assist with the expansion of the prequel mini-series Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. Details are somewhat limited at the moment, but the six-part series is scheduled to air on Starz starting in January. Assistance with expanding the article to Good or even Featured status would be much appreciated, and many more details should be emerging in the near future since the premiere is not too far away. Just spreading the word since the article was just started today. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A Glee task force has been started by Frickative, and already has four members. Any users interested in contributing, please feel free to do sol the page is located at WP:GLEE! :) Also, question: I have added the task force to the main page; is there anything else that needs to be done? I know the task force needs to be added to the WP:TV template. Yvesnimmo ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The new category Category:Climbing Great Buildings has been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to canvass as wide a body of opinion as possible. Please comment at the category's entry on the deletions page. Thanks. Folks at 137 ( talk) 11:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What is Wikiepedia's policy on foreign broadcasters of US programs because I see alot of channels attributed but no sources on things like Thundercats, Rugrats should they be removed or kept unless sourced. Dwanyewest ( talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Usually, we introduce award winning BLPs with phrases like "..is an Emmy Award winning.." or something similar. I recently came upon such an introduction, and after some research found out that the person did win indeed an Emmy Award: a Pacific Southwest Emmy Award, to be precise. Which let me to the realization that there are more than a dozen of local Emmy Award chapters out there, and they each hand out dozens of awards each year (cumulating to more than 1000 awards handed out each year). And, as it seems, all these awards are officially called "Emmy Award". What do we do about that? It's technically correct to say that every winner of every Emmy Award out there is "an Emmy Award winning" something. But, IMHO, it would be highly misleading to leave it at that. I'm not an expert on the subject (obviously), but to my mind "Emmy Award" means Primetime Emmy Award, and nothing else, I wasn't even aware of the local chapters until recently. Are these local awards even noteworthy? And if so, how should they be mentioned on the BLP's that have won them? -- Conti| ✉ 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It has always been the convention, at least for me, to round the viewing figures for shows in episode tables to two digits after the decimal point. Until yesterday, I had never seen the numbers not rounded (left at three). Every episode page I've seen whether I have edited it or not has always been to two. Even featured articles like List of Smallville episodes only have two. After an editor reformated a page [10], he changed the two digits to three. An edit war then broke out between him and a user/ip (same person) [11] on both episode lists for The Mentalist over two or three decimal places. Other editors have reverted this user/ip's edits, presumably thinking it was vandalism. The three of us began a discussion and decided to come here. Is there a guideline for rounding these figures? My thought was that it was just unnecessary precision and looked more natural with two. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated Mother and Child Reunion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for October 14, 2010, the anniversary date of the episode's initial airdate. Please visit the page and say whether you would like to see it on the Main page on that date. Thank you. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the TV channel C-SPAN falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I want to make an announcement, a disclosure and a request for assistance.
The announcement is that I am interested in updating and improving several articles and some non-article pages (such as categories) related to C-SPAN, its shows and related subjects.
The disclosure is that I work with C-SPAN's communications team, so I have a potential conflict of interest with the subject, and I've already posted a similar notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard discussion page. Also: this is not my primary account, but one I plan to use for potential COI topics; I've posted a thorough explanation of this account's creation on my user page.
The request is for your assistance. I intend for any edits I make to be constructive, although with the exception of non-controversial edits, that can be in the eye of the beholder. I've found in my early outreach / requests for help only silence, so I am hoping to find someone willing to look over my shoulder, and provide a non-conflicted perspective. I'll watchlist this page, but also feel free to leave a comment on my Talk page.
First things first, the articles Q&A (talk show) and Q & A (C-SPAN) are about the exact same C-SPAN series. I've proposed a merger on the former's Talk page, and while I suppose it's as unobjectionable an edit as can be, demonstrating good faith is important to me as I get started. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Another editor and I are working on this article which is part of your project (I think) and we do not agree on what is and is not a copyright violation on the page. Much of the text can be find on other websites and what is and isn't a copyright violation isn't always clear. In my opinion, it's starting to look like we're not going to come to a conclusion so I'd like to ask editors here to contribute to the page and/or the conversation regarding the text. Any help with the article would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller Talktome 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request here recently (see above) regarding improvements to the Wikipedia article about the C-SPAN TV show Q&A. That has since been resolved, and my second wish is now to replace that article’s text with a better one of my drafting, available in my subspace here. This article is currently a stub and I have written an expanded version to include just a bit more information, with reliable sources (online and offline) to verify the material. I followed the MOS for TV series in re-organizing the page, and have added an infobox. As stated before, I have a potential COI with this subject, so I would appreciate any feedback from a non-conflicted point of view. If you like the replacement, please feel free to move it. If you have any questions, I’ll be watching this page and my Talk page. And since I don’t think this update is at all controversial, if there are no objections within a reasonable time period, I may just move it myself. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 14:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A recent merge discussion for {{ Infobox soap character}} and {{ Infobox soap character 2}} was opposed because of concern over the differences between many of the template fields. My primary objection to Version 2 is its multiplication of relationship fields by subdividing them by gender and other qualifications; for example, while V. 1 has "Children," V.2 has "Sons," "Daughters," "Adoptive sons," "Adoptive daughters," "Stepsons," and "Stepdaughters." {{ Infobox soap character}} was created and adapted from discussion at WP:SOAPS, has received input from WP:TV and implemented some WP:TV changes like the removal of age parameters from fictional character templates. As noted in the failed deletion discussion of V. 2, {{ Infobox soap character 2}} itself is a merge of two series-specific character templates. However, it seems like V. 2 and its expansion have gone unnoticed by the community at large (at least someone had the sense to remove "Great great grandchildren" LOL). I was hoping to get some input from this Project on V. 2 to get a broader assessment of its parameters; I opposed this merge but do think one is in order for the future if there is real consensus on the disparate fields.— TAnthony Talk 06:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious. Not having worked a lot with tv series, I am wondering whether a tv show needs two infobox templates in the same article. I think the differentiation is occurring because the show was revived after a 22-year gap. For a lot of other shows, I know that there'd be a separate article (Battlestar Galactica is the example I am using here). However, this is program with a smaller scope (and smaller budget). I think that splitting them wouldn't be helpful, but I am not sure of the wisdom of using two templates here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Is IMDB a reliable source for the ammount of episodes a season will consist of? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are many shows that will bill some actors as "Also Starring", as apposed to the actors who are just starring. Some such shows are Oz, The Office (US), 30 Rock, and The X-Files. In most cases, they are listed as "Starring". Would it be better if we created an "Also Starring" category in the infobox instead? J52y ( talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's say you have a wikipedia page for a TV series. Then you also have a page that is "List of characters" from that series. Do you need to cite third party sources for the characters list page or can primary or secondary sources (like the show credits, the TV series web site, a book on the series, etc.)? Thanks! Mathewignash ( talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Mathewignash what you fail to realise is notable isn't WP:INHERITED just because the show exists doesn't every minor aspect of the show is notable. Its no use squealing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or that WP:ITEXISTS its about demostrating notablity. Its not like the articles deleted were well sourced or had strong claims of notability otherwise they wouldn't have got nominated for deletion. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
When does such a page meet notability requirements or how many sources are enough?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Should articles be categorized just under the [Year][country] categories of television series debuts and endings or also in the parent category by [year]? For example, should an article be just in Category:2002 Japanese television series endings or also in Category:2002 television series endings? Cattus talk 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As some of you know, I got involved with an IP named 80.31.37.127 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the Telefónica de España network on Thursday, which was adding false credit information relating to film articles. This situation led to me and the IP being blocked for 24 hours and I started a discussion here. However, another IP named 88.13.88.241 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same network has suddenly appeared and readded the flagicons back into the Wubbzy article, but also the Yin Yang Yo! articles after I have removed it per WP:MOSFLAGICON. I tried to explain to the IP on his talk page, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits. The current reversion done by the IP can be found here and here. Also, Yin Yang Yo! was only produced only in Canada and the United States according to this source, so the United Kingdom is not relevant to this article. Also, I issued him a last warning regarding the flagicons ( [12]), but the IP dismissed it and he immediately readded the flagicons to the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! articles again ( [13], [14]). I would suggest watchlisting the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! for these changes. Rather than getting involved in further edit warring and being blocked as what I had done last time, I am posting the discussion to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter. I understand that edit warring with that the IP or violating the 3RR can lead myself being blocked again. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I know final ratings are always used when they can be. But in the case where finals aren't available from a reliable source... Overnight ratings are thrown in. So, my question is... It's the average of the two overnight half hours used, right? Not just the ratings from one of the half hours simply because ones higher, that would be incorrect? The average is better. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Last week I posted a request here for someone to review my proposed article for the C-SPAN program Q&A (U.S. talk show) (it's a COI subject for me) and recieved a timely response then. Now I've prepared a replacement for the article about the long-running Booknotes program. For reference:
Rather than be bold and simply move it into place myself now, I'd like at least one other editor without any connection to C-SPAN to give it a read, offer any thoughts if further work is necessary, or just let me know that you think it's appropriate to move, or move it as you like. Looking forward to your input. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a content issue with another editor but since this has wider issues, especially for this project, I thought I'd raise the matter here seeking some advice/comments.
At List of Hannah Montana main characters an editor added a number of character images that were later removed by another editor, leaving a single image. I restored one of them, citing justification under WP:NFCC#8 for its retention. During the subsequent discussion a third editor removed the image. Subsequent to this, that editor removed a cast photo from Hannah Montana (season 2), claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles. [15] I've questioned him on this, on his talk page, but he seems adamant that non-free images can't be used, this despite the fact that neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS seems to support him. He again removed the image today, again claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles. [16] As it stands now, there are no cast photos in Hannah Montana, as their purpose there was purely decorative and there are individual season cast photos in each season article, where casts are discussed. The season 2 cast photo, which best represents the cast of all four seasons, is also used in List of Hannah Montana main characters as per WP:NFLISTS' stated preference that "if another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." I don't see this as a real issue but concede I may be wrong (nobody is perfect). Given that the policies don't seem to say that we can't use non-free images in season articles and that I've lost count of the number of season articles I've checked that have a DVD or poster image and/or a cast image in them, I was wondering if anybody here could shed some light. Is this an issue that has been gone over before? Do we have some policy or consensus one way or the other? -- AussieLegend ( talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As the opener of a RFC on the series regarding a way to develop a style guideline for a section of the season pages I invite editors to stop by and provide feedback on the issue to help develop a policy. Thanks, Hasteur ( talk) 04:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I mean, it makes the page look messy and hardly seems notable. Cameo's aren't part of the story or even the show. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Our Gang for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a content issue with another editor and would appreciate opinions from others on the matter. Season information has been added to the infobox at The Big Bang Theory for actresses Sara Gilbert and Melissa Rauch. Sara Gilbert was a recurring character during seasons 1-3 but credited in a starring role for the first half of season 2. Melissa Rauch was a recurring character in season 3, but is credited in a starring role during season 4. The infobox now says:
My issue with this is that generally (obviously there are exceptions), actors credited in starring roles are in those roles for the entire period that they appear on a program and because of this, there can be a misconception by the casual reader when presented with this sort of unexplained information, that the actor was only involved with the program for the period stated. The above also suffers from being inconsistent as it doesn't specify how many episodes Sara Gilbert was credited, although I don't believe this should be mentioned at all. I believe that in this case, this sort of information is better dealt with in the cast information section in the prose. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 08:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Interlace has been requested to be renamed. This is related to NTSC interlacing, deinterlacing of DVDs, 1080i ... 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 06:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 ( talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Does WP:TV have any guidelines regarding length of plot summaries for 30 minute or hour long television episodes? I know WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words for feature length films.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a good topic nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Characters of Smallville/archive1, all opinions are welcome and encouraged. Please stop by. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. If you will go to that page, you will see a series of articles in the left-hand column all containing the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). If you click on any of them, you may note that none have any sources attached to them. Is it possible that some among you can add the required sources lest the articles be proposed for deletion? Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. Several articles that include the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) have been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. You can see the list by clicking above. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've written a new version of the Wikipedia article about Washington Journal, the morning call-in program on C-SPAN, which is currently available for review in my user subspace, here. As I have posted on this discussion page before, I work with C-SPAN and therefore recognize that I have a potential conflict with related subjects. I've worked on a few articles in this subject area recently, about the programs Q&A and Booknotes, each time obtaining consensus to replace the (poorly cited) existing version with my (developed, well sourced) versions. This time, I'll simply request that someone review these changes if they are so inclined. Having demonstrated my respect for and capacity with proper citations and neutral point of view previously, I am inclined to be a little more bold in editing directly. But I do not wish to circumvent normal processes, so I'll give this post some time for others to respond before I move forward. If you have any questions, especially about specific changes or additions that I have proposed, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Mhiji ( talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. — Farix ( t | c) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Would any members of this project that wish to please take a look at this article created today Braniff Productions. It would seem to be a candidate for AFD. It is one sentence and I am pretty sure that it is inaccurate. My understanding is that they used the Braniff logo as a joke and that their production company was never called BP. Unfortunately my time online time is limited tonight and I can't get to doing all of the steps necessary for AFD. If on the other hand you feel that this article is legit and can be improved please disregard this notice and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
How would I go about finding all the pages related to the TV show South Of Nowhere ie. episode pages Season pages and whatnot.-- King High 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone has changed the program's status on the Yin Yang Yo! article from "Ended" to "on hiatus". Also there are rumours that a third season is airing in November/December 2010, but I can't find any reliable third-party sources. The same situation applies to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, and some other television articles that have a series finale as "cancelled" when it was clearly not in it. Does anyone have a source for the articles? Thanks, Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 05:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kampung Boy (TV series) is now at Featured Article Candidates (FAC). The animated series, which won an Annecy Award, is about a young ethnic Malay boy's life in a kampung (village). I invite members of this project to read the article and assess if it complies with the criteria to be an FA, or if it requires further improvements. Your comments and decisions are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Jappalang ( talk) 03:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to list in an article's intro the name of the companies that sponsor a television show; this seems to be like blatant promotionalism? 842U ( talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have listed Smart Talk with Raisin for Articles for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Talk with Raisin. Do not remove the {{ afd}} tag until the consensus may be reached. Thank you. JJ98 ( Talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. WP:TASKFORCE says the first step to starting a task force is to seep WP:CONSENSUS, so I'd like to ask here about the possibility of starting a Mystery Science Theater 3000 task force. Granted, this show has been canceled for some time, but it still has an extremely strong cult following, and there are a wide range of MST3K-related articles here at Wikipedia. I don't believe there's a lot of active work being done on them (I've gotten The Brute Man to GA and am working on Laserblast) but that's just what I'm hoping the formation of a task force would lead to. I believe that articles that could be tagged by such a task force include articles related to the show itself (like Mystery Science Theater 3000, List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, etc.), the people involved with it ( Joel Hodgson, Michael J. Nelson, etc.), fictional aspects of the show ( Tom Servo, Satellite of Love, etc.), the films featured in MST3K episode ( Manos: The Hands of Fate, Mitchell, etc.) and post-MST3K stuff ( RiffTrax, Cinematic Titanic, etc.). Thoughts? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010] http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=147520
- Scott Stites 70.169.111.9 ( talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010
It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010] http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=147520
- Scott Stites 70.169.111.9 ( talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010
The template Template:Current sport-related is/was (it's now being removed) used on television articles to point readers to the current season of the show. But the template is for sports articles only. Can a similar template to be used on television articles be made?
This is what the current sport related template looks like being used on TV articles. — Mike Allen 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. I've nominated two Parks and Recreation episode articles, " The Master Plan" and " Freddy Spaghetti", for GAN. All of the other second season episode articles (and the season article itself) are already good articles, so one (and if) these two are passed I can pursue a GT, which I'd ideally like to do before the third season starts up next week. If anyone is interested in reviewing those articles, I'd appreciate it! (Incidentally, I am not seeking a quick-pass, but rather a legitimate review. Thanks!) — Hun ter Ka hn 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_television_series under the header W a show called The Rippling Blossom is listed. Should appear under R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 ( talk) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Could we get some opinions on the arrangement and coloring of Template:Disney Channel Original Series and Template:SNICK/TEENick? I believe that these navboxes do not need the colors as they are not necessary formatting for the article. Also, I believe that the actual series should be in the order that they first aired. They were previously overly formatted with color and contained a partition for "currently airing" series. See This compared to that for SNICK/TEENick and this compared to that. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think having the template headers color coded improves accessibility (actually it probably degrades it). Like, we don't need The Simpsons template colored yellow just because they are yellow, or the Nickelodeon one being orange just because they have an orange blob in their logo (correction: apparently they just use orange font now). This all just seems aesthetic and pointless it an encyclopedia. — Mike Allen 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that is should be in color especially the nickelodeon one since most things associated with nick are orange.I think it is much better when the templates have the currently airing section beacuse I think it serves a better purpose that way. 744cody ( talk) 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess that a possibility is to leave out the color from the template but still leave the currently airing section. 744cody ( talk) 05:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In the last few weeks I have researched and drafted a new version of an article with which I propose to replace the current version of Book TV. Having previously posted here and received assistance with articles such as Washington Journal and Booknotes, I'd like to solicit input once again in reviewing a new version of the article, which can be found in my user space, here: User:WWB_Too/Book TV.
As mentioned in my earlier requests, as a point of disclosure, I have been working with the C-SPAN communications team to improve articles related to the network, and I hope this article likewise is met with approval. As per previous articles, this draft is reliably sourced, neutrally worded and includes only material that I believe is encyclopedic. While I don't think there is anything controversial about this topic and would be inclined to make these edits directly, due to my potential COI, I would like to give another editor the opportunity to look over the draft and offer any comments. A similar note has been added to the Book TV talk page, also asking for comments on the draft. If there are none, I’ll wait at least 24 hours and then go ahead and post it. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed to match Fringe (TV series). 65.95.14.34 ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to add the WikiProject Television's episode task force to the Template:WikiProject Television box? Is there a method to go about proposing that, or is it something you would just do? It would be helpful to the task force if we had a list of the assessments for those episode articles... — Hun ter Ka hn 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
New article, created, at Larry Detwiler. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. South Park (season 13) has currently been nominated for featured article. However, there have been disputes recently regarding the use of the infobox image. The article itself has been well-reviewed, and literally no other actionable concerns have been addressed about it, but unfortunately the image issue has largely overtaken the FAC discussion. I very badly need people to review the entire FA criteria of the episode, not simply the image. At the suggestion of the FA delegate, I've come here to seek help in this regard. Could anyone take some time and weigh in? Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
174.0.35.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who claims to be from Canada, has been adding unsourced information to The Busy World of Richard Scarry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), such as it playing on Playhouse Disney in Japan and a PBS Kids show. There is also an edit war going on that article between that IP and another one since December 8. I fixed up the issues, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits, and I reverted his edits (second revert on the article for today). After my third revert on this page, I issued an edit war notice on the IP's talk page, but he ignored it and [swiftly reverted my edit yet again], violating the three-revert rule. Rather than getting involved in that edit war again, or potentially violating 3RR (since I have reverted three times on this article today), I am asking to see if this issue can be resolved here. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions)
Since there is no response yet, a discussion has been opened up for opinions here. Comments from this project regarding this matter should be very much appreciated. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a complete outsider to this WikiProject, just trying to look up what infoboxes should be used for television topics. I find the documentation on this quite lacking. I found {{ Infobox television}}, which contains no information at all about when it should be used, only documentation on the individual fields. I went to this WikiProject and found the section WP:TV#Infoboxes which does not mention that infobox at all. I'm guessing from context that {{ Infobox television}} should be used for television shows. That may seem entirely obvious to people involved in this WikiProject, but I'll point out that it's not entirely clear from the name of the template, so all the more reason to mention it in the documentation of the template. The reason I started looking into this is that I found an article about a pair of television characters that uses {{ Infobox television}} and wanted to confirm my gut instinct that this is an inappropriate use of that infobox. Could someone who knows their way around this stuff please confirm what content {{ Infobox television}} is suitable/not suitable for, and add this to the documentation of the template and the WikiProject. Thanks. -- Mepolypse ( talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. -- MASEM ( t) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A friend was recently browsing Wikipedia and pointed out that several of the Big Love characters have articles that simply seem to be in-universe descriptions of the plot for each character. Just prodded Margene Heffman as a notice for editors more familiar with the material to make it more encyclopedic as currently, it fails WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Since I'm hoping you might have a fan on the project, I thought I'd toss a notice over here. Not planning on returning here but feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to continue the discussion. Happy New Year!-- Gnowor T C 04:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Your input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Doniago ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed, somewhat appalled, that every character from Mystery Science Theater 3000 is given a separate, distinct article here. None are significant in an encyclopedic sense, and there already exists List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters which can easily house a description of each character. These articles appear to be under the purview of no one, which is equally troubling (there are no WikiProject banners on any of the talk pages). I want to create space for a possible merge discussion here, including which articles to merge (maybe a case can be made for the two main bots to have separate articles. Maybe) and how much content to merge. There's an awful lot of meaningless in-universe schlock on these pages (not to mention almost no third-party sources). Green-eyed girl ( Talk · Contribs) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:TVSeriesTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Bsherr (
talk)
17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:TVEpisodeTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Bsherr (
talk)
17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed here. There has been a conflict between IPs and users regarding the addition of dubious unsourced content. Input from project participants are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. Just wanted to let you all know about the new new assessment table in the Episode Cover Task Force site. The task force is now included in the Template:Television so that we can rank the importance of television episode articles. I think this will help the task force identify what episode-related articles are strong, which ones need work, and which ones might need to be merged/deleted altogether. I've made a request to have the task force template added to all the articles in this category list I've identified, and have been asked to make sure there is a consensus here for the autoassessment of articles and in the category list. Does anyone object to this bot request going forward? — Hun ter Ka hn 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At The Busy World of Richard Scarry, this page was protected for three weeks until January 7 due to a content dispute after I filed a report at WP:AN/EW. Despite a more recent RfC filing, which can be found at Talk:The Busy World of Richard Scarry#RfC on flagicons and unsourced information, 174.0.35.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP who is involved in that dispute, has continued to added unsourced material to several Disney-related articles ( [17], [18], [19]). I then issued a final warning to the IP after reverting the edits made by that user, but the IP has dismissed the warning and continued to revert edits to the articles ( [20], [21]). Rather than getting involved in further edit warring, or violating 3RR for that matter (as I have reached my limit of 3 reverts at Playhouse Disney Channel Asia and will not revert any further), as well as gaming the system, I am bringing this issue up to this page to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter or if others can get involved in the RfC and discuss there about that issue. See also my note on the Playhouse Disney Channel Asia discussion page. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind about the IP issue with the Disney-related pages. I have reverted the most recent edits that the IP made to the page and he/she has been already warned for the last time. However, he has continued to revert my edits yet again, violating 3RR ( [22], [23]). As such, the IP has been blocked for 1 week. I hope this is not excessive. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've posted notes here before about articles I've worked on related to C-SPAN and my WP:COI, mostly without any response, but to stay on the up-and-up I'll continue to note them here (unless, I suppose, someone tells me to stop). To that end, I have researched and drafted three additional proposed articles: After Words, a well-developed and sourced replacement for the subpar version that currently exists; all-new StudentCam, about an annual student filmmaking competition run by the network; all-new C-SPAN Video Library, about its widely-noted website offering more than two decades of archives. For the latter two articles, I have also posted requests for input on relevant project pages: WikiProject Education and WikiProject Websites, respectively. I will likely post these up within a day or so if there are no objections, but I am happy to talk about getting these right, if anyone has an opinion about the content or presentation. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Shot
Listing the contestants Iain Harrison has 18 in the age category and Sherwood Oregon as his hometown.
He was a commander in British Special Forces and appears to be in his early forties. He is from England but I don't know his hometown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.45.165.19 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please tell me the notability for a character to be included? Extras aren't allowed right? Things like "High School Guy," and "teacher." I think are extremely pointless and make the page long. I brought this up before, I can't find the discussion, but I need it now. A page has been blocked because the user keeps adding characters like that, I edit-warred, hence the page block. So yes, notability. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just spotted this page move. I don't edit many TV articles so am not sure if this is correct, I've only ever seen "series" used. Can someone revert if it's wrong? Thanks. — Half Price 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently nominated Sanctuary (season 1) for featured article. I just want to post this to see if some users would mind chiming in and review it, give thoughts, suggestions, etc, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 19:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a list of merger proposals at Frasier (season 1), Frasier (season 2), Frasier (season 6), Frasier (season 7), Frasier (season 10), Frasier (season 11). Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I created Template:TopUSTVShows. I am not sure whether it should be at CSI (franchise) and Survivor (U.S. TV series). Also, I am not sure why shows not on the template show up at Category:Nielsen Ratings winners.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement, about the use of non-free images of characters over free images of the actors. Feel free to put in your input on it. JDDJS ( talk) 20:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Is it standard to put the character names in bold as in 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters
The MoS says that bold should not really be used too often 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters. If it is standard then I need to change some things in some articles I have edited, as well as someone changing the MoS!
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a precedent for determining character order for series on a List of characters article? On the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, there has been some quibbling about what order the main characters should be listed. Extra opinions would be appreciated here. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Although it's specifically framed in terms of books and films, the question in this RfC will naturally be of interest to those writing articles about material which is adapted from one medium to another. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:44, 1 February 2011 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Just wondering, what is our policy on including international ratings on the main article for television shows? I think it's a good idea to have international coverage, but when it gets out of hand, like at Heroes, what happens? I don't think that much of the information is all that important, and just leads to cruft and unsourced figures. So which countries do we choose to include? Honestly, I would just like to see most/all of it gone. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to be an international encyclopedia, so I think foreign info (if cited) should be encouraged. Smart formatting may allow it to fit in a way that doesn't annoy. We devote a lot of text to the US situation, but we aren't the only country that watches it (apparently). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish to resolve this dispute once and a for I am tempted to revert it back to saying its a remake. This has been discusseed to death on the respective pages. Does anyone agree or disagree Biker Mice from Mars (2006 TV series) is a continuation of Biker Mice from Mars or a remake. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to participate as many views would be welcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony (pilot episode) Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. A while back, a pretty new editor created a very raw article for the TV cookery show Market Kitchen. I did what I could with it, in terms of getting references, rewriting it to be more encyclopedic and applying the manual of style. That doesn't seem to have gone down to well with the original editor who initially simply blanked the page and is now just removing all of my changes and reverting to a version of their original article. So far, I've reverted them once, but I don't want this to turn into a war between me and this other editor - so I'd appreciate it if some other editors could add the article to their watchlists and help ensure that future changes improve it. Hopefully any reversions that are necessary will be less confrontational coming from someone other than me. Also, I'm sure it can be improved beyond what I managed to do with it. Many thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In a character's infobox template, if a character has a divorced spouse, should the spouse's name in the infobox have a notation next to their name indicating the divorced status? Or should such status not be in the infobox, but be discussed in the article? WCityMike 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am here to inform that WikiProject Futurama is getting a revival. If you like to join the project, please sign up here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
See the June 15, 2010 discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know if there is a specific policy stating that "List of" sections must have more content than just the link to the main article. For instance, the "Episode" section in the Mannix article was tagged by a user for having no content. I've no idea what else that section, along with other sections of that nature, should state aside from maybe a "click the main article link to see it" (yay, sarcasm). Granted, I've seen sections like that with a bit of an overview in some cases, but I'm unaware if all articles are suppose to be that way. I've seen plenty with just the link, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that. Pinkadelica ♣ 11:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
{tl|rfctag|proj}}
What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? Taric25 ( talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | This section is too long with many extraneous comments, so I have tried to make the above summary. Please correct any errors by editing the above. It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support). While the above is a reasonable support consensus, I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [1] | ” |
.
Hi, all. I'm in a minor spat with a user regarding the car used in the series. The Black Beauty was not a "Chrysler Imperial" as many people think but rather an "Imperial Crown." Imperial was a separate brand in 1966 as correctly illustrated at the article on Imperial (automobile). It was suggested at the wikiquette alert page that I post my concerns here and on the article's talk page. Hoping I can get another gearhead to step in and help. Thanks! -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 05:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I need somebody to rate this article. It has been tagged for deletion. Sarujo ( talk) 09:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
After the usual spin down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, I came across The 100 Scariest Movie Moments. While it certainly sated my curiosity as to the list's contents, I afterwards wondered whether or not it fits Wikipedia's guidelines. Is the list notable? Is it a copyright violation to simply talk about the list? I thought about putting it up for AfD, but I wasn't sure if I would step on any toes, since I'm not exactly a frequent editor. I figured I'd bring it up at the proper WikiProject, since it doesn't look like the talk page gets any traffic. What's the proper thing to do here? Regards, Archaeo ( talk) 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Day of the Dumpster should be merged to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes I would value allow discussion and opinions? 82.25.105.18 ( talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I still believe this subject requires further discussion with a conclusive answer anyone wishing to voice thier opinion should go to
Hi guys, I'm not a member here, but I have a request. If this is the wrong place, can someone redirect me to where I need to go? I have been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article for quite some time, and have nominated it for GA, but there are a few problems; one of them is the TV section. It and the other media sections are simply tables with channel information, which doesn't fly with GA or FA nominations. I just tried to add some prose to this section using sparse resources (and kind of modelled off of Kent, Ohio#Media), but I can't really do much more. I can't really find sources that would be relevant to this section. Can someone with more experience dealing with this type of thing – especially the jumbled mass of information given by FCC queries of the stations in the city – try to fashion up a paragraph or two? Help would be very appreciated. Thanks! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Are theme shows lyrics or narration intros permitted for inclusion in articles. I view as a violation of copyright is this a correct or incorrect stance because if it is a volatioon a great many articles relating to television have this problem. Dwanyewest ( talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems as though the assessment department is completely dead here.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Episode list#Episode number column headings. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The recently-created template {{ Pretty Little Liars}} contains links to performer articles (and not much else) and is included in their articles. I believe in TV and film articles this isn't done for the obvious reason that otherwise actor pages would be cluttered with templates, but I'm not sure where the policy or discussion on the topic is, and I'd like to cite it if I attack the template LOL ;) — TAnthony Talk 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a reasonably recent article that hasn't been added to your project yet. I've nominated it for deletion, any comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time. Thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI a bunch of TV articles were sent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 11.
76.66.192.55 ( talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering if the following are considered reliable by this project for cast/character list:
I'm pretty sure iMDB isn't...
- J Greb ( talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
They are reliable as external links but probably not as sources. What do you have in mind? Jhenderson777 ( talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say no, they are not good references for characters. In fact I am not really sure but I do believe you can edit on those sites as well. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just viewing an article's list of episodes ( List of Metalocalypse episodes) and noticed that every description I checked is found verbatim at the show's official website. It's a Wiki so I don't know which came first but as their website is copyrighted, it's an issue. Usually, I would just rewrite the article or tag it for deletion but there's too much work me to do by myself and deleting the article would be a substantial loss of content. Does your project often run into this problem? What do we do from here? OlYeller Talktome 00:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
TV.com are using the episode summaries I wrote at List of 2point4 Children episodes on their website, with no credit to Wikipedia. I've had to point this out at at least 2 AfDs. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox, the cast is ordered in credit order how they are on the show aren't they? Not in alphabetical. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
According to CTV, Degrassi: The Next Generation is being renamed to "Degrassi" on Monday when season 10 begins. The article makes it clear that it is being renamed as of season 10, and is not retroactive. I believe we should move our Degrassi article to Degrassi franchise, in the same way that Law & Order handles it, repointing all links to Degrassi, and then moving Degrassi: The Next Generation to that page name. Because the new name is not being applied to old episodes, I think pages such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) should not be moved. The only other regular editor to Degrassi articles believes that all articles should stay as they are, because for 10 years it has been known with the TNG suffix. To avoid being Wiktators, we need more input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on Merlin (TV series) for the past two days. I was hoping that someone could possibly assess this so that other editors and I can work on improving it further. Also, any help, contributions, or comments on the talkpage are welcome. ChaosMaster Chat 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the majority of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability in the above AfD discussion. As editors of a related project, your input is appreciated. -- erachima talk 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Pilot (Supernatural) for featured article here. There has been little response, so would anyone mind taking a look? Thanks. Ω pho is 03:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering why Grey's Anatomy wasn't a show-specific project of task force. I would like to nominate it to be. Is there a specific reason it is not a show-specific project or task force? Please let me know if you would consider it for nomination. Amandaxpandax14 ( talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Matthewedwards : Chat 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)"A brand-new Wikiproject for a TV show can often end up making its own rules, style guidelines, etc etc, which makes the end result of the articles that fall under its banner to look inconsistent with other articles related to TV shows, and really they should all be consistent. Sometimes it doesn't happen, such as with the articles under the Wikiprojects for Buffy, Degrassi, and 24 to name a few of the popular ones. But they all formed before or around the same time as WP:TV, and before Taskforces were popular. Those created more recently are all taskforces, and a Grey's taskforce of WP:TV would be a better option, as the taskforce can use the well-established WP:MOSTV and other guidelines already laid down for writing articles about TV shows, episodes, science fiction, etc. An independent WikiProject with a handful of members for such a small scope is not really sustainable. In the future, if the number of members increases and it looks like they can go out into the big bad world on their own, a decision to spin it out into an independent project can be made. A taskforce at this stage provides an opportunity to prove the worth of such a project, attract more members and a reasonable compromise."
Hi all. What is the current attitude towards Digital Spy in peer reviews and assessments? Is current consensus that it is a reliable source, or would an aticle be denied GA status if it referenced it? The JPS talk to me 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have enough sources gathered together to write one decent article about " West End Girls (D:TNG episode)", " Going Down the Road, Part 1 (D:TNG episode)" and " Going Down the Road, Part 2 (D:TNG episode)". The three episodes are intrinsically linked and aired over the course of three weeks. I doubt I could write an article about "West End Girls" by itself and a second about "Going Down the Road", because there was more attention given to GDtR in the press and such.
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This page directly has many issues. This page is the mail problem the others need work but can be done at another time. All of the episodes are not correct or confussing between the the US and UK titles. Also the page has two different formats going. it needs to be refreshed. The air dates I am not sure that they are correct. Something needs to be done about this article. This is all I can think of art this time but I am sure there is alot more wrong and need s to be fixed. Hope this helps so far and we can do something about the article Saylaveer ( talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk ~ contribs) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm having the articles Smallville (season 2) and Smallville (season 9) that mainly this user has been working on, but since I've started working on them-season 9 I have contributed more than the later-peer viewed. They haven't seen any reviews yet, so I thought anyone from the Television Project interested could pop in and review them? Season 9 can be found here and Season 2 can be found here. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ChaosMaster Chat 14:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Our museum website is referenced a number of times in Wikipedia,
Television Production Music Museum http://tvmusicmuseum.com
Can we add a page regarding the museum and it's television music preservation efforts?
We are non-profit and would appreciate the opportunity to be included in Wikipedia.
The museum does not have a brick and mortar location. We have found that we can serve many more people with their research and our resources can extend farther without the obvious expense associated with physical kiosk locations.
Opening up the existence of the museum in Wikipedia would better inform the world of our preservation efforts and ultimately guide more people/production companies to donate material for preservation. We don't make money doing this. It is a labor of love.
Are these things sufficient to be included in Wikipedia?
I would sincerely appreciate your support with our inclusion in Wikipedia. This inclusion would open so many doors, that are currently closed, to our preservation efforts.
Regards,
Terry Wilkie Tvpmm ( talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Television Production Music Museum
tvmusicmuseum@gmail.com
There is currently a discussion for deletion of the Family Guy article Road to... (Family Guy) located here. Comments on the matter are welcomed. Ω pho is 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Supernatural (season 1) is up for Featured Topic nomination here. Would anyone mind please reviewing it? Thanks. Ω pho is 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at the peer review page. Thanks! CycloneGU ( talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve articles such as Beauty and the Beast (TV series), Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Murphy Brown so that it has reliable third person information especially for television shows from 1970's to 1990's period. I feel too many seem to rely on first person info. Although its being easy getting information from archives of the New York Times. How are myself and others supposed to get any usable info by accessing the newspaper articles because others like the Washington Post you have to pay for it has anyone got suggestions. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information this is useful in terms for British shows I am sure I not sure so sure for some American shows since I am based in the UK. Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I really do think these articles below are long overdue in terms of whether they should be merged or not.
List of The Shield episodes, Human Weapon, My Little Pony (TV series) Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Cheers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll ( talk • contribs) 08:12, March 10, 2009
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
see Talk:List of Charmed episodes#Charmed (season_5)_and_Charmed_(season_6). -- User:Docu
![]() | WP:FICT: There is an RfC discussing the consensus on notability and how it applies to elements of fiction. Please feel free to comment on views and proposals, and add your own at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction. |
I have nominated List of Desperate Housewives episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Just came across Template:Degrassi episodes. Is this the current practice? I'm not completely sure how it works, but I think it updates the episode number automatically. I've never seen it in use anywhere else. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The number of episodes is written on three pages, and I didn't want to fill up the edit history with such minor changes. It is a time saving template, and updates without anyone having to log in at the correct time every day. I would be honoured if my idea spread to other sub-projects of WP:TV. 117Avenue ( talk) 23:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The production numbers come from the producers themselves. One even tweeted the fans to tell them the August 5 episode was number 200, [3] and its his count, not ours, because the number 200 was written into the dialog three times that episode, which would have to have been done before we extended that table that far. 117Avenue ( talk) 04:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Could we please have some input at Talk:Prisoner_(TV_series)#Multiple_Roles regarding very crufty lists that creep up on this article? The JPS talk to me 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Glee (season 1) has been nominated as a Featured list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1. During my review, I've brought up a point that could ultimately result in it not being passed. My feeling is that the season page is a summary of Glee (TV series), whereas it should be the other way around. Either that, or the season page just shouldn't exist because the series is only one season long so far. A lot of work has gone into both articles and it would be a shame for it to go to waste. If anybody here can help or advise the editors on what steps to take, or even tell them I'm wrong, I'm sure they would appreciate it. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
[Outdent] It appears on the FLC page and elsewhere that this has been addressed now. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to help decide whether this should be a FL, you are welcome to pop over. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the accepted standard for having a fictional television character to have an article because I am trying to find and add third person person for under sourced popular 80s and 90s shows with mixed results. But one thing that troubles me is the number of character articles which seem to rely on primary evidence and have no third person info and don't seem to demonstrate notability. I think some of the examples I have displayed below for example should be deleted or merged. What are other peoples opinions? Dwanyewest ( talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Power Rangers
Katherine Hillard
Adam Park possible merge
Golden Girls Blanche Devereaux Stanley Zbornak I think they should be deleted
Different strokes
Phillip Drummond (character) deleted
I imagine some of these articles were written before some wikipedia got went mainstream but surely until someone either finds online or via reliable books, newspaper archives etc there is isn't much point keep articles for the sake of them otherwise keeping them. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Just letting people know that The Vampire Diaries season 1 (Incubator) and The Vampire Diaries season 2 (Incubator) exist. They need a lot of work and I'll be doing a lot myself. But the great amount of people that view this page, any help would be greatly appreciated! Jayy008 ( talk) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) up for FAC here. Would anyone mind reviewing? Thanks. Ω pho is 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
New code for Template:Infobox television episode using Template:Infobox is now ready to be implemented. It'll allow for easy customization and tweaking, perhaps it will also aid in creating consistency across episode articles. Have a look at these test cases. If no objections are made, I see no reason for this to remain in the sandbox.– FunkyVoltron talk 15:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a mass nomination of Transformer related articles such as Buzzsaw (Transformers), Alice (Transformers) and a few others. My concern is some article use websites such as [8] and [9] as third person sources. Surely these websites aren't considered reliable or independent sources of information are or they not is the question. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This issue, in my opinon, should be resolved. Why include a table listing EXACTLY everything that is listed a few inches below? All you need to do is scroll down. It is incredibly redundant. I was pointed here by User:Begoon because of a disagreement on List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. The user suggested that whatever format is used, should be used on all episode lists. I agree with this also. My main issue, first and foremost, is with neatness. The difference between Law & Order, "V", the X-Files, and Smallville is purely neatness. Smallville, being the "most neat", doesn't have a series overview. X files then gets into a whole buch of "-"s, "V" gets messed up with the table of contents and the overview, while Law and Order is honestly the only "neat" one with the overview (but then again, there is still quite a few "n/a"s). The second problem is: isn't the overview a total redundancy with the lead and table of contents? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the whole series's episodes with the table of contents allowing you to click on different sections (whether its ratings or season 5) and give you a more elaborate explination of what was "overviewed" in the lead. If an "overview" is added, this defeats the purpose of both. The lead is basically the series overview in prose format. Also, I noticed that 90% of episode lists on wikipedia are inconsistant with the MOS of the date. Instead of listing two full years 2001-2002, it should be presented as 2001-02 (unless it is 1999-2000). Firthermore, half the articles list each season as "Season 1 (2001-02)", when in fact it would be less confusing to list that as "Season 1: 2001-02". ChaosMaster Chat 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the Smallville episodes list article is also a featured article, shouldn't all and future TV series episode lists follow its precedents, such as the exclusion of overview sections? (I'm not actually sure if featured status does affect precedent, actually). Overview tables look like they would be more appropriate for the TV series' articles themselves if not for the episode list articles. Additionally, does anyone have any ideas how a TV series with individual named seasons, like Power Rangers, deal with this issue in episode lists? I introduced a series overview table to it recently, but now it looks overly space-consuming and doesn't seem to belong on its respective series article either. In addition, it seems redundant to make individual episode list articles for each individual season when each season has its own article. -- Rebel shadow ( talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I invite participants in this WikiProject to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC.— Wavelength ( talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oz (TV series) has a lot of small character articles that need to be merged into an overall list of characters. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I am writing to discuss what should be done with the Buster Baxter article. I am not sure as to whether it should get its own article due to notability and sourcing issues - the entire article is almost a plot summary. We are currently having a discussion on the talk page of Talk:List of Arthur characters. Please feel free to voice your opinion, here. Thanks! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Hercules: The Legendary Journeys#Should individual episodes have their own articles? for discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I created the above article in December 2008 (when I was a newish editor) and used thefutoncritic.com as a reference source.
Another editor today has queried whether this is acceptable as a source.
My question here is two-fold:
Any advice would be much appreciated - if the consensus is that it is not a reliable source (or that the article should not exist) - then I will delete the article (I don't even know why I created it - it's not a programme I would have expected to have heard about, being in the UK, so why I created an article is beyond me!)
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems I've started a content dispute over my redirection of short, unsourced articles of House (TV series) episodes. See Talk:Here Kitty for a discussion. A couple editors are just ramming through and undoing my redirects because it seems they disagree with WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked this before about how the infobox should be ordered for cast, but I didn't bring it up for discussion. There seems to be two ways of doing it; Alphabetically and Credit order followed by order they joined the show. To me, alphabetical has no purpose. How does everyone think it should be? Jayy008 ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
From experience, you order based on order in opening credits. You don't rearrange when someone is removed from the show because when the show finally ends there will be no "current" cast. To remove/reorder based on that would be subjecting the page to recentism and not really what is preferred. The reason Smallville just has a link in the infobox (which is suggested at WP:MOSTV) is because Smallville is a 10 season long show and to list everyone who has been/is a regular cast member would be extremely long. Given that the series already has a lot of executive producers to its credit, the infobox would be unnecessarily long. Since casts are usually discussed in-depth later and exec. producers are not, that is why the box just links to the appropriate section of the article. This should really only be done when you have a lot of cast members (ala Lost, as they should do this given how many characters are "regular cast" on that show). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
BigNole has managed to describe it much better than I did. I'll just go with what that user said to avoid confusions with my explanations. PS. Bbb23, I used to agree about the "starring now" thing but since it has individual articles for each season, since it's for the TV show 90210 season 1-3 all information, it should include, all information. For the moment, it seems the consensus is to keep all regulars in the infobox (I will still await more opinions). However, there isn't a consensus about the order. I say to avoid a lot of hard work, if it's already in credit order, maintain it as it's easy. BUT for example with Lost, it would be extremely hard to change it now, so keep it alphabetical. What does everyone think about that, order wise? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Most_Hated_Family_in_America. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Television articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand fans (or eager WikiProject Television members), feel free to assist with the expansion of the prequel mini-series Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. Details are somewhat limited at the moment, but the six-part series is scheduled to air on Starz starting in January. Assistance with expanding the article to Good or even Featured status would be much appreciated, and many more details should be emerging in the near future since the premiere is not too far away. Just spreading the word since the article was just started today. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A Glee task force has been started by Frickative, and already has four members. Any users interested in contributing, please feel free to do sol the page is located at WP:GLEE! :) Also, question: I have added the task force to the main page; is there anything else that needs to be done? I know the task force needs to be added to the WP:TV template. Yvesnimmo ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The new category Category:Climbing Great Buildings has been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to canvass as wide a body of opinion as possible. Please comment at the category's entry on the deletions page. Thanks. Folks at 137 ( talk) 11:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What is Wikiepedia's policy on foreign broadcasters of US programs because I see alot of channels attributed but no sources on things like Thundercats, Rugrats should they be removed or kept unless sourced. Dwanyewest ( talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Usually, we introduce award winning BLPs with phrases like "..is an Emmy Award winning.." or something similar. I recently came upon such an introduction, and after some research found out that the person did win indeed an Emmy Award: a Pacific Southwest Emmy Award, to be precise. Which let me to the realization that there are more than a dozen of local Emmy Award chapters out there, and they each hand out dozens of awards each year (cumulating to more than 1000 awards handed out each year). And, as it seems, all these awards are officially called "Emmy Award". What do we do about that? It's technically correct to say that every winner of every Emmy Award out there is "an Emmy Award winning" something. But, IMHO, it would be highly misleading to leave it at that. I'm not an expert on the subject (obviously), but to my mind "Emmy Award" means Primetime Emmy Award, and nothing else, I wasn't even aware of the local chapters until recently. Are these local awards even noteworthy? And if so, how should they be mentioned on the BLP's that have won them? -- Conti| ✉ 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It has always been the convention, at least for me, to round the viewing figures for shows in episode tables to two digits after the decimal point. Until yesterday, I had never seen the numbers not rounded (left at three). Every episode page I've seen whether I have edited it or not has always been to two. Even featured articles like List of Smallville episodes only have two. After an editor reformated a page [10], he changed the two digits to three. An edit war then broke out between him and a user/ip (same person) [11] on both episode lists for The Mentalist over two or three decimal places. Other editors have reverted this user/ip's edits, presumably thinking it was vandalism. The three of us began a discussion and decided to come here. Is there a guideline for rounding these figures? My thought was that it was just unnecessary precision and looked more natural with two. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated Mother and Child Reunion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for October 14, 2010, the anniversary date of the episode's initial airdate. Please visit the page and say whether you would like to see it on the Main page on that date. Thank you. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the TV channel C-SPAN falls under the scope of this WikiProject, I want to make an announcement, a disclosure and a request for assistance.
The announcement is that I am interested in updating and improving several articles and some non-article pages (such as categories) related to C-SPAN, its shows and related subjects.
The disclosure is that I work with C-SPAN's communications team, so I have a potential conflict of interest with the subject, and I've already posted a similar notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard discussion page. Also: this is not my primary account, but one I plan to use for potential COI topics; I've posted a thorough explanation of this account's creation on my user page.
The request is for your assistance. I intend for any edits I make to be constructive, although with the exception of non-controversial edits, that can be in the eye of the beholder. I've found in my early outreach / requests for help only silence, so I am hoping to find someone willing to look over my shoulder, and provide a non-conflicted perspective. I'll watchlist this page, but also feel free to leave a comment on my Talk page.
First things first, the articles Q&A (talk show) and Q & A (C-SPAN) are about the exact same C-SPAN series. I've proposed a merger on the former's Talk page, and while I suppose it's as unobjectionable an edit as can be, demonstrating good faith is important to me as I get started. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Another editor and I are working on this article which is part of your project (I think) and we do not agree on what is and is not a copyright violation on the page. Much of the text can be find on other websites and what is and isn't a copyright violation isn't always clear. In my opinion, it's starting to look like we're not going to come to a conclusion so I'd like to ask editors here to contribute to the page and/or the conversation regarding the text. Any help with the article would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller Talktome 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request here recently (see above) regarding improvements to the Wikipedia article about the C-SPAN TV show Q&A. That has since been resolved, and my second wish is now to replace that article’s text with a better one of my drafting, available in my subspace here. This article is currently a stub and I have written an expanded version to include just a bit more information, with reliable sources (online and offline) to verify the material. I followed the MOS for TV series in re-organizing the page, and have added an infobox. As stated before, I have a potential COI with this subject, so I would appreciate any feedback from a non-conflicted point of view. If you like the replacement, please feel free to move it. If you have any questions, I’ll be watching this page and my Talk page. And since I don’t think this update is at all controversial, if there are no objections within a reasonable time period, I may just move it myself. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 14:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A recent merge discussion for {{ Infobox soap character}} and {{ Infobox soap character 2}} was opposed because of concern over the differences between many of the template fields. My primary objection to Version 2 is its multiplication of relationship fields by subdividing them by gender and other qualifications; for example, while V. 1 has "Children," V.2 has "Sons," "Daughters," "Adoptive sons," "Adoptive daughters," "Stepsons," and "Stepdaughters." {{ Infobox soap character}} was created and adapted from discussion at WP:SOAPS, has received input from WP:TV and implemented some WP:TV changes like the removal of age parameters from fictional character templates. As noted in the failed deletion discussion of V. 2, {{ Infobox soap character 2}} itself is a merge of two series-specific character templates. However, it seems like V. 2 and its expansion have gone unnoticed by the community at large (at least someone had the sense to remove "Great great grandchildren" LOL). I was hoping to get some input from this Project on V. 2 to get a broader assessment of its parameters; I opposed this merge but do think one is in order for the future if there is real consensus on the disparate fields.— TAnthony Talk 06:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious. Not having worked a lot with tv series, I am wondering whether a tv show needs two infobox templates in the same article. I think the differentiation is occurring because the show was revived after a 22-year gap. For a lot of other shows, I know that there'd be a separate article (Battlestar Galactica is the example I am using here). However, this is program with a smaller scope (and smaller budget). I think that splitting them wouldn't be helpful, but I am not sure of the wisdom of using two templates here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Is IMDB a reliable source for the ammount of episodes a season will consist of? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are many shows that will bill some actors as "Also Starring", as apposed to the actors who are just starring. Some such shows are Oz, The Office (US), 30 Rock, and The X-Files. In most cases, they are listed as "Starring". Would it be better if we created an "Also Starring" category in the infobox instead? J52y ( talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's say you have a wikipedia page for a TV series. Then you also have a page that is "List of characters" from that series. Do you need to cite third party sources for the characters list page or can primary or secondary sources (like the show credits, the TV series web site, a book on the series, etc.)? Thanks! Mathewignash ( talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Mathewignash what you fail to realise is notable isn't WP:INHERITED just because the show exists doesn't every minor aspect of the show is notable. Its no use squealing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or that WP:ITEXISTS its about demostrating notablity. Its not like the articles deleted were well sourced or had strong claims of notability otherwise they wouldn't have got nominated for deletion. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
When does such a page meet notability requirements or how many sources are enough?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Should articles be categorized just under the [Year][country] categories of television series debuts and endings or also in the parent category by [year]? For example, should an article be just in Category:2002 Japanese television series endings or also in Category:2002 television series endings? Cattus talk 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As some of you know, I got involved with an IP named 80.31.37.127 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the Telefónica de España network on Thursday, which was adding false credit information relating to film articles. This situation led to me and the IP being blocked for 24 hours and I started a discussion here. However, another IP named 88.13.88.241 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same network has suddenly appeared and readded the flagicons back into the Wubbzy article, but also the Yin Yang Yo! articles after I have removed it per WP:MOSFLAGICON. I tried to explain to the IP on his talk page, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits. The current reversion done by the IP can be found here and here. Also, Yin Yang Yo! was only produced only in Canada and the United States according to this source, so the United Kingdom is not relevant to this article. Also, I issued him a last warning regarding the flagicons ( [12]), but the IP dismissed it and he immediately readded the flagicons to the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! articles again ( [13], [14]). I would suggest watchlisting the Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Yin Yang Yo! for these changes. Rather than getting involved in further edit warring and being blocked as what I had done last time, I am posting the discussion to see if other project members can voice their opinions on this matter. I understand that edit warring with that the IP or violating the 3RR can lead myself being blocked again. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I know final ratings are always used when they can be. But in the case where finals aren't available from a reliable source... Overnight ratings are thrown in. So, my question is... It's the average of the two overnight half hours used, right? Not just the ratings from one of the half hours simply because ones higher, that would be incorrect? The average is better. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Last week I posted a request here for someone to review my proposed article for the C-SPAN program Q&A (U.S. talk show) (it's a COI subject for me) and recieved a timely response then. Now I've prepared a replacement for the article about the long-running Booknotes program. For reference:
Rather than be bold and simply move it into place myself now, I'd like at least one other editor without any connection to C-SPAN to give it a read, offer any thoughts if further work is necessary, or just let me know that you think it's appropriate to move, or move it as you like. Looking forward to your input. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a content issue with another editor but since this has wider issues, especially for this project, I thought I'd raise the matter here seeking some advice/comments.
At List of Hannah Montana main characters an editor added a number of character images that were later removed by another editor, leaving a single image. I restored one of them, citing justification under WP:NFCC#8 for its retention. During the subsequent discussion a third editor removed the image. Subsequent to this, that editor removed a cast photo from Hannah Montana (season 2), claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles. [15] I've questioned him on this, on his talk page, but he seems adamant that non-free images can't be used, this despite the fact that neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS seems to support him. He again removed the image today, again claiming that non-free images are not allowed in sub-articles. [16] As it stands now, there are no cast photos in Hannah Montana, as their purpose there was purely decorative and there are individual season cast photos in each season article, where casts are discussed. The season 2 cast photo, which best represents the cast of all four seasons, is also used in List of Hannah Montana main characters as per WP:NFLISTS' stated preference that "if another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." I don't see this as a real issue but concede I may be wrong (nobody is perfect). Given that the policies don't seem to say that we can't use non-free images in season articles and that I've lost count of the number of season articles I've checked that have a DVD or poster image and/or a cast image in them, I was wondering if anybody here could shed some light. Is this an issue that has been gone over before? Do we have some policy or consensus one way or the other? -- AussieLegend ( talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As the opener of a RFC on the series regarding a way to develop a style guideline for a section of the season pages I invite editors to stop by and provide feedback on the issue to help develop a policy. Thanks, Hasteur ( talk) 04:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I mean, it makes the page look messy and hardly seems notable. Cameo's aren't part of the story or even the show. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Our Gang for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a content issue with another editor and would appreciate opinions from others on the matter. Season information has been added to the infobox at The Big Bang Theory for actresses Sara Gilbert and Melissa Rauch. Sara Gilbert was a recurring character during seasons 1-3 but credited in a starring role for the first half of season 2. Melissa Rauch was a recurring character in season 3, but is credited in a starring role during season 4. The infobox now says:
My issue with this is that generally (obviously there are exceptions), actors credited in starring roles are in those roles for the entire period that they appear on a program and because of this, there can be a misconception by the casual reader when presented with this sort of unexplained information, that the actor was only involved with the program for the period stated. The above also suffers from being inconsistent as it doesn't specify how many episodes Sara Gilbert was credited, although I don't believe this should be mentioned at all. I believe that in this case, this sort of information is better dealt with in the cast information section in the prose. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 08:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Interlace has been requested to be renamed. This is related to NTSC interlacing, deinterlacing of DVDs, 1080i ... 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 06:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 ( talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Does WP:TV have any guidelines regarding length of plot summaries for 30 minute or hour long television episodes? I know WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words for feature length films.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a good topic nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Characters of Smallville/archive1, all opinions are welcome and encouraged. Please stop by. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. If you will go to that page, you will see a series of articles in the left-hand column all containing the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). If you click on any of them, you may note that none have any sources attached to them. Is it possible that some among you can add the required sources lest the articles be proposed for deletion? Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. Several articles that include the phrase United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) have been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. You can see the list by clicking above. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've written a new version of the Wikipedia article about Washington Journal, the morning call-in program on C-SPAN, which is currently available for review in my user subspace, here. As I have posted on this discussion page before, I work with C-SPAN and therefore recognize that I have a potential conflict with related subjects. I've worked on a few articles in this subject area recently, about the programs Q&A and Booknotes, each time obtaining consensus to replace the (poorly cited) existing version with my (developed, well sourced) versions. This time, I'll simply request that someone review these changes if they are so inclined. Having demonstrated my respect for and capacity with proper citations and neutral point of view previously, I am inclined to be a little more bold in editing directly. But I do not wish to circumvent normal processes, so I'll give this post some time for others to respond before I move forward. If you have any questions, especially about specific changes or additions that I have proposed, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Mhiji ( talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. — Farix ( t | c) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Would any members of this project that wish to please take a look at this article created today Braniff Productions. It would seem to be a candidate for AFD. It is one sentence and I am pretty sure that it is inaccurate. My understanding is that they used the Braniff logo as a joke and that their production company was never called BP. Unfortunately my time online time is limited tonight and I can't get to doing all of the steps necessary for AFD. If on the other hand you feel that this article is legit and can be improved please disregard this notice and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
How would I go about finding all the pages related to the TV show South Of Nowhere ie. episode pages Season pages and whatnot.-- King High 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone has changed the program's status on the Yin Yang Yo! article from "Ended" to "on hiatus". Also there are rumours that a third season is airing in November/December 2010, but I can't find any reliable third-party sources. The same situation applies to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!, and some other television articles that have a series finale as "cancelled" when it was clearly not in it. Does anyone have a source for the articles? Thanks, Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 05:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kampung Boy (TV series) is now at Featured Article Candidates (FAC). The animated series, which won an Annecy Award, is about a young ethnic Malay boy's life in a kampung (village). I invite members of this project to read the article and assess if it complies with the criteria to be an FA, or if it requires further improvements. Your comments and decisions are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kampung Boy (TV series)/archive1. Jappalang ( talk) 03:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to list in an article's intro the name of the companies that sponsor a television show; this seems to be like blatant promotionalism? 842U ( talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have listed Smart Talk with Raisin for Articles for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Talk with Raisin. Do not remove the {{ afd}} tag until the consensus may be reached. Thank you. JJ98 ( Talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. WP:TASKFORCE says the first step to starting a task force is to seep WP:CONSENSUS, so I'd like to ask here about the possibility of starting a Mystery Science Theater 3000 task force. Granted, this show has been canceled for some time, but it still has an extremely strong cult following, and there are a wide range of MST3K-related articles here at Wikipedia. I don't believe there's a lot of active work being done on them (I've gotten The Brute Man to GA and am working on Laserblast) but that's just what I'm hoping the formation of a task force would lead to. I believe that articles that could be tagged by such a task force include articles related to the show itself (like Mystery Science Theater 3000, List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, etc.), the people involved with it ( Joel Hodgson, Michael J. Nelson, etc.), fictional aspects of the show ( Tom Servo, Satellite of Love, etc.), the films featured in MST3K episode ( Manos: The Hands of Fate, Mitchell, etc.) and post-MST3K stuff ( RiffTrax, Cinematic Titanic, etc.). Thoughts? — Hun ter Ka hn 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010] http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=147520
- Scott Stites 70.169.111.9 ( talk) 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010
It was on December 6 2010 that I noticed several commercial interruptions during an airing of "Letters From Iwo Jima". I found this article today (December 7, 2010) which appears to confirm the change in format/policy at IFC: ["IFC Adds Commercials and Cult Comedies, Exits the Art House", Advertising Age, By Andrew Hampp, Published December 07, 2010] http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=147520
- Scott Stites 70.169.111.9 ( talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)07 December, 2010
The template Template:Current sport-related is/was (it's now being removed) used on television articles to point readers to the current season of the show. But the template is for sports articles only. Can a similar template to be used on television articles be made?
This is what the current sport related template looks like being used on TV articles. — Mike Allen 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. I've nominated two Parks and Recreation episode articles, " The Master Plan" and " Freddy Spaghetti", for GAN. All of the other second season episode articles (and the season article itself) are already good articles, so one (and if) these two are passed I can pursue a GT, which I'd ideally like to do before the third season starts up next week. If anyone is interested in reviewing those articles, I'd appreciate it! (Incidentally, I am not seeking a quick-pass, but rather a legitimate review. Thanks!) — Hun ter Ka hn 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_television_series under the header W a show called The Rippling Blossom is listed. Should appear under R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 ( talk) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Could we get some opinions on the arrangement and coloring of Template:Disney Channel Original Series and Template:SNICK/TEENick? I believe that these navboxes do not need the colors as they are not necessary formatting for the article. Also, I believe that the actual series should be in the order that they first aired. They were previously overly formatted with color and contained a partition for "currently airing" series. See This compared to that for SNICK/TEENick and this compared to that. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think having the template headers color coded improves accessibility (actually it probably degrades it). Like, we don't need The Simpsons template colored yellow just because they are yellow, or the Nickelodeon one being orange just because they have an orange blob in their logo (correction: apparently they just use orange font now). This all just seems aesthetic and pointless it an encyclopedia. — Mike Allen 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that is should be in color especially the nickelodeon one since most things associated with nick are orange.I think it is much better when the templates have the currently airing section beacuse I think it serves a better purpose that way. 744cody ( talk) 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess that a possibility is to leave out the color from the template but still leave the currently airing section. 744cody ( talk) 05:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In the last few weeks I have researched and drafted a new version of an article with which I propose to replace the current version of Book TV. Having previously posted here and received assistance with articles such as Washington Journal and Booknotes, I'd like to solicit input once again in reviewing a new version of the article, which can be found in my user space, here: User:WWB_Too/Book TV.
As mentioned in my earlier requests, as a point of disclosure, I have been working with the C-SPAN communications team to improve articles related to the network, and I hope this article likewise is met with approval. As per previous articles, this draft is reliably sourced, neutrally worded and includes only material that I believe is encyclopedic. While I don't think there is anything controversial about this topic and would be inclined to make these edits directly, due to my potential COI, I would like to give another editor the opportunity to look over the draft and offer any comments. A similar note has been added to the Book TV talk page, also asking for comments on the draft. If there are none, I’ll wait at least 24 hours and then go ahead and post it. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed to match Fringe (TV series). 65.95.14.34 ( talk) 12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to add the WikiProject Television's episode task force to the Template:WikiProject Television box? Is there a method to go about proposing that, or is it something you would just do? It would be helpful to the task force if we had a list of the assessments for those episode articles... — Hun ter Ka hn 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
New article, created, at Larry Detwiler. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. South Park (season 13) has currently been nominated for featured article. However, there have been disputes recently regarding the use of the infobox image. The article itself has been well-reviewed, and literally no other actionable concerns have been addressed about it, but unfortunately the image issue has largely overtaken the FAC discussion. I very badly need people to review the entire FA criteria of the episode, not simply the image. At the suggestion of the FA delegate, I've come here to seek help in this regard. Could anyone take some time and weigh in? Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
174.0.35.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who claims to be from Canada, has been adding unsourced information to The Busy World of Richard Scarry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), such as it playing on Playhouse Disney in Japan and a PBS Kids show. There is also an edit war going on that article between that IP and another one since December 8. I fixed up the issues, but the IP swiftly reverted my edits, and I reverted his edits (second revert on the article for today). After my third revert on this page, I issued an edit war notice on the IP's talk page, but he ignored it and [swiftly reverted my edit yet again], violating the three-revert rule. Rather than getting involved in that edit war again, or potentially violating 3RR (since I have reverted three times on this article today), I am asking to see if this issue can be resolved here. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions)
Since there is no response yet, a discussion has been opened up for opinions here. Comments from this project regarding this matter should be very much appreciated. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a complete outsider to this WikiProject, just trying to look up what infoboxes should be used for television topics. I find the documentation on this quite lacking. I found {{ Infobox television}}, which contains no information at all about when it should be used, only documentation on the individual fields. I went to this WikiProject and found the section WP:TV#Infoboxes which does not mention that infobox at all. I'm guessing from context that {{ Infobox television}} should be used for television shows. That may seem entirely obvious to people involved in this WikiProject, but I'll point out that it's not entirely clear from the name of the template, so all the more reason to mention it in the documentation of the template. The reason I started looking into this is that I found an article about a pair of television characters that uses {{ Infobox television}} and wanted to confirm my gut instinct that this is an inappropriate use of that infobox. Could someone who knows their way around this stuff please confirm what content {{ Infobox television}} is suitable/not suitable for, and add this to the documentation of the template and the WikiProject. Thanks. -- Mepolypse ( talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. -- MASEM ( t) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A friend was recently browsing Wikipedia and pointed out that several of the Big Love characters have articles that simply seem to be in-universe descriptions of the plot for each character. Just prodded Margene Heffman as a notice for editors more familiar with the material to make it more encyclopedic as currently, it fails WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Since I'm hoping you might have a fan on the project, I thought I'd toss a notice over here. Not planning on returning here but feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to continue the discussion. Happy New Year!-- Gnowor T C 04:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Your input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Doniago ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed, somewhat appalled, that every character from Mystery Science Theater 3000 is given a separate, distinct article here. None are significant in an encyclopedic sense, and there already exists List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters which can easily house a description of each character. These articles appear to be under the purview of no one, which is equally troubling (there are no WikiProject banners on any of the talk pages). I want to create space for a possible merge discussion here, including which articles to merge (maybe a case can be made for the two main bots to have separate articles. Maybe) and how much content to merge. There's an awful lot of meaningless in-universe schlock on these pages (not to mention almost no third-party sources). Green-eyed girl ( Talk · Contribs) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:TVSeriesTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Bsherr (
talk)
17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:TVEpisodeTalk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Bsherr (
talk)
17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed here. There has been a conflict between IPs and users regarding the addition of dubious unsourced content. Input from project participants are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. Just wanted to let you all know about the new new assessment table in the Episode Cover Task Force site. The task force is now included in the Template:Television so that we can rank the importance of television episode articles. I think this will help the task force identify what episode-related articles are strong, which ones need work, and which ones might need to be merged/deleted altogether. I've made a request to have the task force template added to all the articles in this category list I've identified, and have been asked to make sure there is a consensus here for the autoassessment of articles and in the category list. Does anyone object to this bot request going forward? — Hun ter Ka hn 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At The Busy World of Richard Scarry, this page was protected for three weeks until January 7 due to a content dispute after I filed a report at WP:AN/EW. Despite a more recent RfC filing, which can be found at Talk:The Busy World of Richard Scarry#RfC on flagicons and unsourced information, 174.0.35.250 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP who is involved in that dispute, has continued to added unsourced material to several Disney-related articles ( [17], [18], [19]). I then issued a final warning to the IP after reverting the edits made by that user, but the IP has dismissed the warning and continued to revert edits to the articles ( [20], [21]). Rather than getting involved in further edit warring, or violating 3RR for that matter (as I have reached my limit of 3 reverts at Playhouse Disney Channel Asia and will not revert any further), as well as gaming the system, I am bringing this issue up to this page to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter or if others can get involved in the RfC and discuss there about that issue. See also my note on the Playhouse Disney Channel Asia discussion page. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind about the IP issue with the Disney-related pages. I have reverted the most recent edits that the IP made to the page and he/she has been already warned for the last time. However, he has continued to revert my edits yet again, violating 3RR ( [22], [23]). As such, the IP has been blocked for 1 week. I hope this is not excessive. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've posted notes here before about articles I've worked on related to C-SPAN and my WP:COI, mostly without any response, but to stay on the up-and-up I'll continue to note them here (unless, I suppose, someone tells me to stop). To that end, I have researched and drafted three additional proposed articles: After Words, a well-developed and sourced replacement for the subpar version that currently exists; all-new StudentCam, about an annual student filmmaking competition run by the network; all-new C-SPAN Video Library, about its widely-noted website offering more than two decades of archives. For the latter two articles, I have also posted requests for input on relevant project pages: WikiProject Education and WikiProject Websites, respectively. I will likely post these up within a day or so if there are no objections, but I am happy to talk about getting these right, if anyone has an opinion about the content or presentation. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Shot
Listing the contestants Iain Harrison has 18 in the age category and Sherwood Oregon as his hometown.
He was a commander in British Special Forces and appears to be in his early forties. He is from England but I don't know his hometown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.45.165.19 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please tell me the notability for a character to be included? Extras aren't allowed right? Things like "High School Guy," and "teacher." I think are extremely pointless and make the page long. I brought this up before, I can't find the discussion, but I need it now. A page has been blocked because the user keeps adding characters like that, I edit-warred, hence the page block. So yes, notability. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just spotted this page move. I don't edit many TV articles so am not sure if this is correct, I've only ever seen "series" used. Can someone revert if it's wrong? Thanks. — Half Price 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently nominated Sanctuary (season 1) for featured article. I just want to post this to see if some users would mind chiming in and review it, give thoughts, suggestions, etc, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 19:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a list of merger proposals at Frasier (season 1), Frasier (season 2), Frasier (season 6), Frasier (season 7), Frasier (season 10), Frasier (season 11). Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I created Template:TopUSTVShows. I am not sure whether it should be at CSI (franchise) and Survivor (U.S. TV series). Also, I am not sure why shows not on the template show up at Category:Nielsen Ratings winners.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement, about the use of non-free images of characters over free images of the actors. Feel free to put in your input on it. JDDJS ( talk) 20:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Is it standard to put the character names in bold as in 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters
The MoS says that bold should not really be used too often 'Allo_'Allo!#Characters. If it is standard then I need to change some things in some articles I have edited, as well as someone changing the MoS!
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a precedent for determining character order for series on a List of characters article? On the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, there has been some quibbling about what order the main characters should be listed. Extra opinions would be appreciated here. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Although it's specifically framed in terms of books and films, the question in this RfC will naturally be of interest to those writing articles about material which is adapted from one medium to another. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)