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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Here's something I haven't seen before: How does one disambiguate an episode name (" Galentine's Day") when the same name is used by the same show, in a different season? ( [1]) Granted, recent episodes of Parks and Rec have not been getting their own articles, but I have been creating some episode title pages to redirect to their spot on the season page table. But in any event, I think the existing page should have some disambiguation once this upcoming episode airs, and don't know how to approach it. Would it be anything like Galentine's Day (season 2), Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2) or Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2 episode)? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb: Would you mind chiming in on this? I'd like to get other's opinions on what to do when this becomes an issue in a few weeks. Others are more than welcome to chime in too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Bignole's options or my most recent ones in the post above this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate all of your inputs. It is such a unique situation, and I still have a few weeks to decide what to do. I see both Bignole's and Aussie's points. Maybe there's a happy medium? Thanks again all. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
{{About|the 2010 [[Parks and Recreation]] episode|the 2014 episode|Parks and Recreation (season 6)#ep107}}
) --
AussieLegend (
✉) 07:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts about List of Sam & Cat broadcasters and List of Sanjay and Craig broadcasters as it pertains to MOS:TV#Broadcast? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
While we are on this topic, should it be specified which countries exactly we are talking about? I know I personally only think (when it is a US show) of inclusion for UK, Canada and Australia. But I've seen India and South Africa included as well, and I would not gravitate to adding those. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
A request has been presented to merge Disney Channel Vietnam into Disney Channel (Asia). You are invited to discuss here. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming across episode summaries (usually in lists of TV episodes by season) which are copied word for word from an official source. These are almost always phrased in a promotional / "teaser" manner which is in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but more than that I would think that copying the text directly - even if it is only a couple of sentences - would amount to copyright infringement or at the very least the introduction of non-free text into the encyclopaedia. I was wondering if there was some kind of exception for this kind of short summary as the issue seems to be quite widespread. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Americanradiohistory.com has a collection of BBC Yearbooks available for download that may be of use for referencing in some early television related material. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, could I get some eyes at Clarence (2014 TV series)? The references are formatted in a way that I've not seen in an article about television. I don't think the {{sfn}} template is being used properly and was going to convert them to standard inline citations, but thought I'd run 'em past the peeps. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Started discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/FAQ#Son of the Bronx. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created a new thread about the site at the reliable sources noticeboard; if you're interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Son of the Bronx. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 04:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear television experts: This draft was created, but never submitted to be in the encyclopedia. It looks well developed to me, but I seldom read television pages, so I would like an opinion. Is this a not able topic, and is the article suitable for mainspace? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What should be done about the various forms of this show? There was the "regular" version, a "teen" version, and a new revival on the Disney Channel. Since they are all essentially the same show, should they all be merged into one article? Note that "Disney's Win Lose or Draw" redirects to the main page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
May I please request some extra eyes briefly at Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja? It appears I'm about to become engaged in an edit war with a child with civility problems, and I'd prefer to avoid that. I originally removed some unnecessary wikilinks, and the kid has apparently taken offense to my re-removal, as well as the other edits I made to bring the article a little closer to MOS:TV. Some of my edits included adding a Main characters and recurring characters section, removing cast list as actors are mentioned in characters section, adding Tone cleanup templates since the prose is not written very well, etc. Much of that has been removed so that the IP could make their POV edits. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I may have mentioned this before, but extra eyes at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters (and related pages) would be appreciated. The character list is (in my estimation) extraordinarily bloated. It toes the line of "derivative work" because it essentially processes and stuffs lengthy episode synopses into character descriptions, it continues to get longer with little community input to help shape the content, and I have a personal bias against a contributor whose ability to comprehend and adhere to existing guidelines/policies, whose ability to separate noteworthy content from trivia, whose grammar and spelling fundamentals and whose general judgment I question. I would prefer if the community could weigh in here. If you get a few minutes, I wholeheartedly thank you! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have searched the credits at the end of the episode, but can find no mention of the terrific singer on stage at the nightclub. I actually thought it might have been Adele, but I've looked through all Adele's appearances, and there is no mention of her ever doing a cameo on a TV episode. WHO IS SHE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.186.155 ( talk) 22:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to weigh in here if you've got the time. m.o.p 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion as it is used in only 22 articles. The nomination says that it is redundant to {{ Infobox television episode}} but this isn't true as Infobox Rome episode has three fields not included in Infobox television episode. I solved this by adding three custom fields to Infobox television episode and successfully converted all Rome episode articles but this has received opposition from three editors. Input from TV project editors would be welcome at either or both discussions, which may be found at the following locations:
Thanks for reading. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been no further discussion on this in the past week. From those who have participated there is support for the addition of the custom fields but no preference stated on how we should implement templates. If nobody has anything further to add, is there any opposition to me restoring the fields and implementing my suggestion to include new templates as subtemplates of Infobox television episode? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has today added parameters to the infobox without any real discussion and I have proposed they be removed. I did revert their addition but they were restored by the editor. The proposal is at Template_talk:Infobox television episode#Proposal to remove coordinates parameter. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Leonard. Inventor of the dipole antenna? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't "with stereo audio at 128 kbit/s" be kb/s, that is kilobytes not kilobits? At the moment it appears subtitles take up more bandwidth than audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.106.250 ( talk) 11:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a rule on whether a Brazilian version of the pan-Latin-American television channel can have a separate article or not.
Any ideas? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
NBC is going to close down Television Without Pity within the next week or so, and shutter the site (they say forums will be open until May 31, but nothing on the content). Nearly 500 mainspace pages use TWOP links (I didn't check if these were for reviews or not, just whether they just exist. While archive.org has the front page of most per-2014 reviews up, it only contains the first page of the multipage links. The question is if we need to save these via a better archiving system (like webcitation.org) The matter is complicated by the fact that most of the links are the paginated recaps that do not have a simple way to grab the whole recap at once (that I'm aware of). I know that a reasonable bot request would be do this automatically but it would need to handle the pagination factor. -- MASEM ( t) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to reach a consensus on the summary of television series. I have found that with some television articles on Wikipedia (such as The Andy Griffith Show), when describing the plot, tend to focus on the premise, saying who the show revolves around and what the typical plot of individual episodes is. However, some other television articles here (such as The Wonder Years, or Friends), when describing the plot, go into great detail, sometimes going season by season in telling what happens. Is this necessary? The reason why I am asking is that there seems to be a lack of consistency. I propose having the plot focus mainly on the premise, rather than on divulging a bunch of spoilers. Do you support or oppose this? Thanks! Twyfan714 ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear television experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What, if any, is the policy of referring to characters on the main show page? The show in question is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and questioning if in the character section, it should have the listing of Philip "Phil" Coulson, versus Phil Coulson. Does WP:COMMONNAME apply in this instance? While that is the full character name, they are always referred to as Phil in the show, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and doesn't seem like an instance of Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from Lost (TV series). - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that episodes lists such as List of SpongeBob Squarepants episodes don't exist for reality shows such as The Amazing Race, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Survivor, etc. Is there a reason for this? Is there a consensus to not make episode lists for reality shows like those? Gloss • talk 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved from the Helpdesk to this page. User: Dk113040 has been adding "production code" to a whole bunch of pages on televiskion series. Does anyone see any value in this? I for one don't. I doubt that a significant number of readers/ users know what a production code is and to anyone who does, it really adds no value whatsoever to the page. If we are going to retain it, could we at least link it to Production code number in the column heading? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. — sroc 💬 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have created a request for a template to be made for series overviews, which are frequently seen on television episode lists. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requested templates#Series overview. Whisternefet ( t · c) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm having some major trouble with List of programs broadcast by Toonami. I've done a major reorganization of the list so that the programs listed are placed first, followed by previous lists of programs that have been broadcast on the channel, organized by block. However, an anonymous IP user insists on restoring the old version which has 200+ sections and details every single schedule lineup since the channel's conception (90% of which is unsourced). HERE The old version violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE in all sorts of manners, but he is threatening edit warring. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, an editor named Hutto1419 recently posted some screenshots (See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) to some articles about 'The Walking Dead' episodes. All of the images you added have been tagged for speedy deletion from Wikimedia Commons due to possible copyright violations. I am assuming these were just added in good faith by someone unfamiliar with Wikipolicy since these are the only contributions made by this editor. Since I'm fairly new myself and not really sure if these images satisfy WP:FAIRUSE, I did not revert. Perhaps somebody more familiar with this kind of thing can take a look and edit the articles as needed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, could someone please keep an eye on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). IP user from Brazil keeps adding Latin American broadcast info. I've reverted twice, so I'm at my limit. I dropped him a note on his talk page re WP:TVINTL but he apparently ignored my note. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so I was looking at this edit. Started wondering what, to the WikiProject's satisfaction, qualifies as a co-production? Many companies like Nickelodeon own a property, but use foreign studios (let's use South Korea as an example) to animate because it's cheaper. That doesn't automatically qualify as an American/South Korean co-production does it? On the other hand, a show like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) appears to be a co-production because this article describes it as being produced in conjunction with a Canadian company. Anyone have any at-a-glance guidelines on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Kayro Productions be redirected to Universal Television. If so, maybe there should be a separate chapter on the company. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 17:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I requested a peer review of the article on "The Wonder Years" because I find it to be of poor quality and would like suggestions as to how to improve it. The peer review can be found here. Twyfan714 ( talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I got the peer review I needed for The Wonder Years and it is clear that it needs a lot of improvement. Unfortunately, I have a lot of work coming up, and therefore, won't have the time to be bold and change it all myself. I have started a discussion on ways to improve the article and would appreciate any suggestions you all have for improvement! Thanks! Twyfan714 ( talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also requested a peer review of China, IL, so that I may be able to improve it to Good Article status. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/China, IL/archive1. Thanks, Whisternefet ( t · c) 04:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at {{ Infobox television}}. The discussion is here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could I get a few extra eyes at List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Users (mostly IPs) keep adding a May 27, 2014 premiere date for S3 and the only source that has been provided is a forum post at ToonZone. The IPs are prolific and I'm doing too much reverting. Alt, if someone could dig up a reliable source for this info, that'd be nice. I'm having trouble finding one. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The following articles have been nominated for deletion:
I am also nominating the following related pages because content forking:
Join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia). Spshu ( talk) 14:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is Template:Buffy and Angel cast any better than adding the cast names to Template:Buffynav and Template:Angelnav?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"UNIVERSAL CITY, Calif. -- April 23, 2014 -- USA Network, the #1 network in all of cable for eight years running, will serve up its hottest summer ever with four returning series and two new dramas. Once again, the network that defined summer television with its signature dramas is rolling out all-new episodes of its critically acclaimed original series in June, with ROYAL PAINS (June 10), SUITS (June 11), GRACELAND (June 11) and COVERT AFFAIRS (June 24). July 17 will see the launch of the two newest dramas, RUSH, featuring renegade, bad-boy physician Dr. William P. Rush (Tom Ellis, “Miranda) at 9/8c, followed by SATISFACTION at 10/9c starring Matt Passmore (“The Glades”) and Stephanie Szostak (“The Devil Wears Prada”)." http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/usanetwork/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2014/04/23/usaannouncespow1590029.xml
Just premiere dates and things like that that should be edited into these articles. I don't know the protocol. 96.246.145.92 ( talk) 02:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous articles related to The Real Housewives franchise are in poor condition and could benefit from some specialized attention. With seven separate installments, the potential creation of 34 season-specific articles (maybe even episode-specific articles), and numerous cast members that have found fame from the series, The Real Housewives is certainly a highly-influential part of reality television and has the potential of becoming a well-developed group of articles. I believe that giving the franchise its own separate task force within WikiProject Television will more effectively gather interested editors and will promote the improvement of these several articles. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. WikiRedactor ( talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
Could each TV series have a section at the bottom that points to where it can be streamed online (if online streaming is available?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.38.14 ( talk) 05:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a slow edit war going on with several of the characters from this series. For example, Stefan Salvatore as to when he became a vampire or a doppleganger. The switching is between in-universe and real world dating. My understanding is that real world takes precedence. But in trying to find comparisons, I don't find such dating in infoboxes for other similar fictional characters at all. The vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are like that. Any help that y'all can provide would be appreciated. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I have a quick question here, is TV Guide, TV.com and SideReel are all reliable sources or sufficient enough of a reliable source? Thanks! Fairy Tail Rocks 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a minor issue that has spiraled into a big dispute involving lots of talk page comments, an SPI and a case at WP:AIV. It concerns List of Person of Interest episodes and whether a header that says Season 4 can be changed to Season 4 (2014-2015). In March, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for a fourth season and in May it released the Fall 2014 line-up that indicated that the series would continue in its 10 pm Tuesday night timeslot.
The dispute is that some editors believe that this edit has to wait until an exact date is announced for the first episode of the series or after that first episode airs to say that the fourth season of this show is actually going to be broadcast, and that it will air in 2014. While I admit that something eventful might happen, like a writer's strike or a cast member's death, that would prevent a series with solid ratings from being broadcast according to CBS' fall schedule, it seems almost certain that these events won't happen. I also see Season X (2014-2015) appearing on the pages of some television series that were renewed so this seems to be the practice elsewhere.
So, is there a consensus about this or a policy? I'm familiar with WP:CRYSTAL but I think that CBS has issued official statements that make this statement not a prediction but a fact. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have already notified the users who have participated here, but if anyone would like to comment on this, options on what to do, to eventually add to the MOS, have been presented at Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes#Options. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was very badly written and almost entirely made up of content that didn't meet Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I've cleaned it up and added information sourced from noteworthy publications. -- Vcwatcher ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed some new (for me) reference style for episode's references in this article. Is it ok (to make such references)? -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hoping a few of you could pitch in to offer some voices. At Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 there is an ongoing dispute about ep 213/214, primarily between two users. The episode is listed at Nick.com, TVGuide.com and Zap2It.com as "Wormquake!", but the title card that appears in the episode on the Nick site (at approx 03:00) reads "The Manhattan Project", which is also the title card that appeared when the episode aired in the United States. Surely the primary source can be used as its own reference for something as non-controversial as a title? (My guess is that the Wormquake title was released when it was in fact still a working title.) Currently the article calls the ep "The Manhattan Project", which makes sense to me, and it includes a note that explains that the ep was promoted as Wormquake. There was a similar eff-up a few months ago when Nick ran commercials calling the S1 finale a "Booyaka-Showdown", which of course all the kids jumped on and submitted en masse, when the 2-part episode was actually titled "Showdown". If we could get a couple of extra voices to weigh in, it would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
|AltTitle=
and |RAltTitle=
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 19:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)How about adding showrunner as an Infobox field? 195.240.199.250 ( talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Is "Television program creator" the correct term? Should it have an article? Your opinion wanted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator... Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I believe this channel is for all of Asia, but having used move requests, it won't work because too much edits from Disney Junior (Asia). So I decided to put request here.-- John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) RA 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT television programming may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter; the WP:Permalink is here, and the plain link to the discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow Business (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow Business (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Gorthian ( talk) 07:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Started yet another discussion on WP:RSN about SonOfTheBronx. Really just want a concrete answer. Please check it out here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TV_Viewership_-_SonOfTheBronx_Again EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am attempting to get Napoleon Dynamite (TV series) up to FA status. The plot summaries for the article are short and someone commented that they should expanded with 200 words being the minimum. The problem is the sources I am using [13] [14] for "Scantronica Love" for example only contain 57 words and 59 words respectively, themselves. I am aware that plot summaries do not have to be sourced, but unfortunately the episodes aired in early 2012 and my memory of them is almost nil. How important is this to the article? Me5000 ( talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Heya, super quickly, I kept noticing that articles like List of programs broadcast by Toonami are chock-full of parental ratings, few, if any of these are sourced, there are daily updates to this data, and I'm aware of what MOS:TV says about them. My plan is to remove these ratings columns, not just from this article, but from other ones that I find--( List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network is another example). I just wanted to put this out there first in case any among you might think I'm being rash. My arguments are: 1) The data doesn't meet meet WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. How can we verify that any of this data is accurate? Where is the central list that tells us which episode of One Piece was TV-14 DL? 2) WP:PRIMARY We can't use primary sources (i.e. the broadcast that you watched with your own eyes) for vast amounts of information, as we are doing here. 3) MOS:TV#Things to avoid specifically instructs us to avoid indiscriminate parental ratings. Thanks all, lemme know what you think. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: I did remove these ratings about a year and a half ago and got a lot of backlash from IPs and users. I agree with their removal, but be advised there might be backlash. I think there is certainly consensus and policy behind removing them however. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cartoon Network does publicize its parental ratings [15] (reliably sourced) but doesn't include all the episode specific variants, the latter of which is not reliably sourced or notable. Adult Swim/Toonami does not publicize parental ratings. Instead of bringing back line-for-line all the shows, because then you'd have to look up archives of every show ever broadcast, you can add a line of prose like: "The parental control ratings for current shows broadcast typically range from TV-Y to TV-PG" - AngusWOOF ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I do agree with this; because these shows are later repeated during the day with content edits, what might be a TV-PG-V later in the day might easily be bumped to a TV-G or TV-Y7. We can never source these properly, and when we have TV show fans editing articles to pieces, we should not be used to provide parental advice. Seriously the only ones who get annoyed by this are completionists who want us to know every factoid about their show, no matter how inane. Nate • ( chatter) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't see any encyclopedic value to including the TV-Y7 or TV-PG or whatever ratings, serves more to turn television articles into a ratings log. We should put the trust into the broadcaster and television program to relay these ratings and then it'd be up to the parents to decide upon that viewer discretion. Even video game articles whose box arts already show the E For Everyone's or T For Teen's or whatever ratings don't explicitly mention the ESRB ratings within their articles. They add nothing to the knowledge base apart from logging indiscriminate collections of data which only a tiny few would even bother to look for in an encyclopedia article without even knowing that information can much more conveniently be retrieved on a ratings system site of some sort. Content of this sort is also superfluous to the content that already makes mention of the target audience like the genre and format. I don't see any reason to include them apart from just pleasing the fanboys and fangirls who take the verbatim treating Wikipedia as a fansite. — Mythdon 19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Note – as I had "warned" – the edit has already been undone at List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've floated a question at Template talk:Infobox television#Company parameter about the intention of the Company parameter. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version to a previous post.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the TV ratings have been eliminated from the [adult swim] and Toonami pages, which I find to be purely nonsensical. This is a site informing the readers on what programs the networks have broadcasted, also providing other tidbits and facts. The TV ratings, I feel, are very important to the article. It isn't a matter of Wikipedia not being a TV Guide, as Zap2It does not list the TV ratings anymore, but rather being a resource for information on the programs broadcasted. Especially on an article like Adult Swim, where the keyword is 'adult'. It can provide information on the reader as to how 'adult' each program can get in content and the like, which I think is very informative and rather crucial in providing the reader with an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 ( talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The season list at Dance Moms (season 4) has recently been split into two parts, [16] and I was wondering what is the general opinion on doing this sort of thing. The article already contains a rather strange claim, "On April 15, the show went on hiatus for unknown reasons. However, a week after the hiatus, the show returned with 3 new specials, two reunions and a clip show". I removed that with the rationale that if it returned after a week, it wasn't really on hiatus. That was reverted by the editor who has now split the season. He is now trying to cite the hiatus claim with a source that only confirms the series was on hiatus on May 13. After a bit of to and fro-ing, he's now split the episode table on the basis that since the last episode aired on May 13 and the next is to air on July 29, it's on hiatus. In a way he's right, but is there really a necessity for this based on an 11 week hiatus? We didn't do it for series that were disrupted by up to four months by the 2007 WGA strike, so do we really need to here? I only watch the Dance Moms articles, not the series, because my wife loves it. Please don't judge me! -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at WT:GAN concerning my nomination for Clarence (2014 TV series), but it has gone stagnant for a few days now. Since the first season hasn't finished airing yet, this is seen as a reason to quickfail the nomination per stability (5) of WP:GACR. However, since the series doesn't provide much or any continuity as far as I can tell (so far), and we're more than halfway done through the dozen episodes that were ordered this season, I don't really see this as too much of an issue. I mean, we have various good and featured articles on series still going – are first seasons of television series really that chaotic for shows like this? – 23W ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
So in the Awards and nominations section on a TV actor's article, and also TV Show articles, how should the year be listed? Is it the year the ceremony was performed or should it be the year the award is for? AKA. should the 68th Golden Globe Awards be listed as 2010 or 2011? -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Disney Channel (Asia) is entirely unsourced, got HAMMERED with gibberish and unsourced content from Vietnamese IPs throughout most of January, (and for who knows how long before, or after that.) I have no idea where to find reliable sources for the article, but I'm hoping someone else might--should it exist? How can we meet WP:V, to say the least? I just noticed these edits [17] [18] [19] which sort of go: Add a bunch of unsourced crap, refine it, remove most of it, but leave gibberish. ("Walt Disney Pictures presents communique in the February 10, 2004 released The Lion King 1½ is Disney direct-to-video animated produced by DisneyToon Studios.") What can we do here? Improve? Monitor? Delete? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ TV series has used figures provided by TV by the Number to show how well Criminal Minds was received by audiences. The current resource reference number 50 being used by Wikipedia number 50 is inconsistent with previous Criminal Mind seasons figures as Insight Media has based their figures on TV rating and internet hits.
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ This resource gives a full breakdown of how the season ratings where worked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It was original posted on Talk:Criminal Minds because that was what Wikipedia advised. I noticed that for seasons 1 -8 you have only listed ratings from just television broadcast, yet on season 9 you have opted to publish ratings based on television and internet figures combinations. For consistence should season 9 not just be television ratings like the rest if the season which is 10.88. By publishing 12.66 you are implying that Criminal mInds did well in season 9 with audience which is not the case. For consistence alone you should either change the reference 50 to TV by number website and figure or change the other 8 season figures to reflect television and internet rating combination like season 9. The Insight website which is the resource for the figure 12.66 has confirmed that their figures are based on TV & internet and he has posted that on the page. Previous resources have been mainly TV by the number website, who have gone on record to say they only use figures from television and record the figures the day after the show has aired.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's been some back-and-forth at List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes, for example here, where a user changes the premiere date with the justification, "Previews are the premiere episodes on Wikipedia", and the reversion here, with the exasperated counter, "Geez! Previews DO NOT count as start dates!"
The question is this: A network like Nickelodeon might do a lot of promotional advertising in preparation of a series premiere on date Y, then show a "sneak preview" a day or several days earlier. What does the community consider to be the series start date? The first literal date a series or episode airs? Or the date the network chooses as its official airdate?
Examples:
I understand the logic of using the literal first airing as the Start Date for a series or episode. On the other hand, the literal first airing might conflict with the DVD liner notes for a series if the network considers another date to be the REAL premiere (see TMNT example above). In such a case, we would have two reliable sources in conflict. There is a related problem created, (for example again with TMNT) where the series' regularly scheduled airtime is Saturday morning, but the network "sneak peeked" the eps on Friday nights as well--Friday night ratings are typically higher than Saturday morning, which paints a different picture about the success of the series over time. Anyhow, if anybody has any thoughts about this, they'd be appreciated. I think it's something we should figure out, though. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Some input would be appreciated. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Good day dear people. After some years of absence from wikipedia, I have returned, with the intention of improving the quality of articles surrounding 1960s TV show The Prisoner. I've come hear in search for answers to two questions, first would anybody be interested in helping me or know where I could search for people with interest in this TV show. Second, I was wondering if someone could advise me on creating a taskforce. I realise that the number of articles surrounding the topic is quite minimal, so a taskforce might not be necessary, yet I feel it might be useful for getting insight into what can be done (including one of those nice tables that gives an overview over the number of articles and their quality, such as this one, I love those), and recruiting members. I hope you can help. Cheers. -- Music 26/ 11 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The GA-nomination is currently on hold and some things needs to be fixed. You can help! (I know this belongs at WIkiProject The Simpsons, but it seems inactive.) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have started an FAC for Clark Kent (Smallville). Please feel free to stop by and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clark Kent (Smallville)/archive1. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. An editor keeps blanking this http://cityairnews.com/content/jalandhar%E2%80%99s-surbhi-jyoti-makes-her-hindi-television-debut-zee-tv%E2%80%99s-qabool-hai actress see Talk:Surbhi Jyoti, refuses to use a normal delete tag or go via AFD. Can someone else check and see if this is appropriate for this actress, thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a 16:9 article (and 21:9 aspect ratio), but there's no 4:3 aspect ratio article. Seems like a very big hole in our coverage, considering how common it is and how much more so it was. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Complete list: http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/66th-nominations-list.pdf EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any set format on how to list awards/nominations? I was trying to add the new Emmy nominations to some cartoon articles and saw a large variety of how the sections were structured. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am having difficulty determining if a guest appearance actually happened. Please comment at Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#New_Girl_Season_3_episode_2 if you can help.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I just want to see others' opinions on the current article naming structure used in The Amazing Race season pages as it really is a mess... Currently it is set up with a number to represent the season such as "The Amazing Race 1". This however is very disorganised and creates many problems.
Take this for example: There is a Latin American version of the show that had been titled as "The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel" for seasons 1 and 2. However the title has since been simplified to just "The Amazing Race".
Another being the Viernamese version were it is titled by year:
Wouldn't it be neater if each article was simply known by its parent article and its season number as it is common in other articles for other reality shows.
likewise...
The numbers and the years seem to imply that that is those are the show's actual titles when in fact they aren't ... This has been brought up several times on the various Anazing Race talk pages but have gone nowhere and has only been discussed with few editors so I thought I'd ask here... : ) Many thanks! :D
-- Kartoffel 07 10:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television#Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions.
Basically: Do we need to require sources for series end dates as we have been doing, which often results in shows being designated as "present" forever, or can we allow last_aired dates to be added if no pickup is announced at the next upfront, or if the show goes silent for NN months?
I'm hoping to encourage clarification in the documentation one way or another. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
TC Transcontinental recently pulled the plug on the Canadian version of TV Guide, and with it, a ton of articles that were syndicated on The Loop. According to someone who had contacted one of the former editors, the articles were entirely deleted (which blows my mind a little). I've started scraping cached versions of their articles from Google using archive.today over at my userspace. While archive.today is blacklisted from Wikipedia, and thus cannot be used as an archive URL, it's still useful for expanding articles. If you're able to scrape more cached versions of their articles, please do. 23W 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Spin Boy 11 recently moved the page Clarence (2014 TV series) to Clarence (animated series). I've never seen animated series articles disambiguated like this before; is this proper? I started a discussion on the talk page here. 23W 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There's been a little back and forth at The Amazing World of Gumball, which sparked this query. I made some edits a while back where I'd removed from the infobox the United Kingdom as a nation of origin, because the United Kingdom isn't a nation. I tidied up a little and I think it was determined that an Irish company had originally been a coproducer for the series, then later an English company. Anyhow, Holiday56 changed England back to United Kingdom in the infobox, and the lead to Irish-British-American, both of which I disagree with, but they did helpfully point out in this edit that United Kingdom is used in a variety of articles as the nation of origin, for example at Mr. Bean. My question is, why? How is it of value to be vague about the nation of origin if we can be specific? I can perhaps understand using United Kingdom if all four member regions are involved, but otherwise, specificity makes sense to me. Does a dude have a "British" accent or an "English" accent?
Bigger issues: Are we getting a little overboard with the micro-specific hyphenations? "XYZ is an American-English-Australian-Canadian animated series." Should we cap these at three or something? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, FYI (TV network), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spshu ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
And if there is an administrator here, both article were incorrectly move to (TV network) when they should have remain named as (TV channel). Spshu ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Marge Be Not Proud, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads ( talk) 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Girl Meets World#Corey Fogelmanis credit and role on show about what would normally be a straight forward situation of matching opening credits to infobox starring and list of main characters in an article. In this case a recurring character with a guest starring end credit is being featured equally on the official website for the show with the opening credit main characters [20]. There has been some oscillation in the article moving this character between the main and recurring sections. I generally consider the official site as pretty authoritative and I conjecture this actor's designed role is as a main character but couldn't be listed as such in the opening credits due to internal show production issues. My instinct is to treat him as starring because of how treated on the website but this conflicts with how we normally do this. I am looking for some inputs on how to handle this. This may be a more general issue than just this case.
Somewhat related, at Henry Danger, two actors listed on the show-runner's site as supporting cast, are not in the opening credits but are listed in end credits as starring. I considered a starring credit in the end credits the same as a listing in the opening credits so listed the characters in the infobox starring attribute. I would like some opinions on this decision as well. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 04:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that TTN ( talk · contribs) has been mass blanking and redirecting articles instead of putting any work or effort into improving them. While the Hercules TV series may be more debatable, I've gone and undone (hopefully the majority) of the Twilight Zone blank and redirects. This is some sort of case where Wikipedia:Fait accompli] seems to be the heart of the issue because mass blanking and redirecting occurs and this is not the first time upon which TTN has been warned of it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There are changes submitted to lists like these almost every day, for example List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, and I'll admit, I don't have the time, energy, or ability to verify every change. That would be a real timesuck. For instance, the dates at this article change constantly and shows are moved around constantly. Who's actively maintaining the accuracy? Why do we care when reruns of a series were aired? (Can you imagine tracking every day, time and channel that I Love Lucy aired?) Networks change their lineups around constantly--are we seriously supposed to assume that volunteers should invest their time memorializing every aspect of such a network? What do we expect out of these articles? What's the least amount of information that we'd find useful, and what's the most amount of information that we need? These lists are largely based on the primary sources anyway, i.e. someone moving a program to Current Programming because they swear they just saw it on Nick Jr. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I started a new re-proposal on renaming the article. Join in talks! -- George Ho ( talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am trying to elevate the article on the 1972-74 American television sitcom Temperatures Rising to FA status. Currently their is a discussion going on about it, but I need some more feed back on how to improve the article, notably with the issue brought up by Dank. Does anyone care to take a look at it and offer up some suggestions? Thanks. Jimknut ( talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at the constant revision of this page. The author Jason Singerling from Australia has added a wide range of data pertaining to DVD Releases of The Bill from around Europe and Australia. This data has been deleted by unknown person. It is relevant data . I cant undo it to put the page back to what it was, so can someone senior at Wikipedia or one of the administrators on this board have a look at it and come up with a solution please. Thanks. Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeaver12 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is debate about the propriety of a hatnote at Legends (TV series). I added {{About|2014 American crime drama|the Korean TV series|The Legend (TV series)|the 1995 American science fiction drama|Legend (TV series)}}, which results in the hatnote "This article is about 2014 American crime drama. For the Korean TV series, see The Legend (TV series). For the 1995 American science fiction drama, see Legend (TV series)." CAWylie has removed it and I have reverted. He started a discussion on the talk page, but I don't think a lot of eyes are watching that talk page so I am posting here for advice.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm having some problems at Marido en alquiler and would appreciate some extra eyes on the article. An editor recently requested addition of a new field at Template talk:Infobox television#Motto. As a result I've been doing some cleanup at the article but I'm constantly being fought by that editor, who isn't a native English speaker and seems to be having some problems understanding that we apparently do things differently to the Spanish Wikipedia. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody please look at this and tell me whether they think it's acceptable? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered {{ Telemetro 2014 telenovelas}}. There are several similar navboxes in Category:Soap opera navigational boxes, all with series organised by aired time. There are others, like {{ Canal 13 Chile telenovelas}} that are full of redlinks. These all seem useful, but violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and need appropriate cleanup. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that "Starz (TV network)" be moved to "Starz." Feel free to comment at Talk:Starz (TV network)#Requested moves. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, looking to establish a clear definition for what constitutes a "series finale"? This affects numerous article and often appears in the headers of series overview boxes.
I previously raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Series Finale and a couple of editors replied, but I wanted to get more discussion going.
There was some back and forth about this at Sam & Cat recently because the series was canceled toward the end of its second season. Nick decided to air the last two produced episodes and call it a day. Does this constitute a finale? Another example: I recently reverted this good-faith edit by Anthonyg328. In this scenario, Nickelodeon basically stopped airing new episodes of Fanboy in December 2011. Ten months later, Nick burned off most of the remaining episodes except for "Brain Freeze", which had been released to DVD early in Season 2. Over a year and a half later, in July 2014, they finally aired "Brain Freeze". What might be worth noting also, is the Brain Freeze was produced early in the season, which makes calling it a "series finale" all the more odd to me.
Calling the first episode in a series a "premiere" make sense to me, because it is typically a planned and promoted event, and there is a "specialness" to it (which is probably why we use the fancy French word). Final episodes are not always planned or promoted events, because shit happens. There is also an inherent specialness to "finale", because now suddenly we're speaking Italian. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, currently the info appears redundant with the section's header "Originally aired, first aired, last aired", or so it seems to me. — Wylie pedia 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedical has charts from several Emmy Award pages. Is this a supported set of edits?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey I've made a bold edit at Template:Infobox television/doc and I need the community to pass/fail it/clarify it, etc.
I'm basically proposing a shift in perspective. Rather than using the parameter only to represent cancellations or planned series ends as we have been doing, I'm suggesting that if a show hasn't aired a new episode in 12 months, we drop "present" (because the series is not "presently" airing new episodes) and treat the parameter literally, with the data indicating when the series "last_aired" a new episode. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
So how would we treat Curb Your Enthusiasm? Leaving "present" and adding an end date both feel weird. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
last_aired = {{end date|2011|9|11}} (see [[#Future|§ Future]])? 23 W 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
An RFC about The Simpsons Movie and its inclusion on an episode list can be found here. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither the template talk page nor the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network seem active, so I'm coming here to propose a split of Template:Cartoon Network across three templates: one for the main topic (Template:Cartoon Network), one for programming ( Template:Cartoon Network programming) and one for video games ( Template:Cartoon Network video games). You can see what I've come up with below.
The main topic ( Cartoon Network) would have all the first two (in order) and any others under {{ Navboxes}}; programming articles would have the programming navbox first, followed by the proper one; and video game articles would only have the video games navbox.
This was sort of inspired by {{ Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons}}. I think this would look more attractive and less unwieldy to readers. I think I've complied with WP:NAVBOXCOLOR, as I've adapted the shades of grey from the network's official website. What do y'all think? 23 W 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes regarding the inclusion of content I interpret as trivia being included within episode synopses. A few extra opinions would be appreciated, as there seems to be a gambit in place from an inexperienced user to take ownership of the article, and to threaten page protection if any changes are made contrary to their wishes. (See my talk page for examples of this.) I had previously removed the content circa April 2014, and there has recently been a push to re-insert it. Most of the content involves statements like "Note: the characters' colors appear pale in the scenes of them on the skyscraper" though in one edit at the main article, the IP user (who is probably the same person behind the logged-in account) added speculation about the cartoon cat's religion, " In many episodes including "The Blob and "Flower Power", Oggy's religion is most likely Hindu." Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am CharlieBrown25. I would like to inform you that you have placed Mister Rogers' Neighborhood in the category of low-importance. If this is intentional, might I inquire the reason that you would place such a popular and critically acclaimed series as low as the most obscure shows?
Hello, I know that relevance is the list of episodes on the article mentioned. It has almost no references, the only one; not show the audience and viewers. Furthermore occupies almost the entire space of Article.-- Damián (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Hillaire is a TV related AfD discussion that isn't getting much comment. Editors are encouraged to participate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This AfD still requires more comment from editors if anyone has a few minutes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I know there was some talk about Series overview tables a while back. I notice there's nothing yet in the MOS. Anybody up for coming up with some guidelines this week for inclusion in the MOS?
Seems that we need to figure out:
Since so many articles use the overview tables it seems that we should encourage consistency. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
|num_episodes=
often falls well behind the aired episode count, and that is a figure that should be updated regularly. That some of the figures in the series overview table may only need to be updated once per season actually makes it worse as people either forget or assume someone else will do it. You and I have both been editing for about the same time so I'm surprised that you haven't seen it, although admittedly I've made 50,000 more edits to 18,600 more articles than you and I've rarely seen you at the same lists as me. Perhaps it's just that your lists are more stable than mine, or maybe the problem doesn't exist because series overview tables are transcluded, eliminating the problem. As I said, it's worse at children's TV articles. Of course I wouldn't expect to see a series overview table on
List of Harry Potter actors or
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, since they are lists of episodes.
List of Harry Potter cast members does have a nice table summarising the actors' roles though, and
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films has several tables summarising content already explained in the prose. Why does a reader need to a table that "summarizes" the contents of a page that is nothing more than a summary itself? As already explained here and at the previous discussion, not all LoE pages are simply summaries. The series overview table is performing a similar function to the tables at
List of Harry Potter actors and
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)It doesn't happen on the pages that I'm working because I update all the pages I work. I don't sit back and let others update it (or not update it) if it can be avoided. Yes, you're on more pages, but I'm on pages with little traffic outside of episode summary updates. Smallville was largely neglected for years, and Arrow doesn't get a lot of attention outside of a couple of editors (FavreFan being one). Episode counts I do see get neglected. I've never seen overview tables get neglected. Even if they were, it should not be hard to quickly add in a finale date. As for the tables on those other non-TV pages, yes they have tables. My point was that you don't see a table summarizing the tables. That is what you're asking for on an LoE page, is to have a table that summarizes a bunch of tables that are nothing more than summaries themselves. You're unnecessarily repeating information for no real reason outside of the fact that it would be "neglected" on a main page if it was there. The idea that people might not edit a page should not be an argument to put it someone else (that is less appropriate), just because someone might frequent that page more often. If it's better suited for another page, then people will go there if they truly need to use that information. If you put the table on the main page only, which is where I believe it belongs, then people will go there to update it (as there won't be a duplicate table on the LoE page). As such, you're likely to actually start bringing traffic to the main page, and thus more edits. Since you're saying the main page gets neglected, then what better way to have traffic on a page that doesn't get traffic? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've hacked out a rough rough rough version of a proposed series overview section. I know we have a lot of stuff to hash out so that we can be friends again, and I tried to consider your various points by putting controversial statements in red. No diss intended if I didn't properly represent your perspective--I have a bad memory sometimes. If we can hammer out the less controversial stuff first, (like, do we have a minimum # of seasons in mind that have to be produced before we add an overview? 2? 3?) then maybe it will help us get the guideline into the MOS faster? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Horrid Henry (TV series) episodes in case anyone wishes to participate. The discussion made me wonder why we don't have clear notability guidelines for Television programs, with editor Nwlaw63 suggesting that just because something is on the air doesn't necessarily make it notable. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have removed all bold text of the article mentioned, who were in the cast section. But the user ElNiñoMonstruo; reversed my changes for no reason. I would not know, if the section of the cast is fine as it is, is correct to use bold text in the names of the actors?.-- Damián ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|language=
parameter state: "The original language or languages of the show. Do not link to a language article, e.g.,
English, per
WP:OVERLINK.". While I see nothing wrong with your edit, I want to make it clear that I am not encouraging you to edit war with
ElNiñoMonstruo (
talk ·
contribs), an editor you have had numerous disagreements with in the past. --
Logical Fuzz (
talk) 20:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the above linked matter. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please join the discussion regarding whether proper disambiguation is Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Fictional_character_disambiguation.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There's somewhat of a problem at Talk:American Dad!. There's a confusing issue about whether or not three straggler episodes found at List of American Dad! episodes#Season 11 belong to S10 or S11. From what I have been able to discern, Fox announced a micro series of 3 episodes as Season 11, and then the series was passed off to TBS, which is now advertising upcoming new episodes as Season 11. So there is an inconsistency between sources. A lengthy discussion took place at Talk:American Dad!, and now a user is asking regular editors on the page to vote for whether the stragglers should be moved to S10 or S11, although there is another option: that right now it cannot be adequately discerned which season the episodes belong to. Since the nominator didn't reach beyond the main article's talk page, I worry that the article won't get enough input from experienced editors outside of the niche, and there is also a risk of original research becoming consensus. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just making this group aware. Dancing with the Stars request for deletion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sky television idents. Article is mostly unsourced, and is the history of a TV station's logos noteworthy? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've nominated Template:TVUS ({{TVUS}}) for deletion since our main article infobox and season infobox documentation discourage the use of wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK. Feel free to chime in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 23. Grazie, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/2RUAAOSwQItT~7zn/$_57.JPG
This picture of the back of Jim Turner's album "The Well Tempered Saw" states he performed on the 1969 Tonight Show March 25th. You should add it to the wikipedia page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tonight_Show_Starring_Johnny_Carson_episodes_(1969).
He's not mentioned there as a musical guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.118.47 ( talk) 09:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The hatnote from Legends (TV series) to Legend (TV series) has been reverted 4 times now. Join the discussion underway at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a trend at the moment to replace cast lists in series articles with tables, eliminating all prose in the process. It seems that 99% of these are being added by IPs with little or no edit history. This is fairly typical and, given the editors' history, is rather peculiar. I've been checking WHOIS but finding that IPs don't geolocate to the same areas. Does anyone know what has caused this trend? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Are people aware Template:Future episodes editnotice exist? It doesn't get as much use as I would expect. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This article may have issues. I would hope interested contributors to fix them. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yo, yo! Anybody have any thoughts about the use of boldface in character lists?
There's nothing in MOS:TV to support the use of boldface in this way. I think the bullet points are sufficient to differentiate one character from another, but these sorts of character lists are prolific, and of course MOS:BOLD seems to discourage this sort of usage. Anyone have any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Coded as: ;{{Visible anchor|Dee Shivers}}:(voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
To match the definition list example. With the ";" used for a non-TOC header. This would conform to the MOS. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So I remember seeing this discussion, but forgot where it was. I recently edited the MOS to include the line from WP:FILMCAST regarding this. While I do believe Geraldo's method is a valid one, I feel that character names (or actor names) should not be bolded, either conventionally or with the ';'. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?
This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example: [30] So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
My purpose for reporting this issue here is to get a consensus. User:सुनील मलेठिया (For your convenience I would like to inform you that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. This user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly:
What did I do? - I notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk pages of the templates ( here and here). I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war.
What is सुनील मलेठिया doing? - The user is not responding and have undone all my edits to the templates.
My last edits to the templates and those of सुनील मलेठिया - This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here.
My purpose for reporting this issue here - To get a consensus regarding this issue.
Thank you. -- Tamravidhir ( talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Here's something I haven't seen before: How does one disambiguate an episode name (" Galentine's Day") when the same name is used by the same show, in a different season? ( [1]) Granted, recent episodes of Parks and Rec have not been getting their own articles, but I have been creating some episode title pages to redirect to their spot on the season page table. But in any event, I think the existing page should have some disambiguation once this upcoming episode airs, and don't know how to approach it. Would it be anything like Galentine's Day (season 2), Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2) or Galentine's Day (Parks and Recreation season 2 episode)? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb: Would you mind chiming in on this? I'd like to get other's opinions on what to do when this becomes an issue in a few weeks. Others are more than welcome to chime in too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards Bignole's options or my most recent ones in the post above this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate all of your inputs. It is such a unique situation, and I still have a few weeks to decide what to do. I see both Bignole's and Aussie's points. Maybe there's a happy medium? Thanks again all. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
{{About|the 2010 [[Parks and Recreation]] episode|the 2014 episode|Parks and Recreation (season 6)#ep107}}
) --
AussieLegend (
✉) 07:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts about List of Sam & Cat broadcasters and List of Sanjay and Craig broadcasters as it pertains to MOS:TV#Broadcast? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
While we are on this topic, should it be specified which countries exactly we are talking about? I know I personally only think (when it is a US show) of inclusion for UK, Canada and Australia. But I've seen India and South Africa included as well, and I would not gravitate to adding those. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
A request has been presented to merge Disney Channel Vietnam into Disney Channel (Asia). You are invited to discuss here. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming across episode summaries (usually in lists of TV episodes by season) which are copied word for word from an official source. These are almost always phrased in a promotional / "teaser" manner which is in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but more than that I would think that copying the text directly - even if it is only a couple of sentences - would amount to copyright infringement or at the very least the introduction of non-free text into the encyclopaedia. I was wondering if there was some kind of exception for this kind of short summary as the issue seems to be quite widespread. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Americanradiohistory.com has a collection of BBC Yearbooks available for download that may be of use for referencing in some early television related material. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, could I get some eyes at Clarence (2014 TV series)? The references are formatted in a way that I've not seen in an article about television. I don't think the {{sfn}} template is being used properly and was going to convert them to standard inline citations, but thought I'd run 'em past the peeps. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Started discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/FAQ#Son of the Bronx. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created a new thread about the site at the reliable sources noticeboard; if you're interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Son of the Bronx. Whisternefet ( t · c · l) 04:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear television experts: This draft was created, but never submitted to be in the encyclopedia. It looks well developed to me, but I seldom read television pages, so I would like an opinion. Is this a not able topic, and is the article suitable for mainspace? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What should be done about the various forms of this show? There was the "regular" version, a "teen" version, and a new revival on the Disney Channel. Since they are all essentially the same show, should they all be merged into one article? Note that "Disney's Win Lose or Draw" redirects to the main page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
May I please request some extra eyes briefly at Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja? It appears I'm about to become engaged in an edit war with a child with civility problems, and I'd prefer to avoid that. I originally removed some unnecessary wikilinks, and the kid has apparently taken offense to my re-removal, as well as the other edits I made to bring the article a little closer to MOS:TV. Some of my edits included adding a Main characters and recurring characters section, removing cast list as actors are mentioned in characters section, adding Tone cleanup templates since the prose is not written very well, etc. Much of that has been removed so that the IP could make their POV edits. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I may have mentioned this before, but extra eyes at List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters (and related pages) would be appreciated. The character list is (in my estimation) extraordinarily bloated. It toes the line of "derivative work" because it essentially processes and stuffs lengthy episode synopses into character descriptions, it continues to get longer with little community input to help shape the content, and I have a personal bias against a contributor whose ability to comprehend and adhere to existing guidelines/policies, whose ability to separate noteworthy content from trivia, whose grammar and spelling fundamentals and whose general judgment I question. I would prefer if the community could weigh in here. If you get a few minutes, I wholeheartedly thank you! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 06:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have searched the credits at the end of the episode, but can find no mention of the terrific singer on stage at the nightclub. I actually thought it might have been Adele, but I've looked through all Adele's appearances, and there is no mention of her ever doing a cameo on a TV episode. WHO IS SHE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.186.155 ( talk) 22:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to weigh in here if you've got the time. m.o.p 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion as it is used in only 22 articles. The nomination says that it is redundant to {{ Infobox television episode}} but this isn't true as Infobox Rome episode has three fields not included in Infobox television episode. I solved this by adding three custom fields to Infobox television episode and successfully converted all Rome episode articles but this has received opposition from three editors. Input from TV project editors would be welcome at either or both discussions, which may be found at the following locations:
Thanks for reading. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been no further discussion on this in the past week. From those who have participated there is support for the addition of the custom fields but no preference stated on how we should implement templates. If nobody has anything further to add, is there any opposition to me restoring the fields and implementing my suggestion to include new templates as subtemplates of Infobox television episode? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has today added parameters to the infobox without any real discussion and I have proposed they be removed. I did revert their addition but they were restored by the editor. The proposal is at Template_talk:Infobox television episode#Proposal to remove coordinates parameter. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Leonard. Inventor of the dipole antenna? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't "with stereo audio at 128 kbit/s" be kb/s, that is kilobytes not kilobits? At the moment it appears subtitles take up more bandwidth than audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.106.250 ( talk) 11:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a rule on whether a Brazilian version of the pan-Latin-American television channel can have a separate article or not.
Any ideas? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
NBC is going to close down Television Without Pity within the next week or so, and shutter the site (they say forums will be open until May 31, but nothing on the content). Nearly 500 mainspace pages use TWOP links (I didn't check if these were for reviews or not, just whether they just exist. While archive.org has the front page of most per-2014 reviews up, it only contains the first page of the multipage links. The question is if we need to save these via a better archiving system (like webcitation.org) The matter is complicated by the fact that most of the links are the paginated recaps that do not have a simple way to grab the whole recap at once (that I'm aware of). I know that a reasonable bot request would be do this automatically but it would need to handle the pagination factor. -- MASEM ( t) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to reach a consensus on the summary of television series. I have found that with some television articles on Wikipedia (such as The Andy Griffith Show), when describing the plot, tend to focus on the premise, saying who the show revolves around and what the typical plot of individual episodes is. However, some other television articles here (such as The Wonder Years, or Friends), when describing the plot, go into great detail, sometimes going season by season in telling what happens. Is this necessary? The reason why I am asking is that there seems to be a lack of consistency. I propose having the plot focus mainly on the premise, rather than on divulging a bunch of spoilers. Do you support or oppose this? Thanks! Twyfan714 ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear television experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What, if any, is the policy of referring to characters on the main show page? The show in question is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and questioning if in the character section, it should have the listing of Philip "Phil" Coulson, versus Phil Coulson. Does WP:COMMONNAME apply in this instance? While that is the full character name, they are always referred to as Phil in the show, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and doesn't seem like an instance of Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from Lost (TV series). - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that episodes lists such as List of SpongeBob Squarepants episodes don't exist for reality shows such as The Amazing Race, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Survivor, etc. Is there a reason for this? Is there a consensus to not make episode lists for reality shows like those? Gloss • talk 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved from the Helpdesk to this page. User: Dk113040 has been adding "production code" to a whole bunch of pages on televiskion series. Does anyone see any value in this? I for one don't. I doubt that a significant number of readers/ users know what a production code is and to anyone who does, it really adds no value whatsoever to the page. If we are going to retain it, could we at least link it to Production code number in the column heading? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. — sroc 💬 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have created a request for a template to be made for series overviews, which are frequently seen on television episode lists. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requested templates#Series overview. Whisternefet ( t · c) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm having some major trouble with List of programs broadcast by Toonami. I've done a major reorganization of the list so that the programs listed are placed first, followed by previous lists of programs that have been broadcast on the channel, organized by block. However, an anonymous IP user insists on restoring the old version which has 200+ sections and details every single schedule lineup since the channel's conception (90% of which is unsourced). HERE The old version violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE in all sorts of manners, but he is threatening edit warring. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, an editor named Hutto1419 recently posted some screenshots (See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) to some articles about 'The Walking Dead' episodes. All of the images you added have been tagged for speedy deletion from Wikimedia Commons due to possible copyright violations. I am assuming these were just added in good faith by someone unfamiliar with Wikipolicy since these are the only contributions made by this editor. Since I'm fairly new myself and not really sure if these images satisfy WP:FAIRUSE, I did not revert. Perhaps somebody more familiar with this kind of thing can take a look and edit the articles as needed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, could someone please keep an eye on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). IP user from Brazil keeps adding Latin American broadcast info. I've reverted twice, so I'm at my limit. I dropped him a note on his talk page re WP:TVINTL but he apparently ignored my note. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so I was looking at this edit. Started wondering what, to the WikiProject's satisfaction, qualifies as a co-production? Many companies like Nickelodeon own a property, but use foreign studios (let's use South Korea as an example) to animate because it's cheaper. That doesn't automatically qualify as an American/South Korean co-production does it? On the other hand, a show like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) appears to be a co-production because this article describes it as being produced in conjunction with a Canadian company. Anyone have any at-a-glance guidelines on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Kayro Productions be redirected to Universal Television. If so, maybe there should be a separate chapter on the company. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 17:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I requested a peer review of the article on "The Wonder Years" because I find it to be of poor quality and would like suggestions as to how to improve it. The peer review can be found here. Twyfan714 ( talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I got the peer review I needed for The Wonder Years and it is clear that it needs a lot of improvement. Unfortunately, I have a lot of work coming up, and therefore, won't have the time to be bold and change it all myself. I have started a discussion on ways to improve the article and would appreciate any suggestions you all have for improvement! Thanks! Twyfan714 ( talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have also requested a peer review of China, IL, so that I may be able to improve it to Good Article status. The review can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/China, IL/archive1. Thanks, Whisternefet ( t · c) 04:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at {{ Infobox television}}. The discussion is here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could I get a few extra eyes at List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Users (mostly IPs) keep adding a May 27, 2014 premiere date for S3 and the only source that has been provided is a forum post at ToonZone. The IPs are prolific and I'm doing too much reverting. Alt, if someone could dig up a reliable source for this info, that'd be nice. I'm having trouble finding one. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The following articles have been nominated for deletion:
I am also nominating the following related pages because content forking:
Join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia). Spshu ( talk) 14:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is Template:Buffy and Angel cast any better than adding the cast names to Template:Buffynav and Template:Angelnav?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"UNIVERSAL CITY, Calif. -- April 23, 2014 -- USA Network, the #1 network in all of cable for eight years running, will serve up its hottest summer ever with four returning series and two new dramas. Once again, the network that defined summer television with its signature dramas is rolling out all-new episodes of its critically acclaimed original series in June, with ROYAL PAINS (June 10), SUITS (June 11), GRACELAND (June 11) and COVERT AFFAIRS (June 24). July 17 will see the launch of the two newest dramas, RUSH, featuring renegade, bad-boy physician Dr. William P. Rush (Tom Ellis, “Miranda) at 9/8c, followed by SATISFACTION at 10/9c starring Matt Passmore (“The Glades”) and Stephanie Szostak (“The Devil Wears Prada”)." http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/usanetwork/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2014/04/23/usaannouncespow1590029.xml
Just premiere dates and things like that that should be edited into these articles. I don't know the protocol. 96.246.145.92 ( talk) 02:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous articles related to The Real Housewives franchise are in poor condition and could benefit from some specialized attention. With seven separate installments, the potential creation of 34 season-specific articles (maybe even episode-specific articles), and numerous cast members that have found fame from the series, The Real Housewives is certainly a highly-influential part of reality television and has the potential of becoming a well-developed group of articles. I believe that giving the franchise its own separate task force within WikiProject Television will more effectively gather interested editors and will promote the improvement of these several articles. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. WikiRedactor ( talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, |
Could each TV series have a section at the bottom that points to where it can be streamed online (if online streaming is available?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.38.14 ( talk) 05:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a slow edit war going on with several of the characters from this series. For example, Stefan Salvatore as to when he became a vampire or a doppleganger. The switching is between in-universe and real world dating. My understanding is that real world takes precedence. But in trying to find comparisons, I don't find such dating in infoboxes for other similar fictional characters at all. The vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are like that. Any help that y'all can provide would be appreciated. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I have a quick question here, is TV Guide, TV.com and SideReel are all reliable sources or sufficient enough of a reliable source? Thanks! Fairy Tail Rocks 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a minor issue that has spiraled into a big dispute involving lots of talk page comments, an SPI and a case at WP:AIV. It concerns List of Person of Interest episodes and whether a header that says Season 4 can be changed to Season 4 (2014-2015). In March, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for a fourth season and in May it released the Fall 2014 line-up that indicated that the series would continue in its 10 pm Tuesday night timeslot.
The dispute is that some editors believe that this edit has to wait until an exact date is announced for the first episode of the series or after that first episode airs to say that the fourth season of this show is actually going to be broadcast, and that it will air in 2014. While I admit that something eventful might happen, like a writer's strike or a cast member's death, that would prevent a series with solid ratings from being broadcast according to CBS' fall schedule, it seems almost certain that these events won't happen. I also see Season X (2014-2015) appearing on the pages of some television series that were renewed so this seems to be the practice elsewhere.
So, is there a consensus about this or a policy? I'm familiar with WP:CRYSTAL but I think that CBS has issued official statements that make this statement not a prediction but a fact. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have already notified the users who have participated here, but if anyone would like to comment on this, options on what to do, to eventually add to the MOS, have been presented at Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes#Options. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was very badly written and almost entirely made up of content that didn't meet Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I've cleaned it up and added information sourced from noteworthy publications. -- Vcwatcher ( talk) 18:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed some new (for me) reference style for episode's references in this article. Is it ok (to make such references)? -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hoping a few of you could pitch in to offer some voices. At Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 there is an ongoing dispute about ep 213/214, primarily between two users. The episode is listed at Nick.com, TVGuide.com and Zap2It.com as "Wormquake!", but the title card that appears in the episode on the Nick site (at approx 03:00) reads "The Manhattan Project", which is also the title card that appeared when the episode aired in the United States. Surely the primary source can be used as its own reference for something as non-controversial as a title? (My guess is that the Wormquake title was released when it was in fact still a working title.) Currently the article calls the ep "The Manhattan Project", which makes sense to me, and it includes a note that explains that the ep was promoted as Wormquake. There was a similar eff-up a few months ago when Nick ran commercials calling the S1 finale a "Booyaka-Showdown", which of course all the kids jumped on and submitted en masse, when the 2-part episode was actually titled "Showdown". If we could get a couple of extra voices to weigh in, it would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
|AltTitle=
and |RAltTitle=
. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 19:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)How about adding showrunner as an Infobox field? 195.240.199.250 ( talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Is "Television program creator" the correct term? Should it have an article? Your opinion wanted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator... Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I believe this channel is for all of Asia, but having used move requests, it won't work because too much edits from Disney Junior (Asia). So I decided to put request here.-- John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) RA 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT television programming may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter; the WP:Permalink is here, and the plain link to the discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow Business (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow Business (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Gorthian ( talk) 07:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Started yet another discussion on WP:RSN about SonOfTheBronx. Really just want a concrete answer. Please check it out here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TV_Viewership_-_SonOfTheBronx_Again EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am attempting to get Napoleon Dynamite (TV series) up to FA status. The plot summaries for the article are short and someone commented that they should expanded with 200 words being the minimum. The problem is the sources I am using [13] [14] for "Scantronica Love" for example only contain 57 words and 59 words respectively, themselves. I am aware that plot summaries do not have to be sourced, but unfortunately the episodes aired in early 2012 and my memory of them is almost nil. How important is this to the article? Me5000 ( talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Heya, super quickly, I kept noticing that articles like List of programs broadcast by Toonami are chock-full of parental ratings, few, if any of these are sourced, there are daily updates to this data, and I'm aware of what MOS:TV says about them. My plan is to remove these ratings columns, not just from this article, but from other ones that I find--( List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network is another example). I just wanted to put this out there first in case any among you might think I'm being rash. My arguments are: 1) The data doesn't meet meet WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy. How can we verify that any of this data is accurate? Where is the central list that tells us which episode of One Piece was TV-14 DL? 2) WP:PRIMARY We can't use primary sources (i.e. the broadcast that you watched with your own eyes) for vast amounts of information, as we are doing here. 3) MOS:TV#Things to avoid specifically instructs us to avoid indiscriminate parental ratings. Thanks all, lemme know what you think. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: I did remove these ratings about a year and a half ago and got a lot of backlash from IPs and users. I agree with their removal, but be advised there might be backlash. I think there is certainly consensus and policy behind removing them however. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cartoon Network does publicize its parental ratings [15] (reliably sourced) but doesn't include all the episode specific variants, the latter of which is not reliably sourced or notable. Adult Swim/Toonami does not publicize parental ratings. Instead of bringing back line-for-line all the shows, because then you'd have to look up archives of every show ever broadcast, you can add a line of prose like: "The parental control ratings for current shows broadcast typically range from TV-Y to TV-PG" - AngusWOOF ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I do agree with this; because these shows are later repeated during the day with content edits, what might be a TV-PG-V later in the day might easily be bumped to a TV-G or TV-Y7. We can never source these properly, and when we have TV show fans editing articles to pieces, we should not be used to provide parental advice. Seriously the only ones who get annoyed by this are completionists who want us to know every factoid about their show, no matter how inane. Nate • ( chatter) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't see any encyclopedic value to including the TV-Y7 or TV-PG or whatever ratings, serves more to turn television articles into a ratings log. We should put the trust into the broadcaster and television program to relay these ratings and then it'd be up to the parents to decide upon that viewer discretion. Even video game articles whose box arts already show the E For Everyone's or T For Teen's or whatever ratings don't explicitly mention the ESRB ratings within their articles. They add nothing to the knowledge base apart from logging indiscriminate collections of data which only a tiny few would even bother to look for in an encyclopedia article without even knowing that information can much more conveniently be retrieved on a ratings system site of some sort. Content of this sort is also superfluous to the content that already makes mention of the target audience like the genre and format. I don't see any reason to include them apart from just pleasing the fanboys and fangirls who take the verbatim treating Wikipedia as a fansite. — Mythdon 19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Note – as I had "warned" – the edit has already been undone at List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I've floated a question at Template talk:Infobox television#Company parameter about the intention of the Company parameter. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version to a previous post.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 10:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the TV ratings have been eliminated from the [adult swim] and Toonami pages, which I find to be purely nonsensical. This is a site informing the readers on what programs the networks have broadcasted, also providing other tidbits and facts. The TV ratings, I feel, are very important to the article. It isn't a matter of Wikipedia not being a TV Guide, as Zap2It does not list the TV ratings anymore, but rather being a resource for information on the programs broadcasted. Especially on an article like Adult Swim, where the keyword is 'adult'. It can provide information on the reader as to how 'adult' each program can get in content and the like, which I think is very informative and rather crucial in providing the reader with an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 ( talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The season list at Dance Moms (season 4) has recently been split into two parts, [16] and I was wondering what is the general opinion on doing this sort of thing. The article already contains a rather strange claim, "On April 15, the show went on hiatus for unknown reasons. However, a week after the hiatus, the show returned with 3 new specials, two reunions and a clip show". I removed that with the rationale that if it returned after a week, it wasn't really on hiatus. That was reverted by the editor who has now split the season. He is now trying to cite the hiatus claim with a source that only confirms the series was on hiatus on May 13. After a bit of to and fro-ing, he's now split the episode table on the basis that since the last episode aired on May 13 and the next is to air on July 29, it's on hiatus. In a way he's right, but is there really a necessity for this based on an 11 week hiatus? We didn't do it for series that were disrupted by up to four months by the 2007 WGA strike, so do we really need to here? I only watch the Dance Moms articles, not the series, because my wife loves it. Please don't judge me! -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at WT:GAN concerning my nomination for Clarence (2014 TV series), but it has gone stagnant for a few days now. Since the first season hasn't finished airing yet, this is seen as a reason to quickfail the nomination per stability (5) of WP:GACR. However, since the series doesn't provide much or any continuity as far as I can tell (so far), and we're more than halfway done through the dozen episodes that were ordered this season, I don't really see this as too much of an issue. I mean, we have various good and featured articles on series still going – are first seasons of television series really that chaotic for shows like this? – 23W ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
So in the Awards and nominations section on a TV actor's article, and also TV Show articles, how should the year be listed? Is it the year the ceremony was performed or should it be the year the award is for? AKA. should the 68th Golden Globe Awards be listed as 2010 or 2011? -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Disney Channel (Asia) is entirely unsourced, got HAMMERED with gibberish and unsourced content from Vietnamese IPs throughout most of January, (and for who knows how long before, or after that.) I have no idea where to find reliable sources for the article, but I'm hoping someone else might--should it exist? How can we meet WP:V, to say the least? I just noticed these edits [17] [18] [19] which sort of go: Add a bunch of unsourced crap, refine it, remove most of it, but leave gibberish. ("Walt Disney Pictures presents communique in the February 10, 2004 released The Lion King 1½ is Disney direct-to-video animated produced by DisneyToon Studios.") What can we do here? Improve? Monitor? Delete? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ TV series has used figures provided by TV by the Number to show how well Criminal Minds was received by audiences. The current resource reference number 50 being used by Wikipedia number 50 is inconsistent with previous Criminal Mind seasons figures as Insight Media has based their figures on TV rating and internet hits.
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/criminal-minds-season-nine-ratings-30062/ This resource gives a full breakdown of how the season ratings where worked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It was original posted on Talk:Criminal Minds because that was what Wikipedia advised. I noticed that for seasons 1 -8 you have only listed ratings from just television broadcast, yet on season 9 you have opted to publish ratings based on television and internet figures combinations. For consistence should season 9 not just be television ratings like the rest if the season which is 10.88. By publishing 12.66 you are implying that Criminal mInds did well in season 9 with audience which is not the case. For consistence alone you should either change the reference 50 to TV by number website and figure or change the other 8 season figures to reflect television and internet rating combination like season 9. The Insight website which is the resource for the figure 12.66 has confirmed that their figures are based on TV & internet and he has posted that on the page. Previous resources have been mainly TV by the number website, who have gone on record to say they only use figures from television and record the figures the day after the show has aired.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's been some back-and-forth at List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes, for example here, where a user changes the premiere date with the justification, "Previews are the premiere episodes on Wikipedia", and the reversion here, with the exasperated counter, "Geez! Previews DO NOT count as start dates!"
The question is this: A network like Nickelodeon might do a lot of promotional advertising in preparation of a series premiere on date Y, then show a "sneak preview" a day or several days earlier. What does the community consider to be the series start date? The first literal date a series or episode airs? Or the date the network chooses as its official airdate?
Examples:
I understand the logic of using the literal first airing as the Start Date for a series or episode. On the other hand, the literal first airing might conflict with the DVD liner notes for a series if the network considers another date to be the REAL premiere (see TMNT example above). In such a case, we would have two reliable sources in conflict. There is a related problem created, (for example again with TMNT) where the series' regularly scheduled airtime is Saturday morning, but the network "sneak peeked" the eps on Friday nights as well--Friday night ratings are typically higher than Saturday morning, which paints a different picture about the success of the series over time. Anyhow, if anybody has any thoughts about this, they'd be appreciated. I think it's something we should figure out, though. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Some input would be appreciated. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Good day dear people. After some years of absence from wikipedia, I have returned, with the intention of improving the quality of articles surrounding 1960s TV show The Prisoner. I've come hear in search for answers to two questions, first would anybody be interested in helping me or know where I could search for people with interest in this TV show. Second, I was wondering if someone could advise me on creating a taskforce. I realise that the number of articles surrounding the topic is quite minimal, so a taskforce might not be necessary, yet I feel it might be useful for getting insight into what can be done (including one of those nice tables that gives an overview over the number of articles and their quality, such as this one, I love those), and recruiting members. I hope you can help. Cheers. -- Music 26/ 11 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The GA-nomination is currently on hold and some things needs to be fixed. You can help! (I know this belongs at WIkiProject The Simpsons, but it seems inactive.) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have started an FAC for Clark Kent (Smallville). Please feel free to stop by and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clark Kent (Smallville)/archive1. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. An editor keeps blanking this http://cityairnews.com/content/jalandhar%E2%80%99s-surbhi-jyoti-makes-her-hindi-television-debut-zee-tv%E2%80%99s-qabool-hai actress see Talk:Surbhi Jyoti, refuses to use a normal delete tag or go via AFD. Can someone else check and see if this is appropriate for this actress, thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a 16:9 article (and 21:9 aspect ratio), but there's no 4:3 aspect ratio article. Seems like a very big hole in our coverage, considering how common it is and how much more so it was. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Complete list: http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/66th-nominations-list.pdf EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any set format on how to list awards/nominations? I was trying to add the new Emmy nominations to some cartoon articles and saw a large variety of how the sections were structured. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am having difficulty determining if a guest appearance actually happened. Please comment at Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#New_Girl_Season_3_episode_2 if you can help.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I just want to see others' opinions on the current article naming structure used in The Amazing Race season pages as it really is a mess... Currently it is set up with a number to represent the season such as "The Amazing Race 1". This however is very disorganised and creates many problems.
Take this for example: There is a Latin American version of the show that had been titled as "The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel" for seasons 1 and 2. However the title has since been simplified to just "The Amazing Race".
Another being the Viernamese version were it is titled by year:
Wouldn't it be neater if each article was simply known by its parent article and its season number as it is common in other articles for other reality shows.
likewise...
The numbers and the years seem to imply that that is those are the show's actual titles when in fact they aren't ... This has been brought up several times on the various Anazing Race talk pages but have gone nowhere and has only been discussed with few editors so I thought I'd ask here... : ) Many thanks! :D
-- Kartoffel 07 10:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television#Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions.
Basically: Do we need to require sources for series end dates as we have been doing, which often results in shows being designated as "present" forever, or can we allow last_aired dates to be added if no pickup is announced at the next upfront, or if the show goes silent for NN months?
I'm hoping to encourage clarification in the documentation one way or another. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
TC Transcontinental recently pulled the plug on the Canadian version of TV Guide, and with it, a ton of articles that were syndicated on The Loop. According to someone who had contacted one of the former editors, the articles were entirely deleted (which blows my mind a little). I've started scraping cached versions of their articles from Google using archive.today over at my userspace. While archive.today is blacklisted from Wikipedia, and thus cannot be used as an archive URL, it's still useful for expanding articles. If you're able to scrape more cached versions of their articles, please do. 23W 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Spin Boy 11 recently moved the page Clarence (2014 TV series) to Clarence (animated series). I've never seen animated series articles disambiguated like this before; is this proper? I started a discussion on the talk page here. 23W 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There's been a little back and forth at The Amazing World of Gumball, which sparked this query. I made some edits a while back where I'd removed from the infobox the United Kingdom as a nation of origin, because the United Kingdom isn't a nation. I tidied up a little and I think it was determined that an Irish company had originally been a coproducer for the series, then later an English company. Anyhow, Holiday56 changed England back to United Kingdom in the infobox, and the lead to Irish-British-American, both of which I disagree with, but they did helpfully point out in this edit that United Kingdom is used in a variety of articles as the nation of origin, for example at Mr. Bean. My question is, why? How is it of value to be vague about the nation of origin if we can be specific? I can perhaps understand using United Kingdom if all four member regions are involved, but otherwise, specificity makes sense to me. Does a dude have a "British" accent or an "English" accent?
Bigger issues: Are we getting a little overboard with the micro-specific hyphenations? "XYZ is an American-English-Australian-Canadian animated series." Should we cap these at three or something? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, FYI (TV network), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spshu ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
And if there is an administrator here, both article were incorrectly move to (TV network) when they should have remain named as (TV channel). Spshu ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Marge Be Not Proud, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads ( talk) 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Girl Meets World#Corey Fogelmanis credit and role on show about what would normally be a straight forward situation of matching opening credits to infobox starring and list of main characters in an article. In this case a recurring character with a guest starring end credit is being featured equally on the official website for the show with the opening credit main characters [20]. There has been some oscillation in the article moving this character between the main and recurring sections. I generally consider the official site as pretty authoritative and I conjecture this actor's designed role is as a main character but couldn't be listed as such in the opening credits due to internal show production issues. My instinct is to treat him as starring because of how treated on the website but this conflicts with how we normally do this. I am looking for some inputs on how to handle this. This may be a more general issue than just this case.
Somewhat related, at Henry Danger, two actors listed on the show-runner's site as supporting cast, are not in the opening credits but are listed in end credits as starring. I considered a starring credit in the end credits the same as a listing in the opening credits so listed the characters in the infobox starring attribute. I would like some opinions on this decision as well. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 04:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that TTN ( talk · contribs) has been mass blanking and redirecting articles instead of putting any work or effort into improving them. While the Hercules TV series may be more debatable, I've gone and undone (hopefully the majority) of the Twilight Zone blank and redirects. This is some sort of case where Wikipedia:Fait accompli] seems to be the heart of the issue because mass blanking and redirecting occurs and this is not the first time upon which TTN has been warned of it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There are changes submitted to lists like these almost every day, for example List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, and I'll admit, I don't have the time, energy, or ability to verify every change. That would be a real timesuck. For instance, the dates at this article change constantly and shows are moved around constantly. Who's actively maintaining the accuracy? Why do we care when reruns of a series were aired? (Can you imagine tracking every day, time and channel that I Love Lucy aired?) Networks change their lineups around constantly--are we seriously supposed to assume that volunteers should invest their time memorializing every aspect of such a network? What do we expect out of these articles? What's the least amount of information that we'd find useful, and what's the most amount of information that we need? These lists are largely based on the primary sources anyway, i.e. someone moving a program to Current Programming because they swear they just saw it on Nick Jr. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I started a new re-proposal on renaming the article. Join in talks! -- George Ho ( talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I am trying to elevate the article on the 1972-74 American television sitcom Temperatures Rising to FA status. Currently their is a discussion going on about it, but I need some more feed back on how to improve the article, notably with the issue brought up by Dank. Does anyone care to take a look at it and offer up some suggestions? Thanks. Jimknut ( talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at the constant revision of this page. The author Jason Singerling from Australia has added a wide range of data pertaining to DVD Releases of The Bill from around Europe and Australia. This data has been deleted by unknown person. It is relevant data . I cant undo it to put the page back to what it was, so can someone senior at Wikipedia or one of the administrators on this board have a look at it and come up with a solution please. Thanks. Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeaver12 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is debate about the propriety of a hatnote at Legends (TV series). I added {{About|2014 American crime drama|the Korean TV series|The Legend (TV series)|the 1995 American science fiction drama|Legend (TV series)}}, which results in the hatnote "This article is about 2014 American crime drama. For the Korean TV series, see The Legend (TV series). For the 1995 American science fiction drama, see Legend (TV series)." CAWylie has removed it and I have reverted. He started a discussion on the talk page, but I don't think a lot of eyes are watching that talk page so I am posting here for advice.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm having some problems at Marido en alquiler and would appreciate some extra eyes on the article. An editor recently requested addition of a new field at Template talk:Infobox television#Motto. As a result I've been doing some cleanup at the article but I'm constantly being fought by that editor, who isn't a native English speaker and seems to be having some problems understanding that we apparently do things differently to the Spanish Wikipedia. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody please look at this and tell me whether they think it's acceptable? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered {{ Telemetro 2014 telenovelas}}. There are several similar navboxes in Category:Soap opera navigational boxes, all with series organised by aired time. There are others, like {{ Canal 13 Chile telenovelas}} that are full of redlinks. These all seem useful, but violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and need appropriate cleanup. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that "Starz (TV network)" be moved to "Starz." Feel free to comment at Talk:Starz (TV network)#Requested moves. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, looking to establish a clear definition for what constitutes a "series finale"? This affects numerous article and often appears in the headers of series overview boxes.
I previously raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Series Finale and a couple of editors replied, but I wanted to get more discussion going.
There was some back and forth about this at Sam & Cat recently because the series was canceled toward the end of its second season. Nick decided to air the last two produced episodes and call it a day. Does this constitute a finale? Another example: I recently reverted this good-faith edit by Anthonyg328. In this scenario, Nickelodeon basically stopped airing new episodes of Fanboy in December 2011. Ten months later, Nick burned off most of the remaining episodes except for "Brain Freeze", which had been released to DVD early in Season 2. Over a year and a half later, in July 2014, they finally aired "Brain Freeze". What might be worth noting also, is the Brain Freeze was produced early in the season, which makes calling it a "series finale" all the more odd to me.
Calling the first episode in a series a "premiere" make sense to me, because it is typically a planned and promoted event, and there is a "specialness" to it (which is probably why we use the fancy French word). Final episodes are not always planned or promoted events, because shit happens. There is also an inherent specialness to "finale", because now suddenly we're speaking Italian. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, currently the info appears redundant with the section's header "Originally aired, first aired, last aired", or so it seems to me. — Wylie pedia 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedical has charts from several Emmy Award pages. Is this a supported set of edits?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey I've made a bold edit at Template:Infobox television/doc and I need the community to pass/fail it/clarify it, etc.
I'm basically proposing a shift in perspective. Rather than using the parameter only to represent cancellations or planned series ends as we have been doing, I'm suggesting that if a show hasn't aired a new episode in 12 months, we drop "present" (because the series is not "presently" airing new episodes) and treat the parameter literally, with the data indicating when the series "last_aired" a new episode. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
So how would we treat Curb Your Enthusiasm? Leaving "present" and adding an end date both feel weird. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
last_aired = {{end date|2011|9|11}} (see [[#Future|§ Future]])? 23 W 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
An RFC about The Simpsons Movie and its inclusion on an episode list can be found here. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither the template talk page nor the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network seem active, so I'm coming here to propose a split of Template:Cartoon Network across three templates: one for the main topic (Template:Cartoon Network), one for programming ( Template:Cartoon Network programming) and one for video games ( Template:Cartoon Network video games). You can see what I've come up with below.
The main topic ( Cartoon Network) would have all the first two (in order) and any others under {{ Navboxes}}; programming articles would have the programming navbox first, followed by the proper one; and video game articles would only have the video games navbox.
This was sort of inspired by {{ Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons}}. I think this would look more attractive and less unwieldy to readers. I think I've complied with WP:NAVBOXCOLOR, as I've adapted the shades of grey from the network's official website. What do y'all think? 23 W 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes regarding the inclusion of content I interpret as trivia being included within episode synopses. A few extra opinions would be appreciated, as there seems to be a gambit in place from an inexperienced user to take ownership of the article, and to threaten page protection if any changes are made contrary to their wishes. (See my talk page for examples of this.) I had previously removed the content circa April 2014, and there has recently been a push to re-insert it. Most of the content involves statements like "Note: the characters' colors appear pale in the scenes of them on the skyscraper" though in one edit at the main article, the IP user (who is probably the same person behind the logged-in account) added speculation about the cartoon cat's religion, " In many episodes including "The Blob and "Flower Power", Oggy's religion is most likely Hindu." Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am CharlieBrown25. I would like to inform you that you have placed Mister Rogers' Neighborhood in the category of low-importance. If this is intentional, might I inquire the reason that you would place such a popular and critically acclaimed series as low as the most obscure shows?
Hello, I know that relevance is the list of episodes on the article mentioned. It has almost no references, the only one; not show the audience and viewers. Furthermore occupies almost the entire space of Article.-- Damián (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Hillaire is a TV related AfD discussion that isn't getting much comment. Editors are encouraged to participate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This AfD still requires more comment from editors if anyone has a few minutes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I know there was some talk about Series overview tables a while back. I notice there's nothing yet in the MOS. Anybody up for coming up with some guidelines this week for inclusion in the MOS?
Seems that we need to figure out:
Since so many articles use the overview tables it seems that we should encourage consistency. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
|num_episodes=
often falls well behind the aired episode count, and that is a figure that should be updated regularly. That some of the figures in the series overview table may only need to be updated once per season actually makes it worse as people either forget or assume someone else will do it. You and I have both been editing for about the same time so I'm surprised that you haven't seen it, although admittedly I've made 50,000 more edits to 18,600 more articles than you and I've rarely seen you at the same lists as me. Perhaps it's just that your lists are more stable than mine, or maybe the problem doesn't exist because series overview tables are transcluded, eliminating the problem. As I said, it's worse at children's TV articles. Of course I wouldn't expect to see a series overview table on
List of Harry Potter actors or
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, since they are lists of episodes.
List of Harry Potter cast members does have a nice table summarising the actors' roles though, and
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films has several tables summarising content already explained in the prose. Why does a reader need to a table that "summarizes" the contents of a page that is nothing more than a summary itself? As already explained here and at the previous discussion, not all LoE pages are simply summaries. The series overview table is performing a similar function to the tables at
List of Harry Potter actors and
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)It doesn't happen on the pages that I'm working because I update all the pages I work. I don't sit back and let others update it (or not update it) if it can be avoided. Yes, you're on more pages, but I'm on pages with little traffic outside of episode summary updates. Smallville was largely neglected for years, and Arrow doesn't get a lot of attention outside of a couple of editors (FavreFan being one). Episode counts I do see get neglected. I've never seen overview tables get neglected. Even if they were, it should not be hard to quickly add in a finale date. As for the tables on those other non-TV pages, yes they have tables. My point was that you don't see a table summarizing the tables. That is what you're asking for on an LoE page, is to have a table that summarizes a bunch of tables that are nothing more than summaries themselves. You're unnecessarily repeating information for no real reason outside of the fact that it would be "neglected" on a main page if it was there. The idea that people might not edit a page should not be an argument to put it someone else (that is less appropriate), just because someone might frequent that page more often. If it's better suited for another page, then people will go there if they truly need to use that information. If you put the table on the main page only, which is where I believe it belongs, then people will go there to update it (as there won't be a duplicate table on the LoE page). As such, you're likely to actually start bringing traffic to the main page, and thus more edits. Since you're saying the main page gets neglected, then what better way to have traffic on a page that doesn't get traffic? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've hacked out a rough rough rough version of a proposed series overview section. I know we have a lot of stuff to hash out so that we can be friends again, and I tried to consider your various points by putting controversial statements in red. No diss intended if I didn't properly represent your perspective--I have a bad memory sometimes. If we can hammer out the less controversial stuff first, (like, do we have a minimum # of seasons in mind that have to be produced before we add an overview? 2? 3?) then maybe it will help us get the guideline into the MOS faster? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Horrid Henry (TV series) episodes in case anyone wishes to participate. The discussion made me wonder why we don't have clear notability guidelines for Television programs, with editor Nwlaw63 suggesting that just because something is on the air doesn't necessarily make it notable. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have removed all bold text of the article mentioned, who were in the cast section. But the user ElNiñoMonstruo; reversed my changes for no reason. I would not know, if the section of the cast is fine as it is, is correct to use bold text in the names of the actors?.-- Damián ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|language=
parameter state: "The original language or languages of the show. Do not link to a language article, e.g.,
English, per
WP:OVERLINK.". While I see nothing wrong with your edit, I want to make it clear that I am not encouraging you to edit war with
ElNiñoMonstruo (
talk ·
contribs), an editor you have had numerous disagreements with in the past. --
Logical Fuzz (
talk) 20:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the above linked matter. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please join the discussion regarding whether proper disambiguation is Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Fictional_character_disambiguation.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There's somewhat of a problem at Talk:American Dad!. There's a confusing issue about whether or not three straggler episodes found at List of American Dad! episodes#Season 11 belong to S10 or S11. From what I have been able to discern, Fox announced a micro series of 3 episodes as Season 11, and then the series was passed off to TBS, which is now advertising upcoming new episodes as Season 11. So there is an inconsistency between sources. A lengthy discussion took place at Talk:American Dad!, and now a user is asking regular editors on the page to vote for whether the stragglers should be moved to S10 or S11, although there is another option: that right now it cannot be adequately discerned which season the episodes belong to. Since the nominator didn't reach beyond the main article's talk page, I worry that the article won't get enough input from experienced editors outside of the niche, and there is also a risk of original research becoming consensus. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just making this group aware. Dancing with the Stars request for deletion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sky television idents. Article is mostly unsourced, and is the history of a TV station's logos noteworthy? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've nominated Template:TVUS ({{TVUS}}) for deletion since our main article infobox and season infobox documentation discourage the use of wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK. Feel free to chime in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 23. Grazie, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/2RUAAOSwQItT~7zn/$_57.JPG
This picture of the back of Jim Turner's album "The Well Tempered Saw" states he performed on the 1969 Tonight Show March 25th. You should add it to the wikipedia page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tonight_Show_Starring_Johnny_Carson_episodes_(1969).
He's not mentioned there as a musical guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.118.47 ( talk) 09:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The hatnote from Legends (TV series) to Legend (TV series) has been reverted 4 times now. Join the discussion underway at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a trend at the moment to replace cast lists in series articles with tables, eliminating all prose in the process. It seems that 99% of these are being added by IPs with little or no edit history. This is fairly typical and, given the editors' history, is rather peculiar. I've been checking WHOIS but finding that IPs don't geolocate to the same areas. Does anyone know what has caused this trend? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Are people aware Template:Future episodes editnotice exist? It doesn't get as much use as I would expect. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This article may have issues. I would hope interested contributors to fix them. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yo, yo! Anybody have any thoughts about the use of boldface in character lists?
There's nothing in MOS:TV to support the use of boldface in this way. I think the bullet points are sufficient to differentiate one character from another, but these sorts of character lists are prolific, and of course MOS:BOLD seems to discourage this sort of usage. Anyone have any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Coded as: ;{{Visible anchor|Dee Shivers}}:(voiced by Ken Fernroot) is a fictional character made up for the purpose of this example.
To match the definition list example. With the ";" used for a non-TOC header. This would conform to the MOS. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So I remember seeing this discussion, but forgot where it was. I recently edited the MOS to include the line from WP:FILMCAST regarding this. While I do believe Geraldo's method is a valid one, I feel that character names (or actor names) should not be bolded, either conventionally or with the ';'. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?
This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example: [30] So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Outro is under discussion, see talk:outro -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
My purpose for reporting this issue here is to get a consensus. User:सुनील मलेठिया (For your convenience I would like to inform you that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. This user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly:
What did I do? - I notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk pages of the templates ( here and here). I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war.
What is सुनील मलेठिया doing? - The user is not responding and have undone all my edits to the templates.
My last edits to the templates and those of सुनील मलेठिया - This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here.
My purpose for reporting this issue here - To get a consensus regarding this issue.
Thank you. -- Tamravidhir ( talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)